40 Bicycles

Over the last month or two I have been rethinking the doctrine of election. This has not been the result of any particular decision to sit down and study the subject. Rather it has been the result of some longstanding concerns I have about the common way of presenting the doctrine. The more I read Paul’s epistles, the more the general conception of election in Reformed circles seemed to be in conflict with the tenor of Paul’s writings. The disharmony between the two became so clear after a while that I knew that I would have to address it. However, many answers presented themselves in unexpected ways. I will try to briefly describe my position on the subject. This post is merely setting out some of the areas I hope to address in more depth in later posts. I realize that I may have opened myself up to misinterpretation on a number of issues. I would like to assure everyone of a few things before I begin:— I. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God. Man cannot thwart God. II. I do not believe that anything happens by chance. III. Salvation is from God’s free grace alone from start to finish. All of the reasons for God’s election are found in Himself alone. Perhaps some will be surprised to see that I share most of the concerns of the Reformed doctrine of election. However, I would be far more careful in my expression of the position. Problems with the common Reformed understanding of election The most immediately obvious problem with the general Reformed doctrine of election (hereafter, GRDE) is the amount of theological weight put upon it. Reading many systematic theologies you might be surprised that the Bible does not mention the doctrine of election in every second verse, such is the controlling influence that this doctrine is given. This problem is compounded when we realize that the exegetical support for much of the GRDE is slight. A few texts are being made to bear the whole weight of an all-conditioning doctrine. A further serious problem is the abstraction of the doctrine of election from its biblical context — the context of covenant, assurance, the church, redemptive history and, most significantly, Christ. Tensions have arisen where the Scriptures present sweet harmony. Reformed theologians have seen abstract discussions of individual election and predestination when the Bible is discussing the particular election of Israel (e.g. Romans 9:11-13). They have seen it when the Bible is discussing God’s purpose in redemptive history coming to its climax (e.g. Romans 8:28-30; Ephesians 1). They have seen this doctrine when Paul is addressing real people in history (e.g. Ephesians 1). Almost everywhere that Reformed theologians have seen this doctrine it seems to be utterly incongruous when you take the context into account. I hope to prove that none of these passages demand the GRDE interpretation and that there are far clearer and more consistent ways to understand them. Perhaps the greatest difficulties with the GRDE are seen in its identification of God’s saving purpose with God’s will to save particular individuals and in its failure to adequately relate Christology and election. Christ becomes merely the executor of the electing decree. The tension between God’s will revealed in Christ and God’s electing will is especially troubling. Other problems include the following:—1. The transition from wrath to grace is downplayed; 2. The significance of redemptive history is undermined as is history in the broader sense (if a distinction is permissible); 3. Individualism creeps in: corporate election for many (if it exists) is only secondary (or a means to an end); 4. The doctrine of reprobation (as generally framed) is deeply problematic (as I will attempt to demonstrate); 5. There is a very narrow understanding of God’s saving purpose; 6. There is a failure to account for the way that the Bible addresses people with the doctrine of election; 7. Theology becomes increasingly speculative; 8. The assurance of believers is severely compromised. One problem that has greatly troubled me is the distortion of the biblical doctrine of ‘union with Christ’ that the GRDE can result in. John Murray writes in Redemption—Accomplished and Applied:—

The Father elected from eternity, but he elected in Christ. We are not able to understand all that is involved, but the fact is plain enough that there was no election of the Father in eternity apart from Christ. And that means that those who will be saved were not even contemplated by the Father in the ultimate counsel of his predestinating love apart from union with Christ—they were chosen in Christ. As far back as we can go in tracing salvation to its fountain we find “union with Christ”; it is not something tacked on; it is there from the outset.

It is also because the people of God were in Christ when he gave his life a ransom and redeemed by his blood that salvation has been secured for them; they are represented as united to Christ in his death, resurrection, and exaltation to heaven (Rom. 6:2-11; Eph. 2:4-6; Col. 3:3,4). … Hence we must never think of the work of redemption wrought once for all by Christ apart from the union with his people which was effected in the election of the Father before the foundation of the world.

This quote illustrates some of the results of the GRDE’s interpretation of Ephesians 1:4. I. ‘Union with Christ’ becomes at its root a decretal, federal union, rather than a living, mystical and personal union. Although Murray teaches that ‘we do not become actual partakers of Christ until redemption is effectually applied,’ the earlier sense of ‘union with Christ’ complicates matters considerably. This later sense of ‘union with Christ’—spiritual and mystical—becomes merely another ‘phase’ of the ‘union with Christ’ established in the decree and not the essential ‘union with Christ’ itself. [From my reading of Calvin, he would not express election as the establishment of a ‘union with Christ’ in the same way as Murray does. ‘For since it is into his body the Father has destined those to be engrafted whom he has willed from eternity to be his own…’ (III.xxiv.5) Calvin retains the focus upon historical union with Christ (see esp. III.i.1). Murray says that election is union with Christ (in a limited sense); Calvin’s emphasis seems to be that we are elected to be united with Christ historically.] II. One attendant problem of this view is a particular conception of the ordo salutis. Whilst Murray rightly holds that union with Christ underlies the whole process of redemption, his understanding of ‘union with Christ’ leads him to frame the process of redemption in a particular way. The focus is more upon a logical process, rather than upon aspects of redemption resulting from an organic and personal union. The GRDE lends itself to a mechanic rather than organic doctrine of union with Christ (it also downplays the reality of the historical transition from wrath to grace). III. The GRDE also limits ‘in Christ’ language in what I believe to be an unbiblical way (e.g. John 15:1-8). As the focus is upon eternal election rather than upon historical covenant the covenant in history is twisted to take the shape of election as only the eternally elected can be said to be ‘in Christ’. IV. The GRDE lends itself to misunderstandings of such doctrines as that of the atonement. Witness Murray. The sentence: ‘It is also because the people of God were in Christ when he gave his life a ransom and redeemed by his blood that salvation has been secured for them; they are represented as united to Christ in his death, resurrection, and exaltation to heaven’ is very telling in this respect. Murray has to posit a decretal union that exists between Christ and the elect at the time of His crucifixion for his doctrine of atonement to work out. This leads him to emphasize a salvation that is primarily forensic in character and not primarily based upon a personal, mystical union.