40 Bicycles

This post is continuing on from an earlier post. I would ask my reader to be patient with me as they read through these. My thought on many aspects of this subject is still in a (re)-formative stage. The first area in which I will question the validity of the GRDE (general Reformed doctrine of election) is in its identification of God’s saving purpose with a will on God’s part to save particular individuals. This identification and its implications have troubled me for a long time and for a number of reasons. For many years I read Paul as if the purpose of his message was to talk about how individuals could get to heaven when they die. This was the general tenor of the preaching I heard at church from my childhood. When, just under three years ago, I looked at a systematic theology book for the first time (Reymond’s New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith) this preconception was not challenged in any serious way. However, since that time my understanding of Paul has radically changed, both through my own reading of Paul and through my reading of other writers on Paul. The more that I read on the subject of Biblical theology, the more dissatisfied I became with this reading of Paul, on which systematic theology often rests so much. Reading books like Resurrection and Redemption by Richard Gaffin, I realized that the historia salutis is more central in Paul’s theology than systematic theology has generally accounted for. Despite my appreciation of such books, however, I couldn’t escape the impression that theologians such as Gaffin just were not going far enough. Their theology was still far too focused upon the individual Christian. Whilst they drew attention to the important eschatological aspect of Paul’s theology, they failed to adequately reintegrate ecclesiology into Paul’s theology. Paul’s doctrine of the church still looked as if it was something of an afterthought. As I was far from satisfied with the downplaying of Paul’s view of the church, I was very excited to come in contact with writers from a variety of backgrounds who shared my concern. Writers such as N.T. Wright, John Williamson Nevin, Norman Shepherd, Klaas Schilder and Peter Leithart, the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference and the Theologia website have all exercised very important formative effects on my thinking since then. As my thought has followed this theological trajectory I have become more concerned to understand how Paul’s thought constitutes an organic whole. The GRDE, which I held, proved to be problematic as it seemed to be unrelated to many central aspects of Paul’s theology. The problem of relating election and the church to each other was particularly addressed by John Barach’s talk on Covenant and Election at the 2002 AAPC (the effect that this one talk had upon my thinking cannot be overstated). It also helped me to reintegrate Christology and election. Much of what I will be saying in forthcoming posts will merely be a repetition of what Barach and others such as Leithart (in recent posts on his blog) have said. However, the exercise of putting things together can be helpful. One aspect of Paul’s theology that has not been related to his doctrine of election as clearly as one might wish is his eschatology. The GRDE seems to be almost wholly unconcerned with redemptive history. Redemptive history becomes merely the means by which God’s saves those He has elected from all eternity. I think that this has a dangerous tendency to distort our understanding. Reformed theologians have consistently (and, I am convinced, rightly) maintained that no reason for God’s election can be based upon anything within or about the one elected. We must remember that this does not mean that God’s election is without reason. The positive reasons for God’s election have rarely received as much attention as I believe that they should have been given. Ironically, as I will later try to demonstrate, this has resulted in our falling back into the problem that we were initially trying to escape. When God elects, He elects for a reason. When God chose Abraham, He chose him so that through Abraham the whole world would be blessed. He chose him so that through the descendants of Abraham the Messiah would come. He chose Abraham so that the world would be saved from the results of the Fall and so that fellowship would be restored between God and man. He chose Abraham so that the nations separated by the curse at Babel would one day come together as one and be blessed in Christ. God chose Abraham so that through his seed the works of the devil might be destroyed. Ultimately, the reason for God’s choice of Abraham was nothing less than His will to ‘gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on the earth—in Him’ (Ephesians 1:10). The purpose of God will be fulfilled when God is ‘all in all’. God could have chosen someone other than Abraham for His purposes. Abraham as an individual was not essential to God’s purpose. God could just as easily have chosen Abraham’s next-door neighbour. However, out of God’s free grace He chose to fulfil His purpose through an old and childless man called Abraham. If the first task of theology is getting the right elements of doctrine, the main body of the task is establishing them in the correct balance. The GRDE falls at this second hurdle. It focuses on individuals when its attention should be drawn to the church, from the church to Christ and from Christ to the fullness of the Father, Son and Spirit in unity. God’s election must be understood against the huge backdrop of redemptive history. Redemptive history is not the mere servant of an electing decree; God elects in order to achieve His greater redemptive historical purpose in Christ. We are elected to be priests and kings, not merely so that we can go to heaven when we die. Like Israel, God has graciously and sovereignly chosen us so that we might be agents through whom His redemption will flood the cosmos and His purpose in Christ be accomplished. Much of the problem with the GRDE lies in its anthropocentric understanding of election (I was encouraged to read Leithart’s comments to the same effect a few days ago—I’m not the only one to think it!). This criticism may sound decidedly strange. Of all the things that the GRDE might be accused of, surely man-centeredness would be the last of them! However, this is exactly where most of the problems spring from. Those who hold the GRDE often (whether this is clearly expressed or not) focus upon the salvation of individuals (and particular individuals at that) as the primary purpose of God for the revelation of His glory in history. Every other aspect of God’s work is implicitly subordinated to this purpose: destroying the works of the devil, the establishing and building of the church, the renewal of creation, the incarnation, etc. The GRDE puts men at the centre of the stage of redemptive history and forgets that the drama of redemption is far bigger than this. The salvation of humanity is certainly central in God’s plan, but this is because the salvation of man is in Christ. It is all about Christ being all in all, not primarily about particular individuals being saved. The salvation of sinful men is not an end in itself, but is a part of God’s wider purpose in Christ. Properly speaking, the electing decree, as I will seek to prove more comprehensively in later posts, is God’s eternal purpose to form the new humanity in Christ. This is a particular problem in the infra/supra discussions. Supras tend to identify God’s purpose with election (understood in the GRDE sense); infras tend to posit either a dualistic purpose or an absence of purpose in the ‘natural’ realm. If I am anything, I am a supralapsarian (although I’m not sure that I like the debate as it can get very speculative). However, it is important that we step back and see the broader picture of which the election of human beings is a part. As Leithart commented in his blog a few days back (September 24):—

Strikingly, [Barth] points to the danger of anthropocentrism in supralapsarianism, arguing that by making the salvation of individual x and the damnation of individual y the primary purpose of the whole show, supras encouraged thoughts of God to immediately collapse into thoughts of man, and of self-interest.

When we succeed in distinguishing God’s purpose from election (as generally defined) we have gone a considerable way towards reforming our understanding. If the particular individuals who are elected are not essential to God’s broader purpose, but serve to fulfil a greater end (in which the glory of God is more fully seen), a number of things result. We see that God does not save us because we are ‘elect’; He saves us because He is gracious in Christ. The fixed point, as it were, of soteriology is no longer election. The particular collection of individuals saved is accidental (rather than essential) to the broader purpose of God. The essential element, the fixed point, the datum from which all is measured is Christ. The new humanity, formed in Him, is always defined relative to the Head. If God says that He will destroy a city it does not matter whether the city is destroyed by a fire, an earthquake, by enemies, by a flood or a volcano—the city is destroyed in any one of these cases. Likewise if God’s choice of individuals is to serve to fulfil a greater purpose (the formation of a new humanity in Christ), the particular individuals that He chooses is not the essential matter. God’s purpose placed Him under no obligation to save me over anyone else. This is something that the GRDE finds very hard to say. Other aspects of my case will lend greater support to this, most particularly my (rather radical) claim that we become elect in history (something I will give close attention to in a later post). One pay-off of this new perspective (!) on election is seen in the fact that under this view we are far less tempted to posit a hidden and arbitrary God than under the GRDE. Election is part of God’s greater purpose in Christ. This purpose, the fixed point that all else is relative to, is revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ. We see it on the pages of Scripture. Election is no longer situated in the context of hidden counsels, but is seen in a revealed Person—the Word become flesh. The focus is on the revealed content of God’s purpose (in Christ), not the bare fact of God’s purpose (in the eternal election of individuals). One of the long-standing criticisms of the GRDE from the Arminian camp is that it undermines human responsibility and human free agency. Try as I might, I could not escape the force of some of these claims. Much of the criticism is misplaced and results from a caricature of the doctrine. However, some of the mud still sticks. If the focus and fixed point of God’s purpose is the election of particular individuals then the responsibility of these people to conform to God’s revealed will in Christ is downplayed and a tension develops between the revealed will and the secret will. The necessity of these people repenting and believing in Jesus the Messiah is undermined. Their relationship to God’s purpose is fixed from all eternity. Asking such people to conform to God’s revealed will merely highlights the fact that a dichotomy has been created between God’s revealed and secret will. If such a person died before believing in Jesus, according to the GRDE, God could not cast them into hell. God’s very purpose is at stake; they must go to heaven. Their historical conformity to God’s revealed will in repentance and faith becomes little more than the evidence that they stood in a favourable relationship to God’s purpose from the very beginning. I know that proponents of the GRDE will try to deny this conclusion but I think that it follows from their view. My position stands in stark contrast to such a view. I am convinced that Scripture teaches that God’s purpose is irresistible. God’s counsel will stand. However, I do not believe that Scripture teaches that man stands in a fixed relationship to God’s purpose. I believe that Mordecai’s words to Esther in Esther 4:13-14 well illustrate my position:—

Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king’s house, more than all the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father’s house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

God’s purpose will be accomplished whether or not we obey Him. If we submit to God’s purpose we will be blessed and He will be pleased to use us. If we rebel against God’s purpose we will be destroyed. Our relationship with God’s purpose is not fixed from all eternity, but is subject to real changes in history. The achievement of God’s purpose does not depend in any sense upon our submission or rebellion. It is not a case of God being on the side of the ‘elect’ from all eternity but of the ‘elect’ having been drawn historical onto God’s side (I will later argue that the use of the word ‘elect’ to refer to people who have not yet come to faith is improper). Of course, this has important consequences for the doctrine of reprobation as well. If the elect stand in a fixed positive relationship with God’s purpose from all eternity, the reprobates must stand in a fixed negative relationship. This is perhaps the most distasteful implication of the GRDE for most people. Proponents of the GRDE squirm to escape the implication that God has created some individuals for the purpose of destroying them. They might (rightly) argue that reprobation and election are asymmetrical. However, if the reprobates necessarily stand in a fixed negative relationship to God’s purpose from the outset it must be questioned why God created them in the first place. Nothing that can occur in history can change this relationship. This raises a further problem: Is any of the grace that God offers to them historically real? If it is God’s purpose to destroy these people from the outset surely any grace offered to them in history is a sham, how can God mean them any good? The only real grace is that which is offered to the elect. This problem underlies many modern debates on the covenant and the sacraments. By distinguishing between election (again, as generally understood) and God’s purpose we can avoid many of these problems (though I would not claim that it answers every question—we are finite and cannot comprehend the dealings of God). By this approach to the doctrine of election we can avoid the fatalism or determinism that can otherwise creep into our theology. We should not see anyone as irrevocably doomed to perdition from all eternity. Whilst no historical event takes God by surprise, not every historical event is essential to God’s purpose (however, I do believe that God has true foreknowledge and not merely a middle knowledge). God’s purpose could be fulfilled in many possible worlds (in which different people could be ultimately saved) and it is the existence of these possible worlds that saves us from determinism (of course, I am arguing for the existence of the possibility of such worlds, not the existence of the worlds themselves). Hopefully I will be able to flesh out this general position in further posts on the subject in the coming week or two. I would like to examine exegetical evidence for aspects of my position in more depth. God-willing I will also be able to explore some further practical results of this position in such areas as assurance, evangelism and preaching. The doctrine of election is, I trust, not speculative but deeply practical and edifying. In the coming posts, I would like to argue for a doctrine of election that focuses on the election of Christ as the Head of a new humanity. I hope to prove that the doctrine of election can be the most motivating and comforting doctrine and to identify how it can serve as an encouragement for the church’s mission by relating it to the means of grace. I will attempt to interact with some of the proposed solutions to the problem of election and with some of the formulations of the doctrine in the Reformed standards. I will seek to demonstrate how far the doctrine of election is removed from fatalism. God-willing, I will be able to address some of the questions this post has raised relating to the comprehensive nature of God’s decree in my next post.