I PARTTEN
4. The decree to choose some to receive this salvation.42
Arminianism
Arminianism is a term which covers a large number of subpositions.
It may range all the way from the evangelical views of Arminius himself to left-wing liberalism. Arminius maintained that man is sinful and un- able to do good in his own strength.43 Extreme liberalism, however, dis- counts the human tendency to sin and, consequently, denies that man needs to be regenerated. 44 Arminianism also includes conventional
40. Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 789-90.
41. Benjamin B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942), p.31.
42. Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 778-79.
43. Arminius, Writings, vol. 1, pp. 252-53.
44. Eugene W. Lyman, Theology and Human Problems (New York: Scribner, 1910), pp. 190-98.
The Antecedent to Salvation: Predestination
919
Roman Catholicism with its emphasis on the necessity of works in the process of salvation. For the most part, we will be considering the more conservative or evangelical form of Arminianism, but we will construe it in a fashion broad enough to encompass the position of most Arminians.
While statements of the Arminian view vary to some degree, there is a logical starting point: the concept that God desires all persons to be saved.45 Arminians point to some definite assertions of Scripture. God made clear in the Old Testament that he did not desire the death of anyone, including the wicked: “Say to them, As I live, says the Lord
GOD,I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, 0 house of Israel?” (Ezek. 33:ll). That God finds no pleasure in the death of sinners is also clear from Peter’s statement, “The Lord is not slow about his promises as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Paul echoes a similar sentiment: “God our Savior
. . .desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4). This is also precisely what Paul declared to the Athenians: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he com- mands all men everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17~30-3 1). Note particularly the two occurrences of
“all” (7&r).
It is not only in didactic statements, but in the universal character of many of Gods commands and exhortations that his desire for the salva- tion of the entire human race is seen. The Old Testament contains universal invitations; for instance, “Ho, every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat!” (Isa. 551).
Jesus’ invitation was similarly without restriction: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). These and like passages are so strong and clear that even as staunch a Calvinist as Boettner has to concede, “It is true that some verses taken in them- selves do seem to imply the Arminian position.“46 If, contrary to what these verses seem to imply, it is not God’s intent that all persons be saved, he must be insincere in his offer.
A second major conception of Arminianism is that all persons are able to believe or to meet the conditions of salvation. If this were not the case, the universal invitations to salvation would make little sense. But is there
45. Samuel Wakefield, A Complete System of Christian Theology (Cincinnati: Hitch- cock and Walden, 1869), pp. 387,392.
46. Boettner, Predestination, p. 295.
920 Salvation The Antecedent to Salvation: Predestination
room in theology for the concept that all persons are able to believe?
There is, if we modify or eliminate the idea of the total depravity of sinners. Or like Wesley and others, we might adopt the concept of “pre- venient grace.” It is this latter position that will occupy our attention here.47
As generally understood, prevenient grace is grace that is given by God to all men indiscriminately. It is seen in God’s sending the sunshine and the rain upon all. It is also the basis of all the goodness found in men everywhere. Beyond that, it is universally given to counteract the effect of sin. Henry Thiessen put it thus: “Since mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing to obtain salvation, God gra- ciously restores to all men sufficient ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to Him. This is the salvation-bringing grace of God that has appeared to all men.“48 Since God has given this grace to all, everyone is capable of accepting the offer of salvation; consequently, there is no need for any special application of God’s grace to particular individuals.
A third basic concept is the role of foreknowledge in the election of persons to salvation. For the most part, Arminians desire to retain the term eZection and the idea that individuals are foreordained to salvation.
This means that God must prefer some people to others. In the Arminian view, he chooses some to receive salvation, whereas he merely passes the others by. Those who are predestined by God are those who in his infinite knowledge he is able to foresee will accept the offer of salvation made in Jesus Christ. This view is based upon the close connection in Scripture between foreknowledge and foreordination or predestination.
The primary passage appealed to is Romans 8:29: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.” A supporting text is 1 Peter l:l-2, where Peter addresses the “elect, . . . who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father”
(NIV). In the former instance, the key word for our consideration is the verb rrpoy~vcja~w; in the latter, its noun form 7rpbyvwa~s. Both references represent foreordination as based upon and resulting from foreknowl- edge.49
Finally, the Arminian raises objections to the Calvinistic understanding of predestination as unconditional or absolute. Some of these are prac- tical rather than theoretical in nature. Many of them reduce down to the 47. Richard Watson, Theological Institutes; or, A View of the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals, and Institutions of Christianity (New York: Lane and Scott, ISSO), vol. 2, p. 377.
48. Henry C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1%49), pp. 344-45.
49. H. Orton Wiley, Christian p. 351.
Theology(Kansas City, MO.: Beacon Hill, 1958), vol. 2,
921 idea that Calvinism is fatalistic. If God has determined everything that is to occur, does it really make any difference what humans do? Ethical behavior becomes irrelevant. If we are elect, does it matter how we live?
We will be saved regardless of our actions. Mildred Wynkoop sums up Arminianism as “an ethical protest against the antinomian tendencies of Calvinism. If men are in every way determined by predestination, the ethical demands of holiness are not relevant to the Christian life.“50
A further objection is that Calvinism negates any missionary or evan- gelistic impulse. If God has already chosen who will be saved, and their number cannot be increased, then what is the point of preaching the gospel? The elect will be saved anyway, and neither more nor less than the appointed number will come to Christ. So why bother to raise funds, send missionaries, preach the gospel, or pray for the lost? Such activities must surely be exercises in futility.5l
The last objection is that the Calvin&tic doctrine of decrees is a contradiction to human freedom. The thoughts that we have, the choices that vire make, and the actions that we carry out are not really our doing.
God has from all eternity foreordained them. If that is the case, we could not have done anything other than what we in fact did. Our actions are not really free; they are caused by an external force, namely, God. And so we are not really human in the traditional sense of that word. We are automatons, robots, or machines. This, however, contradicts everything that we know about ourselves and the way in which we regard others as well. There is no point in God’s commending us for having done good, or rebuking us for having done evil, for we could not have done otherwise.52
Karl Barth
Because of the difficulty in understanding the doctrine of predestina- tion, and because of the problems attached to the two classic views, there have been, down through the years of church history, attempts to for- mulate a less troublesome position. Of the many constructions which have been developed to give a choice other than the two classic views, one of the most interesting was posed in the twentieth century by Karl Barth. As a Reformed theologian, Barth quite naturally desired to treat this puzzling topic, which he regarded as basic and central to all of theology. He felt, however, that his tradition had misunderstood the biblical witness here. Conscious that he was departing from the conven-
50. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology (Kansas
City, MO.: Beacon Hill, 1967), p. 65.
5 I. John Wesley, “Free Grace,” in The Works of John Wesley, vol. 7, p. 376.
52. Wakefield, Complete Systenz, pp. 326-35; Wesley, “Free Grace,” pp. 376-77.
j I
I
I
922 Salvation
tional Reformed position, he followed in his treatment of predestination the principle which is fundamental to all of his theology, the centrality of Jesus Christ.
Barth’s doctrine of election begins with a critique of the traditional Calvinist position that God in eternity determined in a final and absolute fashion who is to be saved and who is to be lost. He regards this position as a misreading of the Bible, a misreading based upon a metaphysical belief that God’s relationship to the universe is static-certain individuals have from all eternity been chosen and others rejected, and this cannot be altered. Barth admits that the older theologians went to the Bible, especially Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. They did not read the Bible in the right way, however, nor did they choose the right starting point. What must be done is to read the Bible christologically, making Jesus Christ the starting point for the doctrine.53
If we would formulate a doctrine of predestination, says Barth, we must do so in the light of Gods work of revelation and atonement.s4 Here we encounter the fact that Jesus Christ came to save men. Barth main- tains that there is an intricate connection between the fact that Christ is at the center of Gods work within time and the eternal foreordaining of that work in the divine election. 55 If this is the case, God’s will was to elect, not reject men. The incarnation is proof that God is for men, not against them. He has chosen them, not rejected them.
When Barth comes to ask who has been chosen by God, this christo- logical basis continues. In place of the static, fixed, and absolute decree found in Calvin’s thought, Barth substitutes the person of Christ. This is the essential modification which he makes in the traditional view of predestination. 56 The major point in his conception of predestination is that the eternal will of God is the election of Jesus Christ. We are not to look for some will of God beyond or behind the work that he has done within history through Christ. As Barth sees it, the traditional view re- garded God’s will as an unchangeable decree formed from eternity; he was bound to carry out this will within time. Barth posits a more dy- namic view: God, like a king, is free to correct, suspend, or replace his decree.s7 Barth speaks of a ‘holy mutability” of God; he is not a prisoner of his own decree in such a fashion as to lead to virtual deism. The unchanging element is not, in Barth’s view, an eternal choice of some 53. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1957), ~01.2, part 2, PP.
145-48.
54. Ibid., p. 174.
55. Ibid., p. 149.
56. Ibid., p. 161.
57. Ibid., p. 181.
The Antecedent to Salvation: Predestination 923
and rejection of others. It is the constancy of God in his triune being as freely chosen love.
The choice of Jesus Christ is not as an isolated individual, however.
For in him the entire human race has been chosen.5* But even this is not the whole of the doctrine of election, for Christ is not merely the elected man; he is also the electing God. He freely obeyed the Father by electing to become man. Barth speaks of Christ as “the concrete and manifest form of the divine decision-the decision of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit-in favour of the covenant to be established between Him and
~3.“~~ Whenever Barth speaks of double predestination, he means that Jesus Christ is both the electing God and the elected man. There is also a duality of content which approximates the traditional understanding of double predestination. For in choosing to become man Christ chose
“reprobation, perdition, and death.”6o He voluntarily experienced rejec- tion by humanity; this is most vividly seen in the cross. He chose repro- bation for himself in choosing election and life for mankind.
For Barth, the beginning point in the discussion of election is, as we have seen, the election of Jesus Christ. Orthodox Reformed theology went wrong in part because it began with human individuals rather than the elected man and electing God, Jesus Christ. Between the election of Christ and of the individual, moreover, there is an intermediate election of the community, which exists to proclaim Jesus Christ and to call the world to faith in him.6* When Barth does turn to consider election of the individual as the third step in his discussion, he does not speak of double predestination. Rather, he speaks of a universal election. All human beings have been elected in Jesus Christ. This is not to say that Barth holds to universal salvation, a subject he deals with very cautiously without ever really committing himself. Although all are elect, not all live as elect. Some live as if they were rejected. This is of one’s own choosing and doing, however. The task of the elected community is to proclaim to such a person that “he belongs eternally to Jesus Christ and is therefore not rejected, but elected by God in Jesus Christ; that the rejection which he deserves on account of his perverse choice is borne and cancelled by Jesus Christ; and that he is appointed to eternal life with God on the basis of the righteous, divine decision.“62
There is no absolute difference between the elect and the rejected, the believers and the unbelievers, according to Barth, for all have been
58. Ibid., p. 229.
59. Ibid., p. 105.
60. Ibid., p. 163.
61. Ibid., p. 195.
62. Ibid., p. 306.
924 Salvation The Antecedent to Salvation: Predestination 925 elected. The former have realized the fact of their election and are living
in the light of it; the latter are still living as if they were not elect.63 Christians from a traditional background might wish to pry open the question of whether the rejected ones who are actually elect are also saved, but Barth will not open that tangled issue. The church should not take too seriously the unbelief of the rejected ones. In the ultimate sense, there is no rejection of man by God. God has in Christ chosen rejection for himself, but election for man.
A Suggested Solution
We must now attempt to arrive at some conclusions regarding the nettlesome matter of the decrees of God with respect to salvation. Note that we are not dealing here with the whole matter of the decrees of God in general. In other words, we are not considering whether God renders certain every event that occurs within all of time and within the entire universe. That question has already been raised and dealt with in chapter 16 of this work. Here we are concerned merely with the issue of whether some are singled out by God to be special recipients of his grace. To be sure, the broader question may have to be faced as we proceed, but at present it is a secondary issue.
We begin with an examination of the biblical data. Scripture speaks of election in several different senses. Election sometimes refers to God’s choice of Israel as his specially favored people. It occasionally points to the selection of individuals to special positions of privilege and service, and, of course, to selection to salvation. In view of the varied meanings of election, any attempt to limit our discussion to only one of them will inevitably result in a truncation of the topic.
The vocabulary of predestination needs to be closely examined. There are several relevant terms in both Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew la?
(buchar) and the Greek i~hi~opm are roughly equivalent terms. They refer to God’s choosing or selecting from the human race certain persons for a special relationship to himself.b4 The Greek verb rrpoopi<w refers to predetermining or fixing beforehand.65 Not all of its occurrences are in
63. Ibid., p. 350.
64. Francis-Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OId Testament (New York: Oxford University, 1955), pp. 103-04; Lothar Coenen,
“Elect, Choose,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), vol. 1, pp. 536-43.
65. G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh:
T. and T. Clark, 1937), p. 382; Paul Jacobs and Hartmut Krienke, “Foreknowledge, Provi- dence, Predestination,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, pp. 695-96.
connection with ultimate destiny, however. The verb 7rpo7ieqp~ and noun
~p68tm~ refer to planning, purposing, or resolving to do something.66 All of these terms convey the idea of initiating an action.
Prior to investigating the Bible’s teaching that God has specially chosen some to have eternal life, it is important to consider its vivid picture of the lostness, blindness, and inability of humans in their natural state to respond in faith to the opportunity for salvation. In Romans, especially chapter 3, Paul depicts the human race as hopelessly separated from God because of their sin. They are unable to do anything to extricate themselves from this condition, and in fact, being quite blind to their situation, have no desire to do so. Calvinists and conservative Arminians agree on this. It is not merely that humans cannot in their natural state do good works of a type that would justify them in God’s sight. Beyond that, they are afflicted with spiritual blindness (Rom. 1: 18-23; 2 Cor. 4:3- 4) and insensitivity. Jesus described their plight vividly when he explained that he spoke in parables to fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy: “You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive.
For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them” (Matt. 13:14-E, quoting Isa. 6:9-10). Paul makes clear that spiritual inability is a universal condition true of Jews and Gentiles alike: “Xll men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God”’ (Rom. 3:9-l 1).
If this is the case, it follows that no one would ever respond to the gospel call without some special action by God. It is here that many Arminians, recognizing human inability as taught in the Scripture, intro- duce the concept of prevenient grace, which is believed to have a univer- sal effect nulli&ing the noetic results of sin, thus making belief possible.
The problem is that there is no clear and adequate basis in Scripture for this concept of a universal enablement. The theory, appealing though it is in many ways, simply is not taught explicitly in the Bible.
Brought back to the question of why some believe, we do find an impressive collection of texts suggesting that God has selected some to be saved, and that our response to the offer of salvation depends upon this prior decision and initiative by God. For example, in connection with Jesus’ explaining that he spoke in parables so that some would hear but not understand, we observe that he went on to say to the disciples, “But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear” (Matt.
66. Abbott-Smith, Lexicon, pp. 380, 390; Jacobs and Krienke, “Foreknowledge,”
pp. 696-97.