Monday, April 30, 2018

What Does Your Proof Text Prove? (9)

It is never a good thing to be on the wrong side of a theological question. Sometimes it’s disastrous.

But it’s also possible to be on the right side of a question while making the wrong sort of argument: one that cannot be substantiated or does not prove your point.

Kent Rieske is trying to make the case that the Calvinistic definition of “election” is not a biblical one. I’d argue his basic thesis is correct.

The Elect Obtaining Salvation

On the other hand, I’m not sure this verse helps his argument much:
“Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”
Rieske says this about Paul’s statement to Timothy:
“The following verse indicates that the Gentiles are the elect but have not yet obtained salvation. Paul is hopeful that they may obtain salvation, but the wording shows the possibility they may not.”
Now, of course, from the Calvinist standpoint, there is no question of the elect obtaining salvation. They can’t very well do anything else, since God has already unilaterally determined their fate. A deterministic view of salvation demands we recognize that all Paul’s efforts here are wasted: this good thing he wishes to happen is inevitable anyway. Why knock himself out?

This is one contradiction in the Calvinist reading of the passage that Kent Rieske is correctly at pains to point out, and he does a good job of drawing it to our attention. One thing I really like about Rieske’s point of view is that he sees the “elect” as a group, rather than speaking about individual “election” (or the lack thereof). The difficulties raised by neo-Calvinists about many similar New Testament passages (such as Romans 9) disappear when we recognize that the references to God’s sovereign choices that we find there are in fact corporate. They have nothing to do with individual freedom of choice. Bravo Kent.

The Gentile Elect

Still, the alert Calvinist will point out that there’s nothing in the passage that limits Paul’s statement to unsaved Gentiles. The Gentiles are a subset of the elect, not its sum total. While he spoke plainly of being “an apostle to the Gentiles”, the book of Acts shows him going to synagogues first in city after city, and many Jews were brought to faith in Christ through his ministry. What Rieske claims is certainly possible, but it’s not a point the text makes explicitly.

Further, I’m not sure that the “election” Paul is referring to here is limited to a moment of saving faith. In the New Testament, the words “salvation” and “saved” have a broad scope and encompass various ongoing aspects of the process by which God is making believers over in the image of his Son. When we come across such language, the first question out of our mouths ought to be “Saved from what exactly?” Christ’s work indeed “saves” us from an eternity in hell, but it also opens the door to saving us from self and spiritual immaturity, from the futility of dead works, from the effects of sin in the Christian life, from ineffectual service, from failure to display Christ adequately, from the domain of darkness, from the power of sin, from the judgment of this world and ultimately even from the presence of sin and the influence of a fallen world. And more, no doubt.

Ongoing Salvation

So while in one sense salvation is accomplished in a moment, in another it is very much an ongoing process throughout the Christian life. We were saved, we are being saved, and one day we will be completely saved.

In its first and most important aspect, salvation is something Christ obtained for me. I could have received it no other way. In another sense, though already “in Christ” by faith, salvation is something I must go and obtain throughout this life, in the strength he provides, by applying his word to my life and obeying the promptings of his Spirit. I can be saved from judgment and hell, but fail to fully enter into and enjoy the salvation that has been purchased for me.

Thus, when the scripture speaks of “obtaining” salvation, we should not think merely of salvation from God’s judgment and a moment of decision unless the passage in question specifically warrants that reading.

Here it does not. In fact, Paul specifically states that the salvation he has in view is not just “in Christ Jesus” but “with eternal glory”. The he goes on to add, “If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him.” He sees this salvation as an ongoing package incorporating a number of aspects of Christian deliverance.

A Bundle of Blessing

It is to this great bundle of blessing that we are said to be “elect”, and therefore it is not just possible but likely that when Paul speaks here of enduring “everything for the elect”, he does not mean merely unsaved Gentiles whom he hopes may one day enter the kingdom of heaven, but those who had already believed and were in the process of being “saved” in other ways. Indeed, this was a huge part of Paul’s ministry and the reason he endured: not just to bring the gospel message but to stay and work through the ongoing salvatory implications of that message with those who had already believed it. In fact, this is what most of his letters are concerned with: not so much encouraging his readers to accept Christ and be “saved”, but to urge them, in the words of C.S. Lewis, “further up” and “further in” to a salvation in which they had already begun.

Thus, while I don’t think you can use this passage to effectively make the point the Calvinists would like to make, I’m not sure the way Kent Rieske is using it gets to Paul’s apparent intent either.

It is unwarranted to limit the verse to a specific point about a moment of faith to which one is individually selected. It is equally unwarranted to apply it exclusively to Gentiles or to think in a narrow way about the sort of salvation that is in view.

2 comments :

  1. 'from the Calvinist standpoint, there is no question of the elect obtaining salvation'. Does this apply only to Calvinists? However, one understands 'the elect' is it possible for one who is elect not to obtain salvation?

    'One thing I really like about Rieske’s point of view is that he sees the “elect” as a group, rather than speaking about individual “election” (or the lack thereof).' But the word 'elect' in 2 Tim 2:10 is not singular but plural, as is invariably the case eg. Mt 24:22,24,31; Mk 13:21,22,27; Lk 18:7; Rom 8:33; Col 3:12; Tit 1:1; 1 Pet 1:2. When the singular is used it refers not to a group but to an individual (Rom 16:13) and possibly 2Jn 1,13 (although this may refer to the church). A different word also translated 'election' or 'elect' is found in the singular in Rom 11:7 but even there it seems to point to a collection of individuals since the verse goes on the say that 'the rest (plural) were hardened.

    'The following verse indicates that the Gentiles are the elect but have not yet obtained salvation. Paul is hopeful that they may obtain salvation, but the wording shows the possibility they may not.' Does the verse necessarily imply uncertainty? If indeed God has His elect and preaching is God's appointed means whereby they might come to salvation, does it not make senses that one would desire to cooperate with God in what He desired to do, even if it involved suffering. A case in point is where the Lord tells Paul not to be afraid in Corinth but to speak because 'I am with you,and no one will attack you to hurt you, for I have many people in this city' (Acts 18:9-10). The fact that He had many people in the city was an incentive to preach, not a deterrent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent points, Bill. Thank you for taking the time to comment.

      Delete