By implication of the examples he cited to buttress his argument, it is obvious that Paul did not understand God’s election as an arbitrary selection. After all, Isaac was chosen over Ishmael because he was justified by faith; and Jacob was chosen over Esau, again, because he pursued holiness even at material cost.
God’s election is better conceived as a response to the faith and the obedience that comes from it of human beings, than as a unilateral, enabling action on God’s part.
Thus it was not that Isaac had faith and Ishmael did not because God elected the former and not the latter; it was rather because Isaac had faith and Ishmael did not that God elected the former and not the latter. It is the same with Esau and Jacob.
And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
- Romans 9:10-13
Emphasis mine.
Why, then, do verses 11 through 13 speak of God’s election as being from eternity? This is because while God does not dictate human actions, in His divine foreknowledge He knows what every single human being will do. Knowing everything that people will do, He has elected those who will have faith and the obedience of faith and He has not elected or rejected those who will not. Thus God elected Jacob and rejected Esau even before they were born.
Middle Knowledge anyone? Is God limited by His creatures? How is it that Man has to be absolutely free, but the same cannot be said of his Creator?
Can the Ethiopian change his skin
or the leopard his spots?
Then also you can do good
who are accustomed to do evil.
- Jeremiah 13:23
This is a hard truth to accept, that in my natural state I will not and a cannot do good. Such is the evil in men's hearts that Paul himself, quoting from the Old Testament, could declare "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Rom 3:10-12)
The proud man cannot accept this. He constantly reasons that he is not as bad as others. While he may speak of grace and faith, he holds that such faith originates from himself, from his own power. Why all this clamoring over the "free will" of Man? Does it solve anything? Does it bring greater glory to God? Far from it! While supposedly absolving God from calamities and "evil", unless you subscribe to an Open Theistic view, you still cannot run away from the problem it purports to solve. If anything, it simply gives Man an additional, though subtle, avenue for boasting. I chose Christ! I chose to respond! I made the decision to accept Him. It was MY decision that made the difference.
Is there a response of the will in salvation? Most definitely. This is not a denial of the will, but a recognition that apart from a gracious work of God in a sinner (cf. Ezekiel 36), that sinner will willfully remain lost in his sin and love it.
No comments:
Post a Comment