Is there a "middle-middle" ground to election?

Post by **_darin-houston** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:28 am

I agree that the scriptures most loved by Calvinists can be interpreted fairly in a way that supports the Arminian understanding. However, some of them are close calls and are a bit of a strain (though perhaps necessarily so to fit the rest of scripture). I wonder if there's not a third position that accomodates even the Calvinist's understanding of these verses while not necessarily supporting their ultimate TULIP conclusions. I know Steve likes to promote the Arminian view as the "middle ground," but I see a possible "middle-middle ground."

My question is -- would there be any scripture that would negate the following statement?

All are called and all can respond -- those that do can be considered among the "elect" in one sense; however, there is another sense in which some are truly "unconditionally elect" and whom God did predestine for salvation and for whom He provides an effectual calling (like Paul). All share in the same status, but some are special and ensured to be among the remnant.

Also, is there a Historic view related to this position?

Post by **_TK** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:00 pm

hi darin-

are you using Paul's "i was set apart in my mother's womb" statement to support the idea that he was "effectually" called? just wondering.

TK

Post by **_darin-houston** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:36 pm

That, and the overwhelmingly non-normative transformative Damascus experience. I'm not sure if he could have resisted past that point or not, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt with Paul and John The Baptist (at least for the sake of this argument).

Post by **_Suzana** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:06 pm

My question is -- would there be any scripture that would negate the following statement?

All are called and all can respond -- those that do can be considered among the "elect" in one sense; however, there is another sense in which some are truly "unconditionally elect" and whom God did predestine for salvation and for whom He provides an effectual calling (like Paul). All share in the same status, but some are special and ensured to be among the remnant. (Darin)

(my underline)

wouldn't that imply that Paul could never lose his salvation? It doesn't seem to be what he believed:

1Co 9:26 So then I run, not as if I were uncertain. And so I fight, not as one who beats the air.
1Co 9:27 But I buffet my body, and lead it captive, lest proclaiming to others I myself might be rejected.

Perhaps this is a separate issue to election? I haven't fully studied the Calvinist teachings, these are just my thougts that came to mind when reading the above statement.

Post by **_Steve** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:09 pm

Darin,
I have known some who would take this position you described. It is not impossible, I think. It would not involve any injustice on God's part. It retains the doctrine of His love toward all. It adds a little more complexity to the theological scenario, but there is no reason that theological realities should be free from complexities. I do not think it is a necessary position, because I don't have serious problems with seeing any of the scriptures from an Arminian standpoint, but I don't know of any scriptures that would contradict it. At least, none come immediately to mind.

Post by **_darin-houston** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:30 pm

Thanks, Steve. I don't have any significant difficulties with the passages, either -- I guess it's just my ecumenical nature trying to find some common ground for my "Reformed" brethren.

An excellent point, Suzana, though I don't think the scenario I propose would require or negate perseverance. Paul could have been saved for his purposes as an apostle and not with eternity in mind.

Post by **_darin-houston** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:13 pm

I just had another thought on this -- if it's true that there's two different groups of "elect" -- the predetermined elect and the potentially elect, there would in a sense be two "classes" of Christians -- an "elite" elect and a "standard" elect.

The thought that occurred to me is this: if there is such an "elite" elect (based on having been "chosen" to be elect), isn't there some likelihood that they would have some sense of pride and think they have something to lord over the "standard" elect ? If so, then this scenario goes a long way to explaining to a Calvinist how his view of election does nothing to eliminate the "boasting" element they accuse Arminians as having, and shows that it is the Calvinist view of election as seeing election (even by grace) as providing a "special privilege" before God, which demonstrates the boastful position.

Did that make sense?

Post by **_brody_in_ga** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:14 pm

I just had another thought on this -- if it's true that there's two different groups of "elect" -- the predetermined elect and the potentially elect, there would in a sense be two "classes" of Christians -- an "elite" elect and a "standard" elect.

Hi Darin,

We are of course speaking of those things we could never really know. If God has those who have been chosen apart from the normative way(preaching of the gospel and responding), then we can assume the predetermined group has a special calling i.e like Paul and the Apostles. But even if this is the case, it all works to add more to the body of Christ, and to edify that body, so none could boast because God gave him/her some "special" calling. Paul's illustration of Christ Body in 1 Cor 12 comes to mind...

The thought that occurred to me is this: if there is such an "elite" elect (based on having been "chosen" to be elect), isn't there some likelihood that they would have some sense of pride and think they have something to lord over the "standard" elect ?

Maybe, but it is certainly not warranted. Paul seems to touch on this in some way when he wrote "2 Cor 12 Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast, except in my infirmities. 6 For though I might desire to boast, I will not be a fool; for I will speak the truth. But I refrain, lest anyone should think of me above what he sees me to be or hears from me.
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.

Even the above reference is speaking only in regards to the knowledge and revelations Paul received, not some special calling that Paul had that the others didn't.

If so, then this scenario goes a long way to explaining to a Calvinist how his view of election does nothing to eliminate the "boasting" element they accuse Arminians as having, and shows that it is the Calvinist view of election as seeing election (even by grace) as providing a "special privilege" before God, which demonstrates the boastful position.

Did that make sense?

Exactly!

Post by **_TK** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:01 am

darin wrote:

if there is such an "elite" elect (based on having been "chosen" to be elect), isn't there some likelihood that they would have some sense of pride and think they have something to lord over the "standard" elect ?

It would seem likely; but those who may fall under this category (like John the B or Paul) would seem to the be very un-boastful. Perhaps there are others who fit this category who haven been used mightily by God (Wesley, Luther, Finney, Moody, etc). who knows? i am trying to think of a great man of God who had a boastful spirit, but I can't. probably because they were great men of God!

TK