(cont'd) The doctrine of election: an honest and personal discussion

(This post/comment is a continuation of the comments section under the post of this same title)

Hi Berny,

I’ve finally had the time to reply to your last comment. I want to thank you for your gentleness. It is so easy to be flustered and indignant. Trust me, I know! (lol) But really, thank you for being kind and patient. I hope I can be the same way, as well as anyone else joining our conversation.

I’ll start with the image you left off on, which is that of the carnival ride. You said,
The picture in Calvinist terms would be as follows: God is the operator of the ride who has called out to everyone in the amusement park to come and enter his ride (general call). Yet only a few out of the masses have desired to take him up on his offer (effectual call). And when the few arrive at the ride they tell God that at first they were inclined to go to the other rides like everyone else, but when God called they felt an overwhelming desire to go to his ride rather than the other ones. Meanwhile, the rest have rejected God's call to enter into his ride because they've desired other rides and have chosen to spend all their time visiting those other ones.

Sometimes I wonder if many of our disparities are simply an issue of semantics. I say that because this is a beautiful picture of what I, too, believe. But, if I understand the doctrine of election correctly, you left something out in this awesome image, and that is that the few that desired to take God up on his offer only did so because God determined that that’s what they’re going to desire and had no choice to desire otherwise. Similarly, those that did not desire God were determined to not desire Him before they were ever born. Without this doctrine I would agree with your analogy, but by tweaking it so that the doctrine of election is present in the analogy I then disagree.

I don’t disagree with you because of an intuitive sense that you’re wrong, as you say most Arminians do. I believe that God loves all and wants to save all and that ability limits responsibility, but it’s not from an intuitive sense. I believe this due to my reason coupled with my understanding of the Scriptures. There is an element of faith involved, but it is qualified by my reason.

I can be convinced that I’m wrong. You have asked me this question once more. Yes, God can convince me through my reason and my desire to obey Him using the Scriptures to accept part or all of your points. But I have not been convinced. Nor am I convinced that I hold all doctrinal truths as they truly are (though I am convinced that I hold some – i.e. that Jesus is God incarnate). That in itself causes me to always consider that I may be wrong on many points (especially regarding these topics we’re discussing) and also causes me to analyze my reason and intentions. Because you’ve asked me this same question almost three times now (I’m sure not to hound me, but because you truly want me to think about what you’re asking) I wonder if with the same intention that you had I should turn the question around? Can you be convinced that you might be wrong on some of your points? I ask that with tenderness and for the sake of honesty, not in anger (may God please forgive me if any part of my heart wants to say it in anger).

Your comment brings up the argument of what is the ultimate source of our choices. In particular, you imply that we don’t really have two choices. We always only have one, and therefore no choice. This is what you stated, “None of us can both choose to pick up a pizza at the pizza place and at the same time choose to have it delivered. So upon closer inspection, what seems intuitively correct to us, that we have the ability to choose otherwise, has never been actually experienced by anyone.”

I want to reply to that by saying that there’s a big difference between the statement, “I can choose two contradictory things simultaneously” and the statement, “I can choose one thing out of many possible other things.” My free will is limited in that sense. I’ve always only chosen one thing out of two choices (two other things). And I can, with a good conscience, say that, with my understanding of Scripture, I had the opportunity to make the other choice (choose the other thing). As far as I know there are no parallel Universes in which each possible decision that we can make is played out. This would imply an infinite amount of parallel Universes. There are plenty of issues with that, but I won’t go down that trail.

You can then argue that the source of the choices anyone makes is God because we’ve always only had one choice. But if this is what you hold to, then are you implying that God is the ultimate source of all human choices, including ungodly choices? If that is the case then you’re saying that god tortured and killed over one million Jews through Hitler via gas chambers and other barbaric methods, that he has raped children, and injected drugs into the veins of heroin addicts. This might not be what you’re trying to say, but if indeed you’re saying that any time somebody makes a choice (good or bad) that it is really God doing it or determining it then please show me where in scripture you find this, because I am convinced as of now that that is a Scriptural, philosophical and experientially unsound statement, to say the very least. Please forgive my ardency if I’m mistaken on your stand.

In terms of man’s choice, I understand that there are some things that I don’t determine. My free will is not infinite. Neither is God’s free will unlimited. For example, God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2) His free will is unlimited in that there is no more ability to act freely than that defined by God’s very nature. And by the very fact that we are not God then there are bound to be things that we do not determine and are determined by God, like where I’m born, who my family will be, how many brothers or sisters I will have, the color of the sky, etc. God created things with no free will (rocks) and creatures with limited free will (man, angels). There is a greater or lesser scale when it comes to God’s creatures and I believe that may be determined by how much free will they can exercise, or in other words, how much power they have. (Psalm 8:5) Asides from that, I believe that God has determined that whosoever believes in Him will have eternal life. And He has determined the believing to be determined by the individual.

You say that scripture teaches that God does not love everyone and use the examples of Jacob and Esau, Pharaoh, and the antichrists. I do believe that God loves everyone. If the second commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, and that we should love our enemies, applies to us, it is only because we are to be as God is. God won’t tell us to follow a principle that He Himself doesn’t hold to or believe to be true. The people you mentioned are also used by Calvinists to support the doctrine of election. I want to take each of these specific examples you pointed out and in the next paragraphs individually examine if indeed they support the doctrine of election and that God doesn’t love everyone.

Jacob and Esau

Any non-Christian Jew living before the time of Jesus would think of the election of the Jews over the gentiles when speaking of these two brothers. Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel, represents Israel the nation. For the Israelites, only they were the elect. To them was given the Law. Indeed, they were the elect in that they were given the Law, but we will see from Scripture that they were not the elect when it came to salvation (any gentile -- probably the majority of people that will read this blog -- must immediately see the problem with salvation being only for the Jews)

Let’s look at Esau. Esau represents the Gentiles. The bible says that the Edomites are his descendants (Genesis 36). These are a gentile nation. In fact, Esau married a daughter of Ishmael, a daughter of a Hivite, and one of a Hitite, all gentile women. Genesis 25:23 says that in Rebekah’s womb are two nations, Jacob and Esau. This verse further supports that when thinking of Jacob and Esau the Israelites did not simply think of two individuals. They commonly thought of the nations these two represented: the Israelites and the Gentiles, the chosen and the unchosen. (I know that you know this, but most people think that this is where God states that He loves Jacob and hates Esau. This is actually not mentioned in Genesis. It is found in Malachi, for those reading that are unaware of this.)

Let’s look at the Scriptures in question to determine if indeed this choosing refers to salvation. Genesis 25:23 “The LORD said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.’” We see that God reveals that Esau’s descendants will serve Jacob’s descendants. One, this revelation does not bring into question the subject salvation, but rather states that one nation will serve the other. In fact, we know now that gentile nations can be saved. Two, you do not have to assume that God determined that Esau’s descendants will serve Jacob for this Scripture to be true. God who is outside of time can clearly see “the future” (though it’s only future to us, not to Him) and reveal it in our “present.”

Let’s look at the verse that is really in question: Malachi 1:2-5 "I have loved you," says the LORD. "But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals." Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins." But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD. You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel!'

Let’s keep in mind two things: 1) Jacob represent the Israelites and Esau the gentiles. God referring to Esau as Edom the nation further supports this. 2) These verses, when taken in context, are not discussing soteriology (the study of salvation). God is declaring that He has loved Israel in blessing Israel and hated Esau in not blessing them and allowed them to be destroyed. The scriptures are not speaking in a salvific sense (in terms of salvation/redemption). He is showing the Israelites how He has a unique love for them by reminding them of the disparity between the Israelites and gentiles. God blessed the Israelites and not the gentiles. He gave the Israelites the Torah, to them was the Law, and through them the Messiah would come! Compared to the Israelites, God hates the gentiles! But the revelations granted to the Israelites throughout the Old Testament were only a shadow of what God would grant to the entire world! (Hebrews 10:1) God is not speaking of individuals, but nations! We as gentile Christians are convinced that God loves the gentiles. So then is God contradicting Himself when He says here that He hates the gentiles? No, we know from scripture that God always had the Gentiles in mind when it came to salvation. The covenant God made with Abraham was for all of his descendants (Genesis 22:17). Esau was a descendant of Abraham! The Jews were so stubborn in not realizing that God loves the gentiles too and wants them to be saved that Paul even referred to this as the “mystery of the gospel.” (Romans 16:25-26) But it is clear that God planned for the gentiles to be blessed as well. (Galatians 3:8-9)

God loved the Israelites and chose them in order to bring the Messiah through their lineage. This is not the same love that God showed the gentiles. We cannot claim to have that. But God still offers the gentiles salvation and loves them in that sense. In fact, so much so, that just because you’re born an Israelite you’re not automatically saved! It is only for those that believe by faith, Jew or Greek. (Romans 1:16-17)

One more point, Jesus mentions in Luke 14:26 that "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” When he says hate, should we interpret it as emotional hate? This would be completely contradictory to what He mentions within the context of the entirety of scripture: love your enemies (Luke 6:27), honor your father and mother (Exodus 20:12), and the second greatest commandment which is to love one another (Matthew 22:29). So what does He mean by hate your father, mother, wives, and children? Is there any of you or a pastor that teaches Christians that they should emotionally hate their wife, their children, and their mother? No, because taken in the context of the whole of scripture we know that Jesus did not mean an emotional hate. To the Jews the word hate could also mean to ‘love less.’ (Matthew 10:37, Genesis 29:31-33, Deuteronomy 21:15, http://moriel.org/articles/discernment/church_issues/hate_our_mother_father.htm, http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/romans/romans9.htm) Compared to how we love God, we should love our mother less, our wife less, our children less, etc. Compared to how God loves the Israelites you could argue that he loves the gentiles less. The Messiah was not born to a gentile nation. So in that sense, compared to God’s love for Jacob God loves Esau less (he doesn’t have the honor of having the Law and the Prophets), but God still loves him and offered him salvation as well. God loves him so much that He offers to all of his descendants the possibility of becoming part of the same olive tree! (Romans 11) So that there is no difference between Jew and Greek (Galatians 3:28).

Now that I have finished making my point, I also want to take quote from a website I read just to add another interesting facet to this argument:

“It is important to note that even though God chose Jacob, He did not refuse to be gracious to the descendants of Esau. In fact we find in Deuteronomy that the Israelites were forbidden to make war against them at one point.

Deuteronomy 2:4 And command thou the people, saying, Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of you: take ye good heed unto yourselves therefore: 5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession. 6 Ye shall buy meat of them for money, that ye may eat; and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink.” http://www.truthablaze.com/esau.html

To sum up: God loves Jacob and Esau, because all of scripture reveals that God loves the world. But God can say that he hated Esau because compared to Jacob, God loved him less. Scripture shows that the Jews understood that the word hate refers to loving less. God loved Esau less only in that the Messiah and the Law would come through his lineage, but in terms of salvation he loved them equally and determined that salvation will not come to you based on the circumstances of your physical birth, but rather on whether you believe.

Pharaoh

Let’s look at the verse that mentions that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

Exodus 9:12 “But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.”

This comes after Pharaoh has hardened his own heart. (Exodus 7:22, 8:19, 9:7) The scripture does not necessarily imply that God goes contrary to Pharaoh’s desires. As if Pharaoh had been thinking the whole time that he was going to be kind and merciful to the Israelites and suddenly God came and drove the thought out of his mind and decided that He didn’t want that to happen. Now, even if God did change Pharaoh’s mind (even if you believe this is true), the scripture taken into context does not deal with salvation, but rather the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt. God has a plan for Israel and delivering them out of Egypt is a part of His plan. This is a figure and representation of salvation in a sense. Egypt represents the world and God saves His children from the destruction of the rest of the world. But in no way does this scripture state that God determined the final eternal destiny of the individual known as Pharaoh by denying him salvation when He hardened his heart. Indeed, He may have, but not because He determined it, but rather because of Pharaoh’s own disbelief. But looking specifically at this Scripture, it just mentions that God hardened the already hardened heart of Pharaoh to not release the Israelites. No mention of Pharaoh’s ultimate salvation.

Perhaps this is something that contributed to Pharaoh’s ultimate decision to believe or disbelieve. Unfortunately, we do not know what the rest of his life was like. In fact, God states that He would take this situation and use it to benefit not just the Israelites, but also the Egyptians so that they would also know that He is God. (Exodus 14:18)


The antichrists

Here things get emotionally tricky because we think that God should not love someone that is anti-Christ. But the truth is that we were all against God (Matthew 12:30) and were His enemies (Romans 5:10), and hence anti-Christ. Just because a man claims to be Christ doesn’t mean that his sin is so much greater than our own that he cannot repent later on in life and surrender his life to Christ. Just because we didn’t claim to be Christ in word does not mean that we didn’t claim to be the god and lord of our lives in our actions. God offers salvation to all men that believe and repent. (Romans 5:18, Romans 10:9) God loves the antichrists because I know that He loves me.


I think that I have shown that the references to Jacob and Esau, Pharaoh, and the antichrists, do not support the doctrine of election when examined in context. God loves the individual. God hates their sin. Yes I believe that God loves Esau the individual, Pharaoh, and the antichrists spoken of in scripture. He doesn’t love their choices, but He does love the person. To use these verses to support election or that God doesn’t love these individuals I believe is an eisegesis of the text and does not take the entire context of the Bible in terms of salvation (soteriology) into question.

Finally, you say, And God could've chosen to love everyone had he wanted to. But he hasn't. Otherwise all would be saved. Or can God not secure the object of his affections? Is he like the nerdy stalker that the prom queen rejects in favor of the varsity quarterback?

I would not say that God is the nerdy stalker that is rejected by the prom queen. But God reveals himself in a harsher light. He says that he is the loving husband of a prostitute and continually takes her back even though she sells her body to other men. He doesn’t force her back, but lures her (even though she has given up her body for other gains in the past) and she comes back (Hosea 2). I recommend you read the poem, ‘The Hound of Heaven.’ By Francis Thompson. Here’s a link to it: http://poetry.elcore.net/HoundOfHeavenInRtTGlossed.html
I love my wife, but there’s no way that I can ‘secure’ her love without people considering me a psychopath. Love implies action on the part of the one giving it. It is not passive and cannot be secured or captured unwillingly, and that is determined by God’s nature.

I know this is a long comment. I really wanted to try to do it justice. If I’ve made a mistake, I hope you will lovingly point it out. And the truth is that I may have. But I’ve tried to write with good conscience and with reason.

Berny, I love you in Christ. And I know you love my Father. It is easy for me to love anyone that genuinely loves my Father as you do. I can’t wait to hear your response if you have time to make one. If you don’t, please don’t feel bad. I don’t think anyone reading this expects anyone to respond to everything.

Remy