Posted on 11/30/2007 12:40:54 PM PST by Alex Murphy
RIDGECREST, N.C. (BP)--Does God unconditionally choose every person who will ever be saved or does He look deep into the future and choose those whom He foresees will trust in Him?
Two Southern Baptist theologians grappled with the controversial doctrine of election Nov. 27 during the three-day "Building Bridges: Southern Baptists and Calvinism" conference co-sponsored by Founders Ministries and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and held at the LifeWay Ridgecrest Conference Center. Founders Ministries formed in 1982 to advance Reformed theology in SBC churches.
Greg Welty, associate professor of philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, unpacked the Calvinist view of unconditional election -– the belief that God has chosen before the creation of the world every individual who will ever be saved apart from foreseen faith or good works.
Ken Keathley, senior associate dean and professor of theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., proposed a solution to the Calvinistic (unconditional election) and Arminian (God chooses those whom He foreknows will trust in Him) disagreement on election through a theological system known as "Molinism."
Welty argued in favor of unconditional election, pointing to a number of biblical texts that seem to support the Calvinistic doctrine, including Ephesians 1:3-11. This passage, he said, demonstrates that election is God's choosing of individual persons; election is eternal, having taken place before the foundation of the world; and election is grounded in the will of God and not the will of man.
"God's will is to love us and show us mercy," Welty said. "This text tells us that He predestined us in love. It is not a cold and analytical doctrine. The will of man is not mentioned here as the basis of God's choice. It is clear to [the Apostle] Paul that election is grounded in the will of God. It is not conditioned on something in the creature."
Elsewhere, in Romans 9, Paul clearly asserts God's choosing of a people irrespective of foreseen faith or works, Welty noted. In the latter portion of the chapter, Welty pointed out that Paul even anticipated human objections to the doctrine of unconditional election and answered them. While humans charge God with injustice for choosing some and not others for salvation, Paul does not flinch in asserting the justice of a sovereign God in freely carrying out His holy will.
"If election were conditional," Welty said, "Paul would have every reason to say, 'Wait, you misunderstood my teaching; God's choice of man ultimately hinges on man's choice of God, so it is all fair in the end. God's choice of Jacob was really based on Jacob's future choice of God, so there is no injustice here.' That might be appealing to us on some level, but that is not where Paul goes. Paul traces this back to the eternal purpose of God in our lives."
Welty also dealt with a number of objections to unconditional election such as the Arminian assertion that election is based on God's foreknowledge of all who will believe in Him. Interpreting texts such as Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:1-2 to uphold this view is neither necessary nor plausible, he said. "Foreknowledge" in these two texts does not mean that God merely foresees the actions of individuals, but shows that He has foreknown them relationally, Welty said. Neither text speaks of foreseen faith, he added.
"God foreloves individuals and marks them out," Welty said. "That is what foreknowledge in these texts means.... God is a God who chooses throughout the Bible. Most Christians will not deny that. God chose Israel in the Old Testament, for example. Paul's doctrine of election reflects on how God has chosen in the past."
Because of the logical problems inherent in both Calvinism and Arminianism, Keathley said he views Molinism as "a more biblical and logically coherent" alternative.
Molinism is named after 16th-century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina and attempts to reconcile the sovereignty of God with human free will by looking at God's work of redemption through His foreknowledge.
Foundational to Molinism is the belief that God knows everything, including all the possible actions of human beings given every possible circumstance. Contemporary adherents to Molinism include apologist William Lane Craig and philosopher Alvin Plantinga.
Keathley proposed Molinism as a solution to the divide between Calvinism and Arminianism, arguing that Molinism, like Calvinism, affirms the absolute sovereignty of God, while also affirming God's permissive will, which establishes the free choices of men.
A key to Molinism's ability to better explain God's choosing some men for salvation without violating their free will is its doctrine of "middle knowledge," Keathley said. Middle knowledge postulates that God knows all possible worlds He could have created in addition to the one He chose to make. Thus, God created that particular world in which all of His elect people would experience circumstances appropriate to cause them to freely trust in Christ.
The primary weakness of both supralapsarian Calvinism (God decreed to save some men before the fall) and infralapsarian Calvinism (God decreed to save some men after the fall) lies in their inability to explain sin and evil without stipulating God as the cause of them, Keathley said. Molinism better reconciles God and the so-called "problem of evil," he said, and eliminates the charge of God having caused evil.
"God controls all things but He does not cause all things," Keathley said. "We must embrace God's permission to avoid having God causing evil."
Both Welty and Keathley agreed that both Calvinists and non-Calvinists must be charitable in expressing their differences on the doctrine of election.
"To my non-Calvinist brethren I respectfully ask them to consider the arguments and the Scriptures that I have given," Welty said.
"To my Calvinist brothers, I want to say it is important to distinguish between doctrines that are essential to the Gospel and those that are essential to the flourishing of the Gospel.... Let us avoid using language such as 'Calvinism is the Gospel.' I find that unhelpful because it usually generates more heat than light. We don't want to give someone the impression that he has to believe all the traditional points of Calvinism if he is going to believe the Gospel."
I view Thomist and Molonist as the Catholic equivalents to Protestant Calvinism and Arminianism. That said . . . I ain’t exactly no scholarly looker at them thar idears at this point. My experience is Thomist/Calvinist (believing in God wasn’t a decision I made — more like a bolt out of the blue) and my thinking is more Arminian/Molonist, particularly when examining the problem of evil. Evil is the consequence of man’s decision to sin. I see God as outside of time, so any event has always been known to him, even as we act with true free will we are within God’s plan no matter what choice we make. I see space and time like a block in God’s hands, complete from start to finish . . . a finished object . . . In that frameword, I’m not sure there is there any real difference between foreknowledge and unconditional election.
Only in the minds of Baptists and other Calvinists.
Neither. God makes man as sovergn as his own self. God chose to make a way of salvation for everyone.
Those who respond to his choice to save them with a choice to make Christ their Lord and be saved, ARE. From that moment on they are “elected” and “predestined” for the afer life with the God the Father and Creator. They are “saved” because until that moment occured, they were “predestined” to be destroyed in the fires of hell, forever.
***The primary weakness of both supralapsarian Calvinism (God decreed to save some men before the fall) and infralapsarian Calvinism (God decreed to save some men after the fall) lies in their inability to explain sin and evil without stipulating God as the cause of them, Keathley said. Molinism better reconciles God and the so-called “problem of evil,” he said, and eliminates the charge of God having caused evil.***
Molinism doesn’t get God off the hook....
***A key to Molinism’s ability to better explain God’s choosing some men for salvation without violating their free will is its doctrine of “middle knowledge,” Keathley said. Middle knowledge postulates that God knows all possible worlds He could have created in addition to the one He chose to make. Thus, God created that particular world in which all of His elect people would experience circumstances appropriate to cause them to freely trust in Christ.***
Using this example for a starter God had a middle knowledge before he created anything. God knew that the angels would sin and fall. Yet, God chose to create these angels and circumstances anyway. God created beings to the end that they would fall.
As a Presbyterian (though I know that the LBC has nearly identical language), would someone explain to me how this belief is any different that any view that God is the first cause of all things.
I have other problems with Molinism, but this one directly addresses a point raised by Keathley.
bttt
“If I knew God I’d be Him.”
You know, it’s really a great question. Free will and all, but there are so many examples where the Bible speaks of God defining how someone will react (God hardened Pharoahs heart...) so you wonder just how much free will we have...
I mean, look at it: If he's correct, then nothing Mr. Welty says can possibly have any effect. And if he argues from the perspective that his words will have an effect ... then he's automatically lost the debate.
I agree with you, I think. Moreso, I don’t really have a problem with “requiring God to be the creator of evil”, because I don’t. The world is his, and all that is in it. Whatever he did, he did, without my consent or knowledge.
I don’t have to know the mystery of evil, I know of it’s existance, and my required response to it.
As to Calvinism, I’m a Calvinist, but I am currently re-evaluating exactly how much of what happens is “God’s Will”, and how much is “Free Choice”. I’m in the middle of an interesting book on the topic that has made me re-think my rigid adherance to the “God wills where I’m putting my soda can” theory.
It's a whole lot more rational to take James' warning to heart that faith without works is dead. If we do the works in faith and it ends up making no difference, then at least we'll still have done some good in the world.
But if it ends up that our works do matter and we've acted as if they didn't.... Well, I'd just as soon not test that theory.
And that's all I have to say on the matter. To enter the death spiral of a predestination debate is to lose any hope of a rational conversation.
It's either all of Him or it's none of Him because reality is defined as God's cognition of His creation.
At the moment of creation, there is not one second of any day of the week that was not set in place within the mind of God. There is no such thing as a "contingency plan" to God. What occurs is what was determined by Him from before the creation of the world simply because that's how He wanted it to go down.
Just because that thought is very nearly incomprehensible to us does not mean it is not true.
***As to Calvinism, I’m a Calvinist, but I am currently re-evaluating exactly how much of what happens is “God’s Will”, and how much is “Free Choice”. I’m in the middle of an interesting book on the topic that has made me re-think my rigid adherance to the “God wills where I’m putting my soda can” theory.***
I’m not sure just how many Calvinists would confess that God has a will of decree to such minutia. Probably some. I believe that there is much of what goes on in the world that falls under the realm of acting with the permission of God, i.e. his permissive will. The former seems to be more of the strawman construct of the opponents of Calvinism when they make man out to be a puppet in Calvinism.
In the sense of God is permissively willing to let me place my soda can where I will, I agree that God wills where I place my soda can. In the sense of God has determined by decree that every second of my life is determined, I would probably disagree. A lot of it is determined by how the question is phrased and what you mean when you say what you say.
I will say this: I have discovered that this libertarian free will which is the foundation of Open Theism & Molinism is not Biblically defendable. At least, not successfully.
For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
Prior to spiritual birth, man cannot hear the gospel (”Why do ye not understand my speech? because ye cannot hear my word” Jn. 8.43), he will not understand the gospel (”Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” Matt. 13.13-14), he cannot believe the gospel (”If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you heavenly things?” Jn. 3.12 and “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep,” Jn.10.26). He may practice many “religious” things, but he cannot, of his own will, believe in the gospel of God.......Why? He is not spiritual. “But the natural man receiveth NOT the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” I Cor. 2.14.
So, if man cannot “receive”, “know”, or discern the things of God, how on earth can he choose to believe in them by his own “free will”? He can’t......He is truly “lost”.....He must be born spiritually.
Even if one were still to insist that man can choose to believe and, to use the popular term, “accept” Christ of his own “freewill”, the scriptures explicitly contradict this notion.......Those who are born again “were born, not of blood, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.” It seems very straightforward that those who are “born of God” are “begotten of God”, i.e. conceived of God.
When a sinner is born again, of and by the Holy Spirit, he receives Christ, the “incorruptible seed”. (Man is a passive subject, so please do not confuse the word “receive” with the word “accept”) Spiritual birth was never offered by God, so there is nothing to “accept”, and no where are we told to “accept” Christ. (If I give you something, you “receive” it. If I offer you something, you may or may not “accept” it.) He “gave” His only begotten Son.......
When we receive Christ in the new birth, we receive the faith of Christ, and it is His faith by which sinners are justified......and sinners believe by that faith. Spiritual life PRECEDES faith, and faith PRECEDES belief. The act of believing is never the active cause of receiving eternal life....it is the result of one already having received that life. “He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me HATH (already has) eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation; but IS PASSED (not will be passed) from death unto life.” Jn. 5.24 Also, one’s belief IS THE WORK OF GOD, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” Jn. 6.29.
Spiritual birth is antecedent to the hearing of the gospel, and is necessary for faith and subsequent conversion.....and it’s never the other way around. Spiritual life is merely “brought to light by the gospel”, but never caused by it.
So yes, God chooses who believes.......
Amen. The whole theology of grace rests on the difference between those two words.
We are saved by grace through faith. Faith in Jesus Christ is a free, unmerited, non-refundable gift from God and the means by which God has chosen to identify His family.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
And all those who do believe do so because it is by and for and through the will of God for His glory.
“And all those who do believe do so because it is by and for and through the will of God for His glory.”
Yes, certainly the “preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD.” Prov. 16.1
Just a hunch but I think that God give us the free will to decide for ourselves, but he knows what path we will take.
THank you for both of your replies.
The book I am currently reading is titled “Decisionmaking and the Will of God”, by Garry Friesen.
I don’t pretend to be a trained biblical scholar, but I find this man’s writings to appear based on a sound biblical standing. However, as I have no completed the book yet, I reserve judgement.
He focuses on what he sees as the notion of “God’s three wills”, and seeks to show that there are only two, rather than three. Those who are familiar with this probably know exactly what I’m talking about. Those who don’t, I apologize, I just finished writing 11,000 words of a novel in the past six hours, in orded to make 25,000 total words for my National Novel Writing Month submission. So I’m tired of writing. :-)
11,000 words is roughly 50 pages. Fifty pages of fiction in six hours? That's more than eight pages per hour which is a little more than one page every seven minutes. Or 30 words per minute of coherent story-telling non-stop for six hours.
I think you're predestined for a nap. 8~)
I’m exhausted reading your analysis.
To those who follow my posts on the more political threads, they probably would not be surprised at all by the numbers. I am constantly accused of overwhelming the threads with verbage.
Thanks again...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.