1 | Page The Good Process to bring about the Good Promise
There is an old story about a guy who was curious about the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism so he was very excited to learn that a sponsored debate was occurring at the local civic center. Not sure exactly where he himself stood on the subject when he got to the civic center he noticed a group of Calvinists getting their strategy together over in one corner of the auditorium so he rushed over to join in. As soon as he got there he was asked why he had come over to the Calvinist group and he responded he was exploring the topic and he chose to start with them first. They said, “If you think you made the choice to join us you are with the wrong group. We demand that you go over to where the Arminians are meeting.” And like that he was sent away.
When he got over to the Arminian side of the auditorium they asked him why he was there and he said, “I was made to come over here against my will.” They said, “If you believe you were made to come over to join us without choosing to come over to join us you belong on the Calvinist side.” And they sent him away also. So the guy went home deciding maybe he would be better off just remaining out of the debate altogether. That’s how a lot of people feel these days. They would like to stay out of the debate altogether.
Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
So here we have one of the main controversies in the evangelical world: the interplay of God’s sovereignty and Man’s responsibility. Some of you have already chosen which team you’re on and have no intention of re-examining this whole can of worms. That’s fine, except I want to ask you to do two things:
1. Before you disagree make sure you understand. Now why do I ask you to do this? Because, if you’re like me, sometimes we all develop very strong opinions about things we actually know very little about and I think I can demonstrate this quickly to both sides of the theological aisle this morning. Some of you would call yourself Arminian because you don’t believe in predestination, but I’m afraid I have bad news for you. You’re not Arminian because Arminians have a theology of election and predestination. Some of you call yourself a Calvinist because you don’t believe in freewill, but I’m afraid I have bad news for you as well…you’re not really a Calvinist as Calvinist’s have a theology of freewill. Now to be sure the Arminian view of election and predestination is quite different from the Calvinist’s view and for certain the Calvinist’s view of freewill is quite different from the Arminian’s…nevertheless both theological systems address these issues…they do not simply deny they exist in some form.
2. Whatever position you do have learn to hold it with gentleness and humility especially if you aren’t really all that familiar with the theological system you claim to be a part of…for instance if you’re claiming to be Arminian but you cannot define “prevenient grace” or explain how or where it comes into play in your systematic theology…I would be careful about how I defended my Arminianism. If you’re claiming to be a Calvinist and you cannot define “monergism” and have no idea what distinguishes Supralapsarian from Infralapsarian…I would be careful about how I defended my Calvinism.
Let me give you an example of someone here who now has a greater awareness of the complexity of these issues and with that awareness a better understanding of why some folks disagree. Several months ago, Jack Barker, was curious as to when and why I had fallen from grace as I am not a Calvinist. I told him I thought there was better explanation than the one Calvinism provided which is called Molinism. Jack, like probably most of you had never heard of Molinism.
Jack and I began discussing Calvinism versus Molinism and along the way Jack began to defend his Calvinism using a theological concept that is actually Arminian. I explained to Jack that he was actually using an Arminian concept of theology to defend Calvinism. Now Jack is a humble enough guy to have a sense of humor about the situation of his defending Calvinism with Arminian arguments and he came to the realization that he did not understand his Calvinist position as well as he thought. He had disagreed before he understood. So what did he do?
He began to explore not only his own position but also explored the counter arguments of those who disagreed. He gained greater awareness of the complexities involved and so although he has remained a Calvinist he also learned why it is important for everyone to hold his or her position with greater humility. So today’s lesson…be like Jack!
I.The Major Viewpoints on Election and Predestination
A.Foresight Election
This view holds that God chooses or elects based upon foreseen faith. This is probably the most widely held view among evangelicals as it’s easy to understand and presents no uncomfortable tension with reference to the fairness and goodness of God. God looked down the corridor of time and in His foreknowledge saw who would accept Christ and then elected them to salvation on that basis.
Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestinedto be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,…
The main criticism of this view is as follows:
God’s choosing based upon foreknowledge makes God’s election passive and turns His predestination into post-destination. How? It seems to make God subject to a plan in which He is not sovereign. In other words God is not acting so much as He is reacting.
The explanation that God predestined what He foresaw was going to happen anyway is to say He didn’t predestine anything at all. He would be merely reacting to what we did which would be more of a post-destination thing really. If God predestines people because they’re going to believe any way, then it would seem that salvation is a matter of man initiating and God responding.
Ephesians 1:11 seems to indicate God’s will was not passive in predestination, but active.
Ephesians 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,
It's easy to presume that foreknowledge means God foresaw that we would choose Him so He chose us. While this explanation might aid us in developing an understanding of how predestination might work, it creates a considerable problem for understanding how grace might work because God is not initiating salvation unconditionally! His condition is we have to choose Him first. Well if that’s the case how could grace be unmerited if God choice is merely a response to something we did? The idea that God foresaw me choosing Him, so He in turn chose me suggests I merited His choice of me by choosing Him first. This would suggest I earned His choice by my choice.
B.Corporate Election
This view holds that election pertains primarily to Jesus and those “in Christ” become elect when they identify with and connect to Christ.
Ephesians 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
In this view it is not a case of God choosing say for example Pastor Ryan, but of God’s choosing Christ. If Pastor Ryan is in Christ, Pastor Ryan is chosen because of, and only because of, his connection to Christ.
I actually like this view, but again the problem is that this view is trying too hard to take the edge off of the implications of individual election by using the Ephesians passage as the main proof-text without considering the verses which seem to suggest otherwise. Unfortunately, the implication of individual election is not so easy to get around. The following verses seem to imply individual selection rather than corporate.
Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
2nd Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
Also consider this passage from Revelation:
Revelation 17:8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the worldwill be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
This verse indicates some individuals’ names were not written in the book of life before the creation of the world, which also seems to imply some other individuals have their names written before the creation of the world. The writing of individual names in the book of life from the creation of the world seems to suggest individual election.
C.Individual Pre-temporal Election
This view holds that elect individuals form the group that is “in Christ;” nevertheless, God elects individually, not corporately. This view is usually associated with Calvinism’s Unconditional Election.
In this view God’s choice was not based upon any foreseen response or obedience; rather, God chose a certain number of people to be the recipients of special grace…period. God determined who would be saved and God draws them by irresistible grace and gives those chosen the faith they need to believe. In this view God foreordains faith in advance. You see the difference? The earlier view of foresight election says “God only foreknew faith in advance” this view states “God foreordained faith in advance.” God had to give His elect the ability to believe, because men are so dead in their sins. God must first regenerate them (i.e. give them spiritual life) in order for them to have faith, because dead men cannot respond. In Calvinism you don’t believe in order to be saved, you’re saved in order to believe.
John 6:64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." NIV
Only those God has already chosen can actually hear His voice:
John 10:25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
God does not force the elect to believe against their will but instead changes their will through regeneration and uses irresistible grace as an internal compulsion after they are regenerated. This view holds that it is God’s choice of the sinner which is the only cause of salvation. Thus election is unconditional (i.e. there is nothing we do to condition God’s choice like choose Him first or even choose Him at all), pre-temporal (i.e. before the creation of the world) and unmerited (i.e. of grace).
Ephesians 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,
If this view is correct then God does not truly desire that all men be saved despite the verses which seem to indicate He desires the salvation of all.
1 Tim 2:4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. NIV
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. NIV
D.Molinist View
This is my view. Molinism is named after Luis Molina (1535-1600), who suggested the possibility of what he called middle knowledge to furnish an analysis of divine knowledge and human responsibility. I am a Molinist. Molinists have a Calvinist view of Sovereignty and an Arminian view of human freedom. In other words…
I agree with the Calvinist…
- That God is sovereign over all things.
- Man does not contribute to his salvation.
But also….I agree with the Arminian…
- Humans genuinely choose and are ultimately responsible for their choices as the agents of causation. In other words, they cause the choice they make so they are responsible for the choice they make.
- God’s grace is resistible.
What do Calvinists and Arminians think of Molinism? Calvinists think Molinism is a variation of Arminianism and Arminians think Molinism is a variation of Calvinism. Molinism to my knowledge is the only view that affirms both divine sovereignty and human freedom in a consistent manner. Now I don’t pretend to understand exactly how predestination and freewill interplay, I only know the Bible seems to suggest they’re both true. Somehow God determined without violating our freedom and we chose in accordance with His sovereignty.
I believe the attempts to reconcile the apparent paradox we find in the Scriptures tend to soften or ignore Scriptures that deal with one side or another. Calvinists and Arminians place divine sovereignty and human freedom in the either/or category so that one essentially nullifies the other. If God is absolutely sovereign then man is not truly free. If man is truly free then God cannot be absolutely sovereign. Molinist places the same apparent dilemma in the both/and category like the Trinity. In the Trinity God is both three and one instead of either three or one. For the Molinist God is sovereign and man is ultimately responsible for his decisions because he is the agent of causation.
Foresight election softens or ignores those verses which deal with God’s will being involved in predestination by making Him passive or neutral in the process. While individual pre-temporal election tends to soften or ignore those verses which speak of the role and responsibility of human decisions and the importance of faith.
In Molinism, God in His omniscience chooses a plan. When God chose His plan He necessarily determined everything which would come to pass within that plan, including free acts. Hence (another paradox), there are truly free actions and God determined there would be such. God then is totally sovereign in the sense of actually determining the plan that unfolds, and yet we are completely responsible within that plan for the choices we make.
The interplay of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility is certainly a mystery, but it is not a contradiction. Look at Ephesians 1:11 again in the context I just suggested.
Ephesians 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,
I know most of you have never heard of Molinism, but it is growing in popularity as people wrestle with the implications of their Calvinism or their Arminianism. For those of you who are gluttons for punishment I will present a fuller explanation of Molinism tonight if you’re interested. I will also of necessity go into a greater explanation of why I reject both Calvinism and Arminianism.
Anyway trying to resolve things like this will usually just give you a headache. Consider the following:
Question: Does God know the day you’re going to die?
Answer: Yes
Question: Could you die a day sooner?
Answer: No
Question: Then why do you eat?
Answer: To live
Question: What if I stopped eating?
Answer: You’d die.
Question: Would that then be the day God planned for me to die?
Answer: Shut up and eat!
A pastor named Charles Simeon once addressed the controversy in this way. He said,
“As the wheel cogs on a complicated machine may move in opposite directions and yet subserve a common end, so may these truths, apparently opposite, be perfectly reconcilable with each other, and equally subserve the purposes of God in the accomplishment of man’s salvation.”