How about considering perspective?

[Guest]

I wonder if one of the things that gets inadvertently trampled on as we consider this election/freewill debate is the perspective we are considering the issue from, whether it is as from the divine, omniscient perspective of God or man's limited perspective. It seems to me the Bible speaks from either of the two perspectives depending on the passage and it helps to discern which. In the Bible God wants to inform us of some attributes of himself only he can affirm, but he also wants us to recognize the things life will throw at us in our lives in the flesh so we can respond to them properly.

What I am suggesting is that when passages speak of God choosing us, it is addressing the issue to give the reader the benefit of considering the issue as if from God's perspective. God condescends to give us a glimpse of what he sees and knows. And evidently God wants us to know that from his perspective, he chose us. Yet for the one who is chosen, from that person's perspective his freewill and responsibility are preserved because his knowledge is very limited and God's foreknowledge is largely veiled.

So then based on the light I am given, I have a commensurate duty to respond, and not yet knowing whether God has chosen me I make my choice freely. In fact, I don't think the Bible teaches we ever know for sure we are elect until we persevere to the end in faith, though our growing holiness might help us hedge our bets (2 Pet 1:10). I am with Steve in his teaching on "conditional eternal security."

So does this make God the author of evil? I think Paul answers this in Romans 9:19 and following when he says:

"Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? ... Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his glory whom he prepared in advance for glory..."

To call God the author of evil is to lodge an accusation from our perspective against God as if from his perspective. Reminiscent of the original sin's temptation: "to be like God, knowing good and evil."

It looks to me as though if we are going to temporarily assume God's perspective on the matter (as I think Paul is doing in the Romans passage) we see that he ordains that people will reject him in order that others may be allowed to know him. It looks as if it was a necessary condition to create any situation where created things with freewill could one day know his glory. I don't call that evil. It's a potter making pots. But what I call evil is one who has some light and freewill and rejects the light. God never does that. We do often. Hence the judgment.

I guess what I am saying is that our freewill is not free at all from God's perspective because it would be more accurate to say he ordains everything before it even exists in material form for his good purposes (what would exist if he didn't exist, for "from him and through him and to him are all things" and "in him we live and move and have our being"? and freewill is itself his creation, right?); but from our perspective, the one our souls depend on, our freewill is free and therefore we are justly condemned or justified.

What say you, brothers?

[Guest]

I may be a bit simple minded for this topic but it seems to me God's elect is Christ. If I'm in Christ, I'm elect not of myself but of his election.
It dosn't offend God's sovereignty if Christ is his chosen one and I am free to decide if I am in Christ by grace through faith or not.

peace, Bill

[Guest]

Dear Bill,
Amen Brother!
Homer

[Guest]

I hadn't thought of looking at it that way. It seems to square with Paul's teaching that the promises were made to Abraham and his seed, singular, who was Christ. But I think there are "election" passages which have individual saints as the subject, people who are "chosen" in him before the foundation of the world. If we go back and read them they don't seem to have only Christ in view, I don't think, but say something about us too. So I offered my statements as a way to harmonize how that prior election can be true and yet our freewill choice of him still be valid and necessary. -jw.

[Guest]

Jonathan,
You are right that there are election passages that include us. It is important to note that this doesn't change the fact that it is Christ who is the one elected. We who are in Him are elect in Him. I know this is not the easiest concept to understand. If it were easier, there would not have been so much misunderstanding and controversy over election in the church. I have offered a more lengthy explanation of this concept at the parallel thread on this forum, entitlted, "Two sides of the same coin." My post of February 10th deals with this difficulty. It may be helpful.

• http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=323

[Guest]

Thanks, guys, for the feedback. This is helpful. It certainly paints an elegant picture of how simply God the father wraps all things up in Jesus. And it seems right that we should be esteemed kind of as an after-thought--after we bow to Jesus, and while we are continuing to bow.

It seems like so many of the biases we begin in and grow out of as believers begin by placing too much emphasis on us (e.g., the futurist views of Revelation.) The way I figured it eliminated one level of self-centeredness (that we should presume to know God's mind before it is revealed) but there was another step to go (we aren't even in view, except as fitting in the category "in Christ.")

It will just take time for this to sink in and be a conviction for me if it is so. I need months of seeing it fit into various scriptures before I start to place weight on it. But I love this stuff. Thanks again.

[Guest]

Incidentally, on that last topic of how we tend to have a bias of reading ourselves into scripture where it ain't about us, there is a neat book out called "Cat & Dog Theology" that I enjoyed. A coauthor visited our church and gave a presentation. The basic idea is the dog believer says: "You feed me, you care for me, you love me, you must be God!" while the cat believer says "You feed me, you care for me, you love me, I must be God!" And indeed this kind of insight can change the way we read all sorts of scripture.

Suddenly after that I began seeing things like how God has more to say about the crucifixion being for his own glory than (gasp!) being for our benefit. After all, the grace comes from looking away from ourselves to him. "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it." Good stuff. However, the analogy does not extend to the possession of fleas. (or maybe it does.)

[Guest]

Thanks for the insightful comments, Jonathan. I agree completely.

[Guest]

Heres my opinion for what its worth,many people feel a need to understand exactly what they believe. If they cant understand it then they refuse to put faith in it...The problem when it comes to God though is that we think we can figure Him out...I think its true with the free will vs Sovereignty of God...We want one or the other at the expense of Gods truth,and since we cant reconcile them we chose one,while all the time forgetting that maybe in Gods thinking they both could be true.Its my opinion that we chose God and He also chose us...go figure. Two sides of the same coin..Steve

[Guest]

thanks for posting your message Crusader.