Saturday, December 03, 2005
Looking At Election
Once again, it all comes together. Adrian Warnock had a conversation on calvinism which sent his searching and he found a Challies look at Romans 9 in the archives. Seemingly simultaneously John Samson over at Reformed Theology exegeted the same passage. Both gentlemen are defending the doctrine of election, and the posts make many of the same points.
Much as I am a calvinist and agree with the posts, I found them unsatisfactory, while they answered many of the possible objections to the doctrine of election, they did not ask, at least directly, let alone answer what is for me the essential question -- "On what basis does God decide who is and who is not elect?"
The answer, of course, is "We don't know" -- no, that's not quite right -- "We can't know." Is that an intellectual cheat, a non-answer? Maybe, but it is an answer in which I revel. Think about this -- what good is a God that I can understand? Think how silly the "gods" of the old mythology (Greek, Roman, Norse...) appear to us. They are little more than people writ large -- comic book superheroes. A god whose motivations and judgements are understandable - and human-like, is a god of a most unsatisfactory kind.
Think about the state of our world. Consider the judgements and motivations of those around you. Do things look like they are working well to you? Forget the big stuff like genocide and terrorism and think about the little stuff in your everyday world - the petty jealousies, the failures to perform, the self-centeredness. Can you possible expect a god subject to those sorts of things to render judgement in a just or even fair manner? Of course not! Have you ever met another person whose judgement you would trust to decide everything? I hope not.
No, I take great comfort in the fact that I cannot possibly understand the basis on which God makes his decisions, for it means that I worship a God that is worthy of the name. It means that I worship a God that at least has a chance of making those decisions in a just and fair manner, because if I could understand His judgement I could be assured it would not be so.
The question itself belies the problem and the problem is our presumption of godlike status. Asking the question is an act of placing ourselves where only God ought to be.
In the end, the doctrine of election is comforting because it is based on a God that I can rely upon.
Much as I am a calvinist and agree with the posts, I found them unsatisfactory, while they answered many of the possible objections to the doctrine of election, they did not ask, at least directly, let alone answer what is for me the essential question -- "On what basis does God decide who is and who is not elect?"
The answer, of course, is "We don't know" -- no, that's not quite right -- "We can't know." Is that an intellectual cheat, a non-answer? Maybe, but it is an answer in which I revel. Think about this -- what good is a God that I can understand? Think how silly the "gods" of the old mythology (Greek, Roman, Norse...) appear to us. They are little more than people writ large -- comic book superheroes. A god whose motivations and judgements are understandable - and human-like, is a god of a most unsatisfactory kind.
Think about the state of our world. Consider the judgements and motivations of those around you. Do things look like they are working well to you? Forget the big stuff like genocide and terrorism and think about the little stuff in your everyday world - the petty jealousies, the failures to perform, the self-centeredness. Can you possible expect a god subject to those sorts of things to render judgement in a just or even fair manner? Of course not! Have you ever met another person whose judgement you would trust to decide everything? I hope not.
No, I take great comfort in the fact that I cannot possibly understand the basis on which God makes his decisions, for it means that I worship a God that is worthy of the name. It means that I worship a God that at least has a chance of making those decisions in a just and fair manner, because if I could understand His judgement I could be assured it would not be so.
The question itself belies the problem and the problem is our presumption of godlike status. Asking the question is an act of placing ourselves where only God ought to be.
In the end, the doctrine of election is comforting because it is based on a God that I can rely upon.
