40 Bicycles

This is far too long to post in Barb’s comments! If you want this to make sense, it would probably be best if you read the comments that follow this post first. You all raise some important questions. I’ll try to give some sort of answer to them. I will deal with each verse raised one by one:— John 10:16 I take this as a reference to the joining together of Jews to Gentiles in the Church. It is probably an allusion to passages such as Micah 2:12, Isaiah 56:6-8, Ezekiel 34:23 and 37:24. I would understand the focus to be upon Gentile God-fearers, not upon elect individuals who are yet to be converted. If this is not the case, is Christ telling the Jews that they are eternally ‘unelect’ in verse 26? Hebrews 2:13-14 I presume that this verse was quoted because of the reference here being made to the fact that the children are given to Christ by God. I think that the context teaches that the children are to be understood as the seed of Abraham (verse 16). The passage is focusing on the redemptive historical events surrounding the ministry of Christ and not upon eternity. I think that the wider context will bear out this reading. Jeremiah 1:4-5 God certainly sets apart people for His purposes. I have no problem whatsoever with this concept. Paul, of course, had a similar experience (Galatians 1:15). This, however, should not be confused with the concept of eternal election (as generally understood). Firstly, it is not from all eternity. Secondly, it is election to service and not to eternal salvation. Paul, although he knew that he had been set apart for service, could not rely on that as proof that he was sure to ‘go to heaven when he died’. Far from it. Paul was set apart to be an agent of God’s eternal purpose. He became an agent of this eternal purpose (i.e. elect) when God revealed His Son in Him. Ephesians 1:4 The election being referred to here cannot be simply thought of as the election of Christ individually. It is clearly corporate. However, the ‘fixity’ is not seen in the fact that an individual belongs to a particular elect number of individuals, but in the fact that the individual belongs to Christ. Christ was elected before the foundation of the world. This necessarily involves a choice of the church as those ‘in Christ’ also. God’s eternal purpose was always the creation of a new humanity in Christ. This is what Paul is referring to here. This election takes the character of the choosing of a family, rather than the choosing of a sum of isolated individuals (there is no reason to suppose the pre-existence of the souls of the righteous). I would relate this to God’s choosing of Israel (Deuteronomy 4:37; Isaiah 41:8; Psalm 105:6). God chose Israel in the fathers (Romans 11:28); God chose the church in Christ. No person outside of the church can claim to be elect. We all too often forget that Paul is addressing the church here and not merely a sum of elect individuals. As the church we are the elect of God (Colossians 3:12), just as children of Israel were God’s chosen people. If we paid attention to how Paul uses the verses that we too often use as ‘election proof-texts’ we would realize that they simply cannot be used to prove what we try to prove with them. Paul simply does not view things from the perspective of eternal individual election. The conclusions that are drawn from such an approach conflict with the tenor of Paul’s teaching and go far beyond anything he ever claimed. We should also observe that the ‘elect’ are not set over against the ‘reprobate’. This is because election is a Christocentric doctrine, rather than an anthropocentric doctrine. Election always retains its gracious character in Christ. Election draws the distinction between the new humanity (or ‘new man’) in Christ and the old reprobate humanity. It is a division between two humanities rather than a division within the old humanity itself. The common Reformed doctrine of election has seriously downplayed the reality of the new humanity by generally thinking of election as a division made within the old humanity. As a result the freedom and sovereignty of God in the formation of His people has often been downplayed. People are saved because they are elect, rather than elect because they are saved. Prior to God’s salvation, I am arguing, no individual has a status of ‘elect’ that gives them a particular claim on God’s grace. The question we must ask is where we will centre our doctrine of salvation. Will we centre it in the big drama of cosmic redemption and the divine economy, or will we centre it in the choice of a particular number from the sum of humanity? I believe that many of our problems in understanding salvation could be avoided if we chose the first option. Salvation can never be reduced to a matter of individual biography. 2 Timothy 1:9 We should beware of focusing so much upon God’s choosing to people to individual salvation in such places that we miss the eschatological context in which election is placed (a similar danger can be observed in Romans 8). We must read such passages in the light of redemptive history; if we focus exclusively on the history of individuals we will miss the point. The focus of this and related passages (e.g. Titus 1:1-3; Romans 16:25-26) is clearly God’s eschatological work in Christ. If our interpretation loses this focus we are probably missing the point somehow. Election and predestination are not so much about individual salvation as they are about God’s purpose in history, creating a new humanity in Jesus Christ. Those who are converted find themselves swept up into God’s eternal plan. A number of comments can be made. Firstly, why can’t we understand ‘before times eternal’ to refer to God’s purpose, rather than to the gift of grace in Christ or to ‘us’ as pre-existent? Secondly, even if we read it ‘given to us in Christ Jesus before times eternal’ it does not follow that we are ‘elect’ before we are historically united with Christ. We ‘become elect’ when we are saved, being really united to Christ and thereby becoming members of the new humanity. It is very clear, of course, that our salvation is a product of God’s will. It is God who brings us to birth by the gospel. I am not denying this. Indeed, my whole aim is to affirm the powerful and sovereign nature of this action in a way that improves upon some Reformed formulations. I am questioning the manner in which we use the biblical concept of ‘election’, not the idea that God’s grace precedes our salvation in every sense. Given this reading, 2 Timothy 1:9 means: ‘God has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not because of anything we had done, but because of His purpose and grace, which, before time began, determined that we should be brought to birth as true members of the new man in Christ in just such a manner.’ Election hits us as at the moment of spiritual rebirth. The ‘eternal before’ of election becomes ours ‘in Christ’. The general Reformed doctrine of election, understating the distinction between the two humanities, treats the doctrine of election as if it could apply to people who do not yet participate in the new humanity in any sense. Just as I believe that I had no existence before my physical conception (apart from within the purposes of God), so I would deny that someone can be referred to as ‘elect’ before being born again as a member of the new humanity in Christ. Let my quickly sum up some of my chief concerns with the usual way of understanding election. I. The broader nature of election is ignored. My election takes place within the context of the broader election of the Church in history. More significantly, the fact that election is ‘in Christ’ has been downplayed. II. The Jewish background to the doctrine of election is generally ignored. The OT emphasizes a corporate nature to election that is terribly downplayed by many Reformed theologians. III. The distinction between the two humanities is downplayed. Consequently reprobation is badly misunderstood. The lostness of people prior to regeneration is also downplayed. The eternal ‘before’ of election only becomes true ‘in Christ’. IV. The fact that election is choosing for service is ignored. It has been suggested that the Annunciation should provide a paradigm for understanding election. I think that this provides a very helpful and fruitful approach. It recaptures the doctrine as one that should be at the centre of our worship. Annunciation also anchors election in redemptive history and in the Triune God. V. Election in Reformed dogmatics takes on a very different tenor to that which it has in the Pauline epistles. This should provide us with much cause to be concerned. VI. Election in Reformed thought can often lead to a belief that elect individuals have some prior claim on God’s grace — that God saves people because they are elect. In much the same way as the Jews relied on their covenant status, we can make election the source of assurance, rather than belonging to Christ. We are elect as God commits Himself to us in covenant. This covenant should not be converted into a contract. VII. The eschatological focus of the doctrine has largely been lost. VIII. There are clear passages that cannot bear the sense given to the terminology of election by Reformed theologians. Romans 8:33 is one example. Taking the usual understanding this would seem to imply eternal justification, or something similar. Can no charge be brought against some individuals who have not yet repented and believed in Christ? However, understanding election in the framework I have suggested makes it clear that election happens to us at a point in history (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5). Colossians 3:12 and Titus 1:1 are other examples. Are people who have not yet repented and believed in Christ members of these groups? IX. The concept of union with Christ has been desperately muddled as a result. X. Election in the common Reformed mould is hard to preach as gospel. I have tried to formulate a solution to some of these problems. My solution may well be wrong. However, I remain convinced that a solution of some variety is necessary. Even if my solution is wrong, I trust that it still has some heuristic value. The doctrine of election as it is generally understood is deeply problematic. These are merely a few of my suggestions in relation to it; I could say much more — I might get around to doing this properly sometime soon. However, I will now return to Greek revision :).