Election, free will and sovereignty

[bogeydogg]

I know that this idea is beaten to death on most discussion boards but I want to put a different spin on it and see what ya’ll think. I am currently reading City of God and I fail to see how anyone could read Augustine and not think that he argued for real human free will and it has given me some thoughts as to what these terms mean and how they fit together. I am not a Calvinist and neither am I Catholic, although I am starting RCIA in the fall so who can say next spring, but I do know that the Bible repeatedly speaks of election and free will and God’s Sovereignty so I don’t think these things can be easily set aside and I want to talk about them. I do not believe that I am absolutely right and neither am I a theologian just want to talk about a puzzling and difficult doctrine which I think the Scripture demands that we meditate on.

So, with your kind tolerance, here we go.

 

[bogeydogg]

First off I want to define some terms as I understand them.

Predestinarianism- the idea that those who are saved are saved because God has chosen them to be saved by election. The saved do not choose to be saved and neither can they do anything to affect their salvation.

Double-Predestinarianism- the idea that those who are saved are saved because of election and those who are not saved are not, and never can be, elect. In other words, some are destined for heaven and some for hell because of God’s sovereign choice.

Election- the process by which God, by His own council, chooses to seek and save humanity whether a select few or by offering salvation to all.

Free will- the ability to make decisions without external coercion, however this does not preclude internal coercion by pre-existing proclivities.

Libertarian free will- the belief that all decisions are made from a position of moral neutrality.

Sovereignty- the right and ability of a sovereign to rule and reign his own domain.

 

[bogeydogg]

What I don’t believe.

I don’t believe in either predestinarianism or double-predestinarianism because by either method the absence of the free will of the sinner ultimately removes the guilt from the sinner. I do not believe however that God would be unjust if He did choose this modus operandi to save fallen humanity, however since the Bible absolutely does teach that human free will exists, it is rationally inconsistent to assert that human free will exists in every facet of our lives except salvation. If we are saved by faith (Eph.) even by faith alone, that faith is volitional and is a part of human free will and therefore cannot be absent from salvation.

I also do not believe that God relies solely on human free will so that some may be saved. I believe that the Bible very clearly teaches that God does elect to seek and to save and so this election would seem to indicate that we cannot, of ourselves, choose to be saved apart from any work of God, but rather that God has to, in some way, work to affect our salvation.

I do not believe that everybody will be saved. The reason is simple, Judas. Some people are going to Hell whether anyone likes it or not. And since Jesus taught extensively on Hell, I would prefer if we not devolve into whether or not Hell exists and instead take it as it does and thus not call our Lord a liar.

I do not think that God is unfair if some go to Hell and some go to heaven. I think that if God gave us what is fair, everyone would go to Hell (except maybe children) and God would be perfectly within His right to have done so. However, I do not want what is fair, I do not want what is just, I want mercy, and I am absolutely convinced that mercy is what allows some to go to heaven.

So the conundrum, if it is by mercy that some go to heaven, then is it also true that those who go to Hell have not received the same mercy?

I think the answer is no, and here’s why…

 

[bogeydogg]

What if election is internal instead of external. By this I mean, what if election is the agreement of God within the Godhead to seek and to save humanity regardless of human sin and failure. What if election has nothing to do with human volition (which I realize would be the Calvinist position) but had nothing to do whatever with head counting. In other words, what if election instead of being a crass sort of, “you, you and you… but not you” sort of procedure is instead God agreeing with Himself that He will seek and save lost sinners in spite of, not because of (which is the Arminian position), what they will do, and this decision of God is based on His own beneficence toward all the world and is not binding on us because it is not specific toward us.

If this is so, then could we not say that God could sovereignly elect to seek and to save but would not be placing an external burden upon us by His electing to seek and to save?

The reason why I think this is important is because we have free will. I think we must wrestle with free will because it seems readily apparent to me that the sovereign God of the universe sovereignly declared that we would have free will, and therefore we have free will. And it is not pretend free will or free will that means ‘x’ in one context and ‘y’ in another.

However, as St. Augustine said, we have free will, but our free will is naturally bent away from the things of God because of the Fall and our sinful natures. I am not subscribing to total depravity here, although total depravity does not mean utter depravity, what I am saying is that I, because of the effect of sin in my life, do not have a natural tendency in myself for the things of God. And here’s my supporting evidence…

All verses are from Douay-Rheims

John 8:42-45 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded and came. For I came not of myself: but he sent me. Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not.

Ephesians 2:1-3 And you, when you were dead in your offences and sins, Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief: In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:

cont…

 

[bogeydogg]

These verses would indicate that there is an essential difference between those who follow Christ in spirit and in truth and those who do not. I think they also indicate that the difference is that those who do not are dead, as in dead. You know… really dead. Our spirit because of our sins is dead. I am not arguing for Original Sin in the Calvinist context here where we are dead in sin from the day of our conception, rather I am arguing that sin is so severe that it kills the human spirit to the things of God.

For example from the CCC…

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back…

“Ah Hah!!!” We might say, “This only applies to mortal sin and not sin in general. Surely you are not suggesting that everyone commits such a serious sin?”

Well actually, I am. And here’s why.

Romans 1: 16-21 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth: to the Jew first and to the Greek. For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:
Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened.

Doesn’t the Apostle argue here that all men know God as God but refuse to worship Him and give thanks and because of that sin they become, “vain in their thoughts,” and have their, “foolish heart(s)… darkened.”?

If this is so, then do not all men choose to deliberately turn away from God and in doing so bring down on themselves the righteous judgment of God for this sin and thus become dead and incapable of saving themselves?

“But,” one may say, “if we are already dead then how can we realize that God is God if the things of the spirit are spiritually discerned (1Cor 2:14)?”

True enough, and that is where election comes in.

Cont…

 

[bogeydogg]

If God elects to save fallen humanity, and does so apart from His knowledge of our decision to consent of refute Him, then this election could be none other than the grace by which He makes it known to a fallen world that He is God and gives all men a chance to worship Him as God.

Such an act would be totally sovereign in nature because God does not have to give grace (being compelled to give grace makes grace not grace) but God, by giving grace to all men would not violate their volition because such an act is a presentation of a choice and is independent of both coercion and the reaction to the choice. In other words, God would not only offer salvation to those whom He knew would accept it but to all men so that He is glorified in mercy by those who worship Him and glorified in judgment toward those who harden their hearts and refuse Him.

In this fashion God could sovereignly choose to seek and to save and man could of his own free will refuse God and thus commit, knowingly, a grievous sin and condemn himself before a holy God.

God does not have to foreordain the outcome of this interaction between God and man and neither does He need be dependent on man’s reaction to decide what to do. Rather man decides for himself his own destiny and God can judge man in mercy or wrath without having robbed him of the free will which the Lord chose to give to him.

So…

Thoughts?