Unconditional Election – Negative 2-3 – Nick Norelli
My Apologies
I would like to first apologize for an error I made in my previous responses. A friend pointed out that I had said one must commit the fallacy of equivocation to assert that the terms “election” and “predestination” mean the same thing. Technically this would only be equating the two terms which is not equivocation. Truthfully I don’t know why I made this error—I have to chalk it up to carelessness and pray that it doesn’t happen again, but there is no guarantee of this because I’m human. So once again I apologize and am embarrassed by the error.
Simple Dictionary Meanings
In response to
your last paper, let me begin by saying that I never once contended that
context was to be ignored and a “simple dictionary meaning” of a word would
give its intended meaning in a context (although sometimes of course it
can). In fact I made a comment
concerning the term “from the foundation of the world” to the contrary, saying
that its meaning could only be derived from its context. I’d also point out that I didn’t argue my
case based solely on a dictionary definition.
What I did assert was that a specific word (hxei) which has a specific meaning (reaching or arriving) did not give the meaning of “will believe” (pisteusomen) in the context of a particular
passage (John
ercomenon vs. hxei
That being said, I would agree with you as far as the term “coming” (ercomenon) is concerned, and perhaps I was unclear in my previous comments (which I don’t believe that I was), but “coming” (ercomenon) was not the subject of my treatment, but rather “will come” (hxei) was. This is the word that I paid special attention to in saying, “The term ‘will come’ (hxei) according to Vincent emphasizes the idea of reaching or arriving.”
Notice that this verb is in the future tense and indicative mood as opposed to the present participles: “coming” (ercomenoV) in vs. 35 and “eating” (trwgwn), “drinking” (pinwn), and “looking” (qewrwn) in vs. 40, 54-58. This is a point that you recognized in your last response. [On a side note, “believe” (pisteushte) from vs. 29 is in the aorist tense, not present.*]
I almost have to wonder if my comments were considered in context since I took the time to define the term “will come” and contrast it with the term “will believe,” both of which were cited as future indicatives, not present participles! Thus much of your paper went to refute an argument that I did not make.
All That
Having gotten that out of the
way, we can see that I spent more time focusing on the group which constituted
the “all that” (pan o) of John
Your exposition of the text bears this out in saying that it is a present and continuous belief on the part of these who are presently coming to Christ. You pointed out the present verb numerous times and I thank you for doing so (as this will come to play in the perseverance debate). So there must be an alternate understanding of how these believers “will come” to Christ at some point in the future—I believe the answer is found in the resurrection.
John 6:35-40
Jesus said to
them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he
who believes in Me will never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me,
and yet do not believe. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one
who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from
heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the
will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and
believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last
day." (John 6:35-40, NASB)
Jesus draws an immediate distinction between the unbelieving crowd who fed off of the natural bread which He miraculously produced and the believer who partakes in Him the Bread of Life (cf. vs. 26-27). It’s evident that the one who is presently coming and believing will not hunger or thirst. This is a fact you recorded in your last response. Jesus then says to the crowd that they have seen but do not believe (present, indicative). In other words their faith was not placed in Jesus but rather in the miracles, and even in that not so much the miraculous act itself but rather the product of the act, the loaves and fishes. Carnal were their desires while Jesus’ true gift was spiritual. This is why Jesus was explaining to them that He was the true bread from heaven—it was He that was the real gift, not the loaves that they had dined on. This is another point in which I believe we agree.
Jesus then states that all that the Father is presently giving him “will come” to him at some point in the future. The Father’s giving is a present indicative; the people’s coming is a future indicative. The context demands that those from vs. 35 are the ones the Father gives in vs. 37. Remember, the coming and believing of vs. 35 are both present participles, which means the act is in progress—it is not a future act that will occur. It certainly isn’t “turn[ing] the passage on its head” to believe that those who are presently coming to Jesus are being given to Him presently by the Father.
The attention then shifts from the collective group to the individual believer as Jesus says that the ‘one’ who is coming (present, participle) to Him he will not cast out. Jesus then states his devotion and willing obedience to the Father in saying that he has come to do the will of the Father, the Father’s will being that of “all that” (pan o) he has given Him (once again a reference to the believing body as a whole) He should lose none but rather “raise it up” (future, indicative) on the last day. The use of the future indicative here is important because it determines a necessary connection between those who presently believe as being raised in the future in the same sense that those who presently believe will come to Christ in the future!
To emphasize this point Jesus once again states that this is the will of the Father that everyone who is presently beholding and believing (both present participles) in the Son may have eternal life, and Jesus Himself “will raise him up on the last day” (future, indicative)! The picture then is clear, we have three uses of the future indicative in regard to present believers, two of which without confusion affirm the resurrection. This is a point that is brought home even more clearly in vs. 44 where Jesus says, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up (future, indicative) on the last day.”
Other key verses in the immediate context using the future indicative are vs. 45 in reference to believers being taught by God (cf. Isaiah 54:13 which is a reference to the millennium), vs. 51 in reference to men living eternally for partaking in Christ, as well as Christ offering his body up for crucifixion, vs. 54 which once again references believers being raised up in the resurrection, and vs. 57-58 both in reference to believers living eternally.
Clearly the connection is seen thus I stand unabashedly by my original comment that “will come” (hxei) is not synonymous with “will believe” (pisteusomen) and this is supported contextually, syntactically, grammatically, and sensibly.
The Father’s Will
You said, “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.”
I would once again raise the point that the Father’s will, can ALONE determine whom he gives to the Son in accordance with his foreknowledge (1Peter 1:2). The reasoning here is circular for you are arguing from the premise that God’s foreknowledge is independent of His will with no a priori reason to assume such. From this statement am I to conclude that God acts independently of one of his essential attributes?
We both agree
that God is omniscient (Psalm 147:5).
Omniscience is necessarily derived from God’s omnipresence (1Kings
How is it eisegesis to believe that God acts according to His essential nature? How does God’s foreknowledge of future belief deny His will being alone in determining whom he gives to the Son? I fail to see the logical or scriptural support for such a charge.
What’s the Basis?
And at this point I would raise the question, on what basis does God choose some to salvation and leave others to reprobation/damnation? In your opening to this debate you said,
“We are not to suppose that the doctrine of
election is God going through the ‘eternal phone book’ and randomly picking and
choosing, or even rolling dice and choosing arbitrarily. No, the Bible
teaches that God choose those whom He loved ‘in the Beloved.’”
OK, but on what
basis does he choose; If not in accordance with His foreknowledge then what? What would cause God to choose certain men to
salvation and other men to reprobation/damnation before the foundation of the
world when neither group of men had done anything to warrant either? Romans
How is the Calvinist view of unconditional election not arbitrary? Does saying “God’s will alone” really answer any of these questions? If so, then how? Does God’s will exist in a vacuum cut off from his other necessary attributes and characteristics? I’m sorry, but the argument that God’s will alone is the basis for election being unconditional amounts to nothing more than saying, “I know it isn’t based on His will acting in accordance with His foreknowledge, although I don’t know how or why, I just know that it isn’t!”
Ephesians 1 Revisited
Yes, God alone is the subject… Yes, God alone chooses… But this is not the point. The point is that God acts in according to His nature. He naturally knows all things, including His knowledge from eternity of who would come to belief in time. You said, “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.” From my understanding of the argument you are presenting, it seems as if you are refuting a claim that God’s choice of whom he elects is in accordance with the choice of the one being elected. If I am misunderstanding then please correct me. But if my understanding of your argument is correct, then it is arguing a position that I certainly don’t hold. My argument is that God can alone elect in accordance with HIS FOREKNOWLEDGE of man’s response. The emphasis is on God’s foreknowledge of man’s choice, not man’s choice itself.
Omniscience & Foreknowledge
Your basic argument is that non-Calvinists believe God gains knowledge of the future by standing outside of time and allowing everything to act itself out, while Calvinists believe that God has knowledge based on His decree that everything be as it is.
I certainly can’t speak for all non-Calvinists, but I can speak for myself in categorically denying that I believe God gained knowledge of anything. If God could “gain knowledge” then he would of necessity not be omniscient. Thus God doesn’t look into future to know who will believe, He has always known necessarily who will believe. The argument is made that God somehow must either choose based on his knowledge or have his knowledge based on his choice, thus creating a false dilemma. The third option would be that offered by Geisler in Chosen But Free where he says,
“For if God is an eternal and simple Being, then His thoughts must be eternally coordinate and unified…whatever God fore-chooses cannot be based on what he foreknows. Nor can what he foreknows be based on what he forechose [sic]. Both must be simultaneous, eternal, and coordinate acts of God.” (Italics his)[1]
You also raise the point that in Romans 8 & 11 God foreknew people. I fail to see how this in any way would suggest that he did not foreknow their belief. How could God possibly know a believer without knowing that they believe? This is an issue I addressed in my last response. And once again, how do you view “the sovereign purposes of [God’s] will” as excluding His foreknowledge of all things? This is a point that you repeatedly make yet fail to support. Once again this boils down to saying, “I know it isn’t in accordance with foreknowledge, although I don’t know why, it just isn’t!”
Lord willing these questions will be addressed in the cross examination session to come.
ב״ה