Does the Bible teach the doctrine of
Unconditional Election?
By Moses Flores
As promised
in the last response, I am going to pick up with John 6:35-44. To recap the assertions made against this
particular verse, I quote Mr. Norelli en
toto:
Stating
that “coming to Christ” is the same as “believing in Christ” is without warrant
from the verse. The term “will come” (hxei)
according to Vincent emphasizes the idea of reaching or arriving. This is obviously different from belief. One would think that the Holy Spirit would
have simply said “all that the Father hath given me ‘will believe’ (pisteusomen)
in me…” had belief been in view, but this was not said. So it would seem that only the believers are
the ones who come and that the Father gives only believers to Jesus. Also, though the Father’s “giving” precedes
the believer’s “coming,” there is nothing that would support his “giving”
before the foundation of the world from this passage. This interpretation has great support
grammatically and contextually.
First things first, is “coming to Christ” the same thing as “believing in Christ”? Let us consider the text (which will not be quoted as more space is needed for exegesis and one can easily follow along in a Bible).
Consider the context: a “miracle seeking” mob is following Jesus after the feeding of the 5,000. Jesus makes it clear to this group that they are seeking the benefits of Christ but not the person of Christ himself (v26). These want the power, if they cannot get more miracles, to “work the works of God” themselves. Jesus tells them that they must “believe in the one whom God has sent” (v29) and that is to be sufficient unto them. They want a sign (v30-31). Jesus tells them that He will give them a bread that “gives life to the world” (v33). They are in total shock when he says, “I am the bread of life” (v35). Jesus shows us here that the “hunger” and “thirst” that he quenches is not physical, but spiritual.
But Jesus also declares “He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.” Now, recall in verse 29 the sole requirement that Jesus has of those who would truly be his followers: that they might keep on believing (pisteuhte, present tense, subjunctive mood). Now, does Jesus change his requirements here in verse 35 and add not only that they “keep on believing” (pisteuwn, present tense verb), but that they “keep on coming”(ercomenoV, present tense verb). Then we must also take into consideration that Jesus also says that in order to have eternal life, one must “keep on eating” and “keep on drinking” (v54,56, 57,58; present tense verbs).
The present tense form of each of these “requirements” is to be well noted for these are things that are to be done continuously in order for one to be “saved” as it were. Now, it is argued off of the simple meaning of the word that “coming” cannot mean “believing”. As a matter of hermeneutics, this has to be said: simple dictionary meanings of words DOES NOT necessarily give the understood meaning in the context! The words, “coming” “eating” “looking”(v40), “drinking” are all figurative language (something only CONTEXT will tell you, not a Word Study!) for “believing”. If the terms, “coming” and “believing” are not synonymously figurative terms, then one must ask, what is the 1) coming 2) looking 3) eating 4) drinking that one must do for eternal life? But then what of the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone? For now, if we maintain that “coming” and “believing” are not the same, you are left to define how one “comes” to Christ, if not through faith. How does one “look” to Christ, if not by faith? How does one partake of Christ, eating and drinking His flesh and blood, if not by faith?
That this is the true understanding of the language of the apostle John and his intended meaning is clear from the words of Christ at the end of this discource in verse 64 as we see that his sole requirement from the people and their sole condemnation for not doing, was that they believe. He didn’t say, “some didn’t come” or some weren’t “looking” etc…The remark that the Holy Spirit would have used another words, I think, undermines the creativity of the Spirit to use the many literary devices – like figurative language – that are in the Bible, especially within the writings of the apostle John.
Next, it was asserted that “believers” are the ones who “come to Jesus.” Jesus said that to his crowd, “you have seen me and still do not believe.” Why is this? Why hasn’t anyone from the crowd believed anything that Jesus has said, or believed in Him? He says, “All that the Father gives to me, will come to Me…” Syntactically speaking, it is the “giving” of the Father of a specific group of people that RESULTS in the “coming” to Christ for salvation. That is, they are not believing in order to be “given”. Such an understanding, as it being proposed, is to turn the passage on its head! The ones being “given” are not being “given” as believers but IN ORDER THAT they may believe, or “come to” Christ.
Now, here Vincent certainly comes in handy. The word hxei (echei) is used here in v.37 to show that the one who are “given” will certainly “come” and as Vincent says here, their “going” implies that they will “arrive” or “reach” their destination. In keeping with the figurative language, and if my hermeneutical method is correct with the assertions of “coming” and “believing” being synonymous figurative terms, then the following understanding of verse 37 is unavoidable: “All the ones that the Father gives Me, will believe in Me…” The theological implications being that those who are “given” will infallibly and inevitably have a saving faith in Christ that perseveres unto the end (recall present tense verbs of the requirements and their significance as ongoing continuous action).
Jesus continues,
“And the one who comes to Me [is believing in Me, pres. tense verb] I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do My will but to do the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all that He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Fathers will is that [the one who is looking( understood as the one who is continuously and constantly believing; note the present tense verb here!)] to the Son and is believing in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise Him up at the last day.”
As other debate topics are clearly exegetically derived from this passage, namely Irresistible Grace and the Perseverance of the saints, I will only note that which is relevant to UNCONDITIONAL election, namely that the basis of the “giving” is clearly the “Father’s will” and nowhere mentioned to be “the Fathers will in accordance with what prior knowledge he has about the future choices made by creatures in time.” Adding any other type of idea to the text that is NOT EXPLICITLY in this text is EISEGESIS. The Father’s will alone determines whom He gives to the Son. And the ones given are not “given” as believers; rather, the syntax of the text only leads to the conclusion that they are “given” that they will be believers for they “will come” (future tense, indicative mood, which is a mood of certainty with respect to the completion of the action).
Jesus then tells his crowd of unbelievers that “No one can come to Him [believe in Him] unless the Father who sent Him first draws Him” (v44). Again, this is to emphasize that man does not even possess the ability to meet any conditions that God would require in order to come to Faith. Indeed, with our figurative understanding, we are led to conclude that “No one has the ability (dunatai) to believe UNLESS the Father will first “draw” – i.e. irresistibly bring to a destination – them.” This “drawing” is what brings the ability for faith, true saving faith.
I should mention that the emphasis of the debate is the UNCONDITIONAL part of the Election. For some reason, it is being focused on the time. I should find it obvious that we both believe in eternal election, our understandings of the condition or unconditionality is what is separating us. So to require me to prove “eternal election” is something, I think taking us off topic. My intent is simply to prove, that the election of God is unconditional with respect to us, and solely based on the will of God alone. This, I believe, and more has been sufficiently demonstrated from John 6:35-44.
I was asked if “the number of people that God elected can be altered”. To which, my obvious answer is no. However, does this warrant the charge of fatalism on the part of Calvinism. I was asked also if I believe in the omniscience of God, to which I obviously do, which is why I believe that God knew through His decree those whom He would infallibly and inevitably save. I only want to say that unless one is willing to deny that omniscience of God, as modern process theology does (the open view of God), then the number is fixed for any who believe God is omniscient. To charge “Calvinism” alone with “some sort of fatalism” is certainly inconsistent for any who believe that God is eternally omniscient. That is as far as I will pursue that point as exegetical points are of more importance.
Concerning Ephesians 1:3-14, again, I only emphasize that nominative case of the noun o qeoV make it clear that God alone is the subject of this entire section, thus refuting any assertions that will of the creature in view here in any way. Even the verb “to choose’ which is in the aorist tense, indicative mood (expresses certainty of action) ,middle voice (represent the subject as acting with reference to himself), which is understood as God has chosen for himself – not for himself and the ones whom he choose. I don’t believe the middle voice, here will allow for even the hint of understanding that the case is not that there was a possibility of God choosing in accordance with any, for God has chosen for Himself and – strictly speaking in accordance with the text – alone has chosen “from before the foundation of the world.” This choice is not based on “foreknowledge” – of which I will deal with the Biblical meaning, for the meaning that is being tossed around is the philosophical one. This passage does not even mention the word, thus any reference to is it outside of this text, and can only be eisegetically inserted in and not exegetically drawn out. There is certainly not a “reading into” of the text on my part. There is no mention of man’s will being taken into consideration for God’s choice. God alone is mentioned. That alone is affirmed. I refuse to go beyond what Scripture says as a possibility here.
It was asserted that the omniscience of God is “dismissed” since the Calvinist cannot believe that God could choose creature on the basis of a foreseen choice made by them in time from all eternity. From here, it was asserted that “prior knowledge” is “foreknowledge because God is an all-knowing being and as such He has from all eternity known everything there is to know beforehand.” I certainly do not deny that God is omniscient, but the difference between Calvinism and the non-Calvinist view is how one believes God has the knowledge that He has. The non-Calvinist generally argues, that God knows what He knows about creation because He stand above and outside of time so that He has experienced all time already to know what will happen or has happened in it. Thus, God “gained” knowledge of creation by allowing it to act out and learning from it.
The Calvinist, on the other hand, argues that God knows what He knows about His creation because He has decreed it to be so. This follows from God as creator, even of knowledge of creation. Hence, there is nothing that God has learned – like who would freely choose to be saved, by placing their faith in Christ. Rather, God has determined all things in heaven and in earth and they are running according to the wisdom and knowledge of God at all times. Hence, verse 11, which says that God is works all things according to the counsel of His will, was offered. Again, no hint of even the possibility of man’s will as something God considered when He predestined all things.
Space is fleeting so I will deal
with the issue of foreknowledge.
Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary says this: “the
unique knowledge of God that enables Him to know all events, including the free
acts of people, before they happen.
God’s foreknowledge is much more than foresight. God does not know future events and human
actions because He foresees them; He
knows them because He wills them to happen (Job 14:5; Psalm 139-:15-16). Thus, God’s foreknowledge is an act of His
will (Isa. 41:4; Rev. 1:8, 17; 21:6). In
Romans 8:29 and 11:2, the apostle Paul’s use of the word “foreknew” means ‘chose’
or ‘to set special affection on.’ The
election love of God, not foresight of human action, is the basis of His
predestination and salvation (Romans 8:29-30, 33). This same idea is used to express the nation
of
It is important to note that in Romans 8:29 and 11:2 the object of the aorist verb proegnw is the relative pronoun ouV . Note the grammar. “Foreknew” is a verb, which is an action God is doing. The object of the God’s action of “foreknowing” is not another verb, thus not an action or actions, but rather a noun, in particular, God is said to foreknow people. “Whom” He foreknew. Romans 11:2, even says that it is “His people” whom He foreknew, not their actions.
With this being said, the assertions made concerning that God chose according to foreknowledge (prescient knowledge) stands refuted for God in these verses, they speak nothing of God “choosing” on the basis of foreseen, foreknown actions. God’s choice is based in the sovereign purposes of His will (cf. Romans 9:11, Eph. 1:5, 11).
Well space is obviously fleeting and I have done what I can to respond to all the arguments and responses offered in return, particularly those with exegetical weight. I would like to point out that so far, no exegetical evidence based on the grammar or syntactical construction of the original text has been provided. I have thoroughly taken the time to let the Scriptures speak for themselves and showing the all important verb conjugation and noun declensions that are so important to theological dialogue. Rather, most, if not all of the arguments have been based from traditional views of Arminian theology that has tended to rule much of evangelicalism since Charles Finney, especially. They are based more off of “reason” rather than solid exegesis which speaks volumes.
Though I have not wanted the debates to get so technical, it is inevitable in serious theological debate that one must get to the “nitty gritty” of the Scriptures.
Elect in Christ,
Moses