Theology Pathfinder

Tag: predestination

  • The Earliest Church Fathers on Election and Predestination (Part Two: Apostolic Fathers)

    The Earliest Church Fathers on Election and Predestination (Part Two: Apostolic Fathers)

    Christians have long wrestled with the subject of how God’s plans and actions in salvation interact with human responsibility and choice. And it is common for proponents of any theological system to appeal to the writings of theologians from the early church to support their views. After all, we should pay attention to how those who learned the gospel within a generation or two from Christ’s apostles talk about salvation, seeing as they are closer to the source.

    In the previous post, we looked at the writings associated with Clement of Rome, one of the earliest sources outside of the New Testament. Today we’ll turn our attention to the rest of those writings traditionally labelled the Apostolic Fathers.

    The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (around AD 110)

    Ignatius was bishop of the church in Antioch, and was famously martyred in Rome in the early years of the second century. On his way to martyrdom, he wrote seven letters to churches throughout the empire. These letters are primarily situational and practical, and as such they don’t delve too deeply into theological topics like election. But there are still numerous incidental references to it.

    In several of the letters’ openings, Ignatius refers to his audience as those who are elect of God. He writes that the church at Ephesus was “predestined before the ages for lasting and unchangeable glory forever, united and elect through genuine suffering by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God” (Ephesians, Salutation). [1] Ignatius seems to take a very high view of God’s action in choosing his church, more so than what we saw in the Clementine writings.

    This does not mean, however, that Ignatius thinks God’s actions leave no room for human choice, or that God limits his grace only to a select few. He encourages prayer for all non-believers (“the rest of humankind”), “that they may find God, for there is in them hope for repentance” (Ephesians 10:1). In Ephesians 14:1-2 the bishop speaks of faith and love as necessary conditions for salvation: “faith is the beginning and love is the end. …For the work is a matter not of what one promises now, but of persevering to the end in the power of faith.” Elsewhere he writes that the life of Christ “is not in us unless we voluntarily choose to die into his suffering” (Magnesians 5:2).

    We also find again in Ignatius’s writings (as in Clement’s) several statements that seem to imply that individual believers must ratify their elect status through their lifestyle, and can only reach final salvation if they persevere in faith — and, as Ignatius in particular loves to emphasize, if they remain in union with the church under the authority of their bishop! He says in Ephesians 4:2 that church members must work toward unity and mutual submission “in order that [the Father] may both hear you and, on the basis of what you do well, acknowledge that you are members of his Son. It is, therefore, advantageous for you to be in perfect unity, in order that you may always have a share in God.”

    Nonetheless, Ignatius affirms that it is by God’s preparative grace that believers can, indeed, do the work of God: “because you are stones of a temple, prepared beforehand for the building of God the Father, hoisted up to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a rope the Holy Spirit; your faith is what lifts you up, and love is the way that leads up to God” (Ephesians 9:1).

    Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, Letter to the Philippians (around AD 110)

    Polycarp was the bishop of the church in Smyrna, a personal friend of Ignatius, and a disciple of the apostle John — quite a strong pedigree for this church father! We have only one surviving document from him — a letter to the church in Philippi, written on the occasion of Ignatius’ death.

    Polycarp is very beholden to Paul’s epistles, especially the pastorals. He builds most of the core of his teaching off of Paul’s instructions about church order and leadership qualifications from 1 Timothy. Along with that, he uses Pauline phraseology to refer to salvation, as when he writes: “knowing that by grace you have been saved, not because of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ” (1:3).

    He also maintains the balance of NT soteriology (and aligns closely with all the other Fathers) by stressing that faith must persevere and bear fruit to be genuine and result in final salvation:

    “But the one who raised him from the dead will raise us also, if we do his will and follow his commandments and love the things he loved, while avoiding every kind of unrighteousness…” (2:2).

    “If we please him in this present world, we will receive the world to come as well, inasmuch as he promised that he will raise us from the dead and that if we prove to be citizens worthy of him, we will also reign with him — if, that is, we continue to believe” (5:2).

    For Polycarp, as it was for Paul, faith is not just mental assent but a continuing loyalty or faithfulness. Final salvation is, again, contingent on perseverance in the faith.

    Also I should mention one unique use of election terminology in Polycarp’s epistle. In 1:1, he speaks of Christians suffering persecution (likely with his recently-martyred friend, Ignatius, in mind) as those “confined by chains suitable for saints, which are the diadems of those who are truly chosen by God and our Lord.” In other words, those who are willing to suffer the ultimate test for their faith are seen by Polycarp as having undoubtedly proven their elect status.

    The Epistle of Barnabas (between AD 70 and 132)

    The document traditionally called the “Epistle of Barnabas” is actually an anonymous tract that appears to have been composed to demonstrate how Christians are distinct from mainstream Judaism and, in fact, the true beneficiaries of the Jewish scriptures and covenants. With that focus, the concept of election comes to the fore in a few places.

    A couple of passages in Barnabas connect election to God’s foreknowledge of those who would believe in Christ. The first is in chapter 3:

    “So for this reason, brothers and sisters, the one who is very patient, when he foresaw how the people whom he had prepared in his beloved would believe in all purity, revealed everything to us in advance, in order that we might not shipwreck ourselves as proselytes to their law” (3:6).

    The last phrase is significant, in that it brings up the danger of returning to traditional Judaism as a way in which the elect could potentially “shipwreck” their faith (compare Hebrews 6:1-6; 1 Timothy 1:19). But also note that God’s work of preparing people through Christ (“his beloved”) is involved in their coming to faith. The other passage that mentions God’s foreknowledge is 6:14, which speaks of God fulfilling the prophecy of Ezekiel 11:19 and giving new hearts of flesh to those “whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw.”

    The phraseology here in Barnabas is quite pregnant, and leaves open to interpretation how much emphasis we should give to God’s work of preparing people vs. his foreknowing of people’s faith. However, other passages in Barnabas make quite clear that human volition is a major deciding factor.

    In keeping with the rest of the Apostolic Fathers, the author of Barnabas once again displays the idea that final salvation can be missed if Christians do not persevere in faith and good works, or if they fall into error. Indeed, Barnabas is even more extreme on this point.

    The author himself is merely “hoping to be saved” (1:3). Believers should “give very careful attention to our salvation, lest the evil one should cause some error to slip into our midst and thereby hurl us away from our life” (2:10). In 19:1 he says that “if any desire to make their way to the designated place, let them be diligent with respect to their works.” And in 21:6, he says we must be “seeking out what the Lord seeks from you and then doing it, in order that you may be found in the day of judgment.”

    To drive the point home, the failures of Israel in the OT are held up as the key example of the danger of apostasy — even for those who are called! — in chapter 4:

    “Let us never fall asleep in our sins, as if being ‘called’ were an excuse to rest, lest the evil ruler gain power over us and thrust us out of the kingdom of the Lord. Moreover consider this as well, my brothers and sisters: when you see that after such extraordinary signs and wonders were done in Israel, even then they were abandoned, let us be on guard lest we should be found to be, as it is written, ‘many called, but few chosen’” (4:13-14).

    Thus Barnabas, perhaps more than any other of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, seeks to enforce the idea that the believer’s calling is conditional and must be maintained through much effort in order to ensure final inclusion among the elect (compare 2 Peter 1:10).

    The Shepherd of Hermas (between AD 90 and 154)

    The last text we’ll examine today is The Shepherd of Hermas, a complex writing that contains a mix of apocalyptic and allegorical visions intended to promote ethical living in the church. The Shepherd was one of the most popular Christian works in the first few centuries of the church, though we know little about its author other than that he appears to have been a Gentile freedman living in or near Rome and involved with the church there.

    Some of the earliest Church Fathers (including Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen) treated Hermas as authoritative Scripture, and even Athanasius (who was highly influential in shaping the canon as we know it) encouraged new believers to read it as discipleship material. (The analogy I’ve often heard is that The Shepherd of Hermas is a bit like an ancient equivalent to The Pilgrim’s Progress.)

    Seeing as it focuses more on Christian ethics and growth in virtue, Hermas does not discuss the topics of election or predestination in any great detail. But when the topic of salvation is discussed, the emphasis is almost entirely on the side of human volition. Indeed, one of the most striking teachings of the book is that if people “repent with all their heart, they will be enrolled with the saints in the books of life” (Vision 1.3:2). [2] According to Hermas, God gives repentance to those he foresees are “about to serve him with all their heart” (Similitude 8.6:2). Thus, there is no doubt that whoever wrote Hermas believed salvation was contingent on human choice.

    That doesn’t mean God’s grace is absent from the discussion. God is said to have, in his mercy, “instilled righteousness in you in order that you may be justified and sanctified from all evil and all perversity” (Vision 3.9:1; cf 4.3:5). However, and in keeping with every other writing thus far, perseverance in this sanctity is necessary in order to reach final salvation (Vision 1.3:4; 2.3:2; Mandate 7.1; 8.7-12; Similitude 6.1:3; 8.8:2; 8.11:1). Mandate 10.2:5 even warns that continued sin might cause the Holy Spirit to leave a believer! According to Similitude 8.6:3, God’s seal on believers can be broken. Hermas mentions apostasy and blasphemy against the Spirit as being the unforgivable sins (Similitude 6.2:3; 9.26:5; cf. Hebrews 6:1-6; 1 John 5:16).

    In Vision 3 chapter 8, Hermas sees a vision of different Christian virtues personified as women building a tower. The first and foundational virtue is Faith, and “through her God’s elect are saved” (Vision 3.8:3). However, the other virtues are described as also being necessary in order for one to be included in the church and final salvation. Faith must be supplemented with and expressed through a life of virtue (compare 2 Peter 1:3-11; see also Vision 4.2:4; Similitude 9.13:2).

    In a later passage, Hermas is told to go and preach “to all people, in order that they may repent and live to God, for the Lord in his compassion sent me to give repentance to all, though some, because of their deeds, do not deserve to be saved” (Similitude 8.11:1). In other words, the offer of salvation is universal. In that same verse, we’re told that God “wants those who were called through his Son to be saved,” implying in context that even those who are called could miss salvation if they don’t repent in time (much like in Barnabas).

    Thus, we may notice a trend in each of the writings from the century after the New Testament was written: all of these Christian thinkers viewed the believer’s calling and election as something that was contingent on their choices. One’s willingness to live a life of obedience to God in Christ and to persevere in the faith was the deciding factor, and even the most sincere believer could be at risk of failing to attain final salvation by committing apostasy.

    While none of the Apostolic Fathers writes in any kind of detailed, systematic fashion about how election works or whether God’s initial justification of a Christian is unconditional, they unanimously assert the contingency of final salvation. And their understanding of God’s offer of repentance is that it is genuinely universal, extended to all people and effective for those who believe (which is foreknown by God).

    When we turn in a future post to look at the early Christian Apologists from the second century, such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, we will see an even more explicit emphasis on this universal offer of salvation and the freedom of humanity to accept or reject it. Indeed, in the face of the prevailing Greek notions of Fate, the Christian Apologists’ constant refrain will be that every person is responsible for his or her own choices, “for there is no coercion with God.”

    [1] All quotations of the Fathers are from Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd ed. (Baker Academic, 2009).

    [2] The Shepherd of Hermas is divided into three sections — the Visions, the Mandates (or Commandments), and the Similitudes (or Parables). Citations of Hermas typically include references to these divisions, with chapters and verses in each Vision, Mandate, or Similitude (e.g., Vision 1, chapter 3, verse 2).

  • The Earliest Church Fathers’ Views on Election and Predestination (Part One: Clement of Rome)

    The Earliest Church Fathers’ Views on Election and Predestination (Part One: Clement of Rome)

    One topic that’s of perennial interest to Christians is the question of how God’s role in saving people intersects with human choice. How does God’s sovereignty (or, more accurately, his providence) relate to human responsibility?

    The question arises because the Bible speaks of God’s choosing (or election) of certain people to salvation (Eph 1:3-4; Acts 13:48; Mark 13:20; 2 Thes 2:13), while at the same time speaking of people’s need to repent and put their faith in Christ in order to be saved (Mark 1:15; John 3:18; Acts 2:38; 16:30-31), as well as of God’s desire that all should be saved (Ezek 18:23; 1 Tim 2:3-4; 2 Pet 3:9). And Christians have come to all sorts of different conclusions when it comes to putting this data together. That’s why you have Calvinists and Arminians, Thomists and Molinists, Provisionalists, Universalists, and everything in between!

    Well, in my recent read-through of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, I’ve been doing my best to note any place where they discuss this important topic, in an effort to understand how the first few generations of Christians viewed the matter.

    Now, the common question some folks will ask is: Why should we even care what the early Church Fathers thought, since they’re not Scripture?

    Even though I would agree that Scripture should be decisive as the church’s ultimate source of doctrine, it’s still important to see how these ancient believers thought about things, for several reasons:

    1) They lived much closer to the time of the apostles than we do. Some of them even knew the apostles or their immediate successors personally. They had a near-firsthand exposure to the teachings of the apostles themselves, without much time for confusion, debates, and too much cultural baggage to slip into the conversation on this topic.

    2) They revered the Scriptures just as much as devout Christians do today (if not more so), and one gets the sense from their writings that they did their level best to ground their teachings in the Scriptures as they had them. These thinkers built their own arguments upon biblical texts and concepts.

    3) The later theologians you may be more familiar with, like Luther or Calvin, also all read the Church Fathers and frequently appealed to them to support their interpretations! These writings were often crucial in later debates on the topic, so it behooves us to have some familiarity with what they actually teach — especially so that whenever we come across modern teachers attempting to press them into service for a later doctrinal system, we can see if they’re actually doing justice to the Fathers’ own views in their context.

    So, even though it’s easy to think that we should ignore these guys and only look at the Bible, we must all step back and remember that no one approaches Scripture as a blank slate. We all bring our own preconceived notions, as well as the conditioning of centuries of debate, with us when we look at the text of Scripture.

    So it can be extraordinarily helpful to check our interpretations against those who have gone before — and who, in the case of the Church Fathers, were so much closer to the source than us. All the more so whenever we can find a clear consensus among all of them on a particular topic.

    In this post and the next, we’ll look at the Apostolic Fathers — those writings from within the first hundred years of Jesus’ ministry, whose authors were alive early enough to have known the apostles. This will let us get a sense for how those very first few generations of Christian thinkers understood the subject of election.

    1 Clement (between AD 70-97)

    The language of “election” or of “God’s elect” is common throughout 1 Clement, a letter written from Rome to the church in Corinth to quell a recent schism between older church leaders and younger church members. This epistle is especially important theologically since it is one of the earliest writings outside the NT, and its author draws attention to his status as being in the same generation as the apostles Peter and Paul (5:1-5), both of whom were martyred there at Rome. Early tradition and manuscript evidence identify this author as Clement, one of the earliest successors of these apostles and an overseer of the church of Rome. First Clement was also one of the few writings we’ll look at that very nearly made it into the NT.

    In 1:1, Clement describes schism in the church as “alien and strange to those chosen by God.” [1] Here we get our first indicator that the language of God’s elect/chosen is being used by Clement primarily as a reference to the church as a chosen community, not necessarily to individuals.

    Later references in the letter will bear this out — especially in chapters 29-30, where Clement explicitly identifies the Church as being in continuity with the nation of Israel as God’s chosen community. He writes,

    “Let us, therefore, approach him in holiness of soul, lifting up to him pure and undefiled hands, loving our gentle and compassionate Father who made us his own chosen portion. For thus it is written: ‘When the Most High divided the nations, when he dispersed the sons of Adam, he fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. His people, Jacob, became the Lord’s portion, and Israel his inherited allotment‘ [Deut 32:8-9 LXX]. And in another place it says: ‘Behold, the Lord takes for himself a nation out of the midst of the nations, as a man takes the first fruits of his threshing floor; and the Holy of Holies will come forth from that nation.’ Seeing then that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all the things that pertain to holiness…” (1 Clement 29:3-30:1. emphasis added).

    Toward the end of the letter, in 59:3, Clement says that from among all the nations God has chosen those who love him through Jesus Christ. And in 64:1, he writes that God “chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through him, to be his own special people…”

    This is a perfectly concise statement of a corporate understanding of election, where Jesus is God’s elect one, and those who love Jesus and put their faith in him become included in the elect community, the church. Such an understanding of election flows naturally out of the theology of Israel’s election as a chosen nation from the OT, to which concepts Clement has already clearly referred.

    There’s more we can say about election in 1 Clement. In chapter 2, Clement reminds the Corinthian believers of an earlier time when they were doing much better spiritually. He writes in verse 4, “You struggled night and day on behalf of all the family of believers, that through fear and conscientiousness the number of his elect might be saved.” Again, note the parallel between God’s elect and “the family of believers” — that is, the church.

    Clement’s words suggest that while he believes God has a number of elect in mind, individuals may or may not attain to elect status (and to salvation). At a later point, Clement says he’s going to pray and intercede for an end to the Corinthian schism so that the full number of the elect can arrive at salvation intact (59:2). And just before that, in 58:2, he says it is those who persevere in obedience to God who will be “enrolled and included among the number of those who are saved through Jesus Christ.”

    The fact that the “number of God’s elect” might be saved, depending on their perseverance and on the influence of other Christians, suggests that, for Clement, election is never a guaranteed thing. Believers must persevere in their allegiance to Christ to finally be counted among “the elect” as a group. This is further supported by his teaching in 11:1-2, where he cites Lot’s wife as an example of falling away from salvation through double-mindedness and turning back.

    We should also note 7:4-7, in which Clement says that Christ’s sacrifice “won for the whole world the grace of repentance,” and that “from generation to generation the Master [=God] has given an opportunity for repentance to those who desire to turn to him.” God’s offer of repentance and salvation, along with the ability to respond to that offer, are thus envisioned as universal and unlimited, rather than based on a prior, unconditional decree to save some individuals.

    At the same time, and lest we misunderstand Clement as teaching that people can work their way into God’s love, we should notice that his prayer in 59:3 expresses tremendous dependence on God’s grace and enablement for his people to know him. There is also a beautiful summary of the gospel given in 32:4, which echoes the language of the apostle Paul:

    “And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety, or works that we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the Almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

    Thus, Clement serves as an important witness to the early Christian balance between salvation by grace through faith and the need to persevere in faith and good works — a balance we see constantly stressed throughout the NT, as well.

    In sum, Clement’s understanding of election:

    • is steeped in OT notions of Israel as the chosen people
    • reflects his culture’s focus on community and group dynamics primarily (as opposed to our modern overemphasis on the individual), and
    • displays a dynamic tension between God’s purposes and calling on the one hand, and on the other the actions and choices of people who must avail themselves of his grace and calling to have a part in his salvation — and perhaps even to avoid hindering others from attaining it, as well!

    2 Clement (between 70 and 140 AD)

    The document known traditionally as 2 Clement appears to have originally been a sermon that may have been preached at Corinth sometime after the crisis of 1 Clement was resolved. It has always been preserved alongside 1 Clement, but could have been composed anytime during the late first or early second century.

    The first chapter calls on its hearers not to belittle Christ “who is our salvation” (1:1) to whom we owe “many holy acts” (1:3). The author then describes the benefits Christ gives to believers for which we have to be grateful:

    “For he has given us the light; as a father he has called us children; he saved us when we were perishing. What praise, then, shall we give him, or what repayment in return for what we received? Our minds were blinded, and we worshiped stones and wood and gold and silver and brass, things made by humans; indeed, our whole life was nothing but death. So while we were thus wrapped in darkness and our vision was filled with this thick mist we recovered our sight, by his will laying aside the cloud wrapped around us. For he had mercy upon us and in his compassion he saved us when we had no hope of salvation except that which comes from him, even though he had seen in us much deception and destruction. For he called us when we did not exist, and out of nothing he willed us into being” (1:4-8).

    We should note several things about this important paragraph. First, the audience’s present experience of salvation is described as their having been rescued by God from the ignorance of idolatry. Second, their former life of idolatry is described as a kind of living death, in terms very reminiscent of Ephesians 2:1-10. The emphasis on God’s sheer mercy and apparently unilateral action in calling the church into existence from out of that idolatry also echoes Ephesians.

    Were we to stop here, we could conclude that 2 Clement appears to fit quite comfortably with later systems of theology that have a more monergistic view of predestination and salvation, like Calvinism. However, the rest of 2 Clement makes it quite questionable whether its author thinks in that direction. The turning point is clear in chapter 3:

    “Seeing, then, that he has shown us such mercy — first of all, that we who are living do not sacrifice to dead gods, nor do we worship them, but through him have come to know the Father of truth — what else is knowledge with respect to him if it is not refusing to deny the one through whom we have come to know him? Indeed, he himself says, ‘whoever acknowledges me before men, I will acknowledge before my Father.’ This, then, is our reward, if we acknowledge the one through whom we were saved. But how do we acknowledge him? By doing what he says and not disobeying his commandments…” (3:1-4).

    In other words, God’s decision to rescue the Gentile church from their previous idolatry was an act of sheer, unmerited mercy. However, the only way individual believers will benefit from that initial salvation from ignorance and attain to final salvation from damnation (being acknowledged before the Father) is by their willingness to persevere in obeying Christ.

    For the author of 2 Clement, reaching final salvation is dependent on good works and perseverance. The sermon’s moral exhortations are completely built on this assumption, which is hammered home over and over:

    “What, then, must we do to obtain these things, except to live a holy and righteous life, and to regard these worldly things as alien to us, and not desire them? For when we desire to acquire these things, we fall away from the path of righteousness” (5:6-7).

    “For if we do the will of Christ, we will find rest; but if we do not — if we disobey his commandments — then nothing will save us from eternal punishment (6:7).

    “Now if even such righteous men as these are not able, by means of their own righteous deeds, to save their children, what assurance do we have of entering the kingdom of God if we fail to keep our baptism pure and undefiled?” (6:9).

    “So, my brothers and sisters, let us not be double-minded, but patiently endure in hope, so that we may also receive the reward. For faithful is the one who promised to pay wages in accord with each person’s works. Therefore, if we do what is right in God’s sight, we will enter his kingdom and receive the promises…” (11:5-7).

    “So then, brothers and sisters, if we do the will of God our Father we will belong to the first church, the spiritual one, which was created before the sun and moon. But if we do not do the will of the Lord, we will belong to those of whom the scripture says, My house has become a robbers’ den.’ So let us choose, therefore, to belong to the church of life, in order that we may be saved.” (14:1). [2]

    “For if we renounce these pleasures and conquer our soul by refusing to fulfill its evil desires, we will share in Jesus’ mercy” (16:2).

    Faith is barely mentioned in 2 Clement, and then only as the inner disposition in which we need to do good works. Believing God’s promises is the necessary motivation for obeying God (11:1), but obedience is ultimately the deciding factor. Initial entrance into the church is viewed as a response to God’s gracious offer of the gospel, but it can be lost if not maintained by a virtuous life (7:6; 15:1; 17:2-3). The text even speaks twice of the possibility that believers may violate their sealing by God and be lost (7:6; 8:6; compare Ephesians 1:13 and 4:30).

    Thus, we should be leery of any attempts to press 1 or 2 Clement into service as a support for monergism, unconditional election, or eternal security. At best, it would be anachronistic. At worst, and as I presently tend to think, it would seem to fly in the face of the inner logic of the text’s warnings about perseverance.

    On the other hand, though, it is significant that this fiery homily grounds its moral exhortations in the work of Christ on our behalf in graciously offering liberation from sin and darkness, and it frames our obedience as the reasonable response of gratitude to him. In other words, our good works and perseverance are seen as the way we truly acknowledge Christ as Lord and Savior (placing 2 Clement in good company with such NT texts as James 2 and 2 Peter 1). And perhaps we can forgive its apparently legalistic leanings by seeing it as an important warning against some serious moral laxity in the church to which it was first preached.

    And that’s it for the Clementine material. We’ll look at the rest of the Apostolic Fathers in the next post.

    [1] All quotations from 1 & 2 Clement are from Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd ed. (Baker Academic, 2009).

    [2] Second Clement 12-14 is a bit of an odd section. Its author seems to be interacting with ideas that were circulating in early Christian communities and in apocryphal Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Thomas. His train of thought seems to be that God created a spiritual reality called “the Church” before the world began, and throughout history has been filling it with those who do his will, thus forming the cosmic Body of Christ. As esoteric as such language may seem to us, it may be that he is describing nothing more than the concept of corporate election just as in 1 Clement, in language that his audience found meaningful and engaging. The significant part is that the author of 2 Clement finds human choice to be decisive in whether or not one is made a part of this true, spiritual Church.

  • No One Can Come to Jesus Unless the Father Draws Them: Two Views on Election in John 6

    No One Can Come to Jesus Unless the Father Draws Them: Two Views on Election in John 6

    (Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the CSB).

    In John 6, Jesus makes a number of startling claims. He’s in the middle of a dialogue with a crowd of Jewish people who were denying the claims he was making about himself. Specifically, they struggled to accept that he truly had “come down from heaven” (6:41-42). In response to their unbelief, Jesus says, among other things:

    “Everyone the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never cast out” (6:37).

    “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day” (6:44).

    “He said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father’” (6:65).

    Why does Jesus tell these people that only those who are drawn by the Father can come to him? Here I’ll do my best to briefly summarize two possible views on this topic.

    Option 1: Unconditional, Individual Election

    Here’s one way we could interpret Christ’s statements: We could see John 6 as teaching that God already decided (unconditionally) that certain people would believe and be saved — and only those people will come to Jesus. Calvinist interpreters, in particular, look to John 6 as a foundational passage for this doctrine of unconditional election. On this reading, people only choose to believe in Jesus because God the Father, before time began, predestined them to do so. And then, at some point during their earthly life, he draws them irresistibly to Jesus.

    Among the details in the passage that might support such a reading are: 1) the intense emphasis on the inability of many in Jesus’ audience to accept his teaching, 2) the fact that Jesus’ words focus on individuals, and 3) the Greek term for “draw” (helkō), which in many contexts refers to a strong action like drawing in a net of fish (John 21:11) or actually dragging someone (Acts 16:19).

    On the other hand, reading John 6 as a timeless affirmation of unconditional election does involve a few difficulties. One is the fact that elsewhere in John’s Gospel, Jesus teaches that every person’s eternal destiny will be based on whether or not they choose to put their faith in him (John 3:18; 5:24). Another is the question of how the “drawing” in John 6 relates to Jesus’ “drawing” (same Greek word) of all people in John 12:32.

    We’re also told in John 3:16 that God loves the whole world (specifically referring, in John’s writings especially, to the world of unbelieving humanity). Holding to a doctrine of unconditional election raises the difficult question of how exactly God’s love extends to the unbelievers he chooses not to draw.

    There have, of course, been numerous thoughtful answers to these questions by Calvinist scholars. Many of them point out that no one would choose salvation unless God first overpowered their rebellious wills, and that his decision to leave some in their sins is to display his just wrath against sin. This is all so that salvation is completely by God’s grace.

    Option 2: The Drawing of Faithful Jews to Jesus as Their Messiah

    Another way we could interpret John 6 is to see it as describing a unique situation in history — namely, the transfer of faithful Israelites under the Mosaic Covenant to their newly-arrived Messiah, Jesus. On this view, the people whom the Father was drawing to Jesus on that particular occasion were those Jewish people who were already faithfully responding to God’s revelation through the Torah and the Prophets.

    Right after Jesus says that no one can come to him unless the Father draws them (6:44), he immediately gives an explanation of what he means: “It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to me ” (6:45, emphasis added).

    Notice the parallel: the Father’s action of drawing people to Jesus is tied to the people’s action of heeding the words of the prophets. So the way Jesus himself explains it, God had already been preparing his people for their Messiah through the proclamation of his word. Those who were being drawn were those who were heeding what the Spirit of God was saying through the Hebrew Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus.

    The problem is, not everyone in Israel was responsive; the majority were not receptive at all. But there was a faithful remnant — we see this exemplified in the disciples (well, except for Judas!) who remained with Jesus because they understood he had “the words of eternal life” and believed (6:68).

    This minority of faithful Jews were the ones the Father drew to their Messiah. He ensured that no one who was responsive to his word missed out on its fulfillment in Jesus. Thus, when we read John 6, we shouldn’t see Jesus as offering philosophical speculations about eternity past; rather, he was addressing the issue of how only those who were receptive to the Father under the Old Covenant would be receptive to their promised Messiah, Jesus, now that he was finally on the scene.

    John’s Gospel in particular is concerned with the question, “Now that the Messiah has come, why did so many Jewish people reject him?” This is a very important topic for John, as he makes clear in his prologue: “he [Jesus] came to his own, and his own people did not receive him” (John 1:11). On the other hand, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (1:12).

    With the arrival of Messiah, a massive shift in history was taking place. God was drawing the faithful remnant of Jews to their Messiah. Related to the salvation of the believing remnant of Israel was the full inclusion of Gentiles, too,  into God’s community. This is why Jesus later stresses that he has “other sheep that are not of this fold,” and he “must bring them also” (10:16). This refers to God-fearing Gentiles — those who, like the remnant of Israel, were already being taught by the Father and learning from him through the Jewish Scriptures.

    Later on in John’s Gospel, Jesus says that he will draw “all people” to himself when he is “lifted up” (12:32). In other words, through Jesus’ atoning work on the cross, the drawing activity of God through his Word/Messiah would be radically extended to include the entire Gentile world (see also the “mystery” Paul refers to in Ephesians 3:1-13). [1]

    In my opinion, this view does a better job of situating Jesus’ teaching firmly within its first-century Jewish context, and better accounts for how John’s Gospel describes the seismic salvation-historical shift that took place in Jesus’ ministry. That’s not to say it’s unquestionably the right view — one could still debate whether God decreed that the remnant would be receptive to the word, and of course other passages that touch on election/predestination have to be considered. But it does mean that John 6 can be faithfully interpreted in a way that coheres with a conditional view of election, without doing injustice to the text.

    Conclusion

    No matter which of these two views you end up taking, they both affirm that God is the one who has made salvation possible — a salvation found only by his grace through Jesus Christ. Faithful Christians can (and should) continue to test their interpretations against Scripture, and hold those interpretations with a gracious and humble attitude.

    Obviously, discussion about the interpretation of John 6 will continue. But I know that some people in my particular circles (within American evangelicalism) have only ever been exposed to Calvinist readings of John 6, so at the very least I hope this post will present a viable alternative they may not have considered.

    What do you think? Which reading do you prefer, and why? Are there some aspects of the alternative view that you hadn’t considered? Let me know in the comments.

    I close with this nice quote from Gerald Borchert’s commentary on John:

    “Salvation is never achieved apart from the drawing power of God, and it is never consummated apart from the willingness of humans to hear and learn from God. To choose one or the other will ultimately end in unbalanced, unbiblical theology. . . . Rather than resolving the tension, the best resolution is learning to live with the tension and accepting those whose theological commitments differ from ours.” [2]

    For more on the topic of election/predestination, check out my previous posts:
    – Calvinism & Arminianism: What I Wish Everyone Knew About the Debate
    – Recommended Resources on Calvinism & Arminianism

    See you down the path.

    [1] This statement in John 12 cautions against seeing the “drawing” activity of God as something that leads irresistibly to salvation, since not everyone among the Gentiles will inevitably be saved.

    [2] Gerald L. Borchert, John 1-11, NAC vol 25A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 268-69.

  • Recommended Resources on Calvinism & Arminianism

    Recommended Resources on Calvinism & Arminianism

    Following up on my last post, I figured it would be good to give some recommend material for those who want to dig deeper into the topic of election/predestination, or into the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism in general.

    If you’ve been a Christian for any length of time, you’ve probably already given this subject some thought. And maybe you’ve even taken an stance on it – whether Calvinist, Arminian, or something else altogether!

    But whether you’ve settled on a position or you’re just now setting out into these deep waters, it’s good to consider each side of the debate. To help with that, here are a few books that I’ve found to be the most helpful. Each of these has had an impact on my own thinking — even the ones where I disagreed with the author’s conclusions. They’ve helped me to clarify my own position and challenged me to keep exploring Scripture.

    Along that same line, I want to issue a personal challenge to you, dear reader: If you already identify with a particular position, read a work arguing for the other side! 

    Two reasons I encourage this. Firstly, it’s important that you hear the best arguments your opponents have to offer, out of respect for them. Make sure you really know what it is you disagree with. And secondly, seeing that other Christians have logical reasons for their views helps keep you humble. It fosters greater unity when you can at least understand where folks of different theological persuasions are coming from.

    Without further ado, here are my top recommended resources on election/predestination!

     

    Chosen By God by R. C. Sproul

    Sproul’s short book is a classic primer on the Calvinist understanding of election (that God unconditionally elects individuals to salvation or damnation). It’s concise, thorough, and readable. Even though it’s the one on this list that I find the most disagreement with (for example, at one point he implies that Calvinism is the only truly Protestant view, which is very much incorrect), it’s still worth reading to get a quick introduction to and defense of Calvinism.

     

    hand in Hand: The Beauty of God’s Sovereignty and Meaningful Human Choice by Randy Alcorn.

    Alcorn’s book is a great example of moderate Calvinism, and he goes more in-depth than Sproul in his discussion of how God’s providence intersects with human choice from a compatibilist perspective. Alcorn examines a great number of Scripture passages, while also covering the philosophical elements, all without getting overly technical. What I appreciate most is Alcorn’s tone – he’s a great example of how to defend your view with fairness and charity. Also, his first chapter gives some fantastic perspective on the Calvinist/Arminian debate as a whole.

     

    Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology by Roger Olson.

    I think Olson’s book is one that every Christian should read at least once, whether you end up agreeing with him or not. The reason it’s so good is that he begins by defining and explaining Calvinism thoroughly before he explains why he disagrees with it, so you’ll get clear definitions of both sides. It’s a great model for how debate should happen. Olson never sets up straw-man arguments – he extensively quotes the best exponents of Calvinism, articulates clearly the challenges to their views, and provides a well-written and passionate case for Arminianism. 

     

    Grace, Faith, Free Will by Robert Picirilli.

    Just as Sproul’s Chosen by God is a good primer on Calvinism, Picirilli’s book is an excellent introduction to classical Arminian thought. He defends the view that election is tied to God’s foreknowledge of people’s faith-decision. Picirilli also covers a great deal of Scripture, although with certain Bible passages his book could have benefitted from more extensive exegesis and discussion.

     

    The New Chosen People (Revised & Expanded Edition): A Corporate View of Election by William Klein.

    Klein’s work is probably the best modern treatment of the corporate view of election. He examines Scripture in-depth to argue that election is far more about group identity than about an individual’s personal destiny. If that idea alone sounds new to you, you need to pick up Klein’s book! He explores the Old Testament, intertestamental Jewish literature, and the New Testament, and his coverage of “election” terminology in Scripture is itself worth the price of the book.

     

    The Chosen People: Election, Paul, and Second Temple Judaism by A. Chadwick Thornhill.

    I add this as a bonus, as it also supports the corporate view of election and complements Klein’s book nicely. Where Thornhill’s book differs from Klein’s is that it focuses more attention on what Jewish thinkers were saying about election and predestination in the days shortly before the New Testament was written. In other words, you’ll learn more about how the apostle Paul and other New Testament writers were joining a conversation that was already underway. You’ll get deeper background on how the imagery of election and predestination was being understood in the first century, and learn how Scripture develops that conversation. 

     

    I hope you’ll read at least one (if not more) of these, and that they’ll help sharpen your thinking on this controversial and challenging topic!

    Let me know what you think! Have I left out any of your favorites? Drop me a comment!

    See you down the path.

     

  • God’s Sovereignty & Human Choice in Proverbs

    God’s Sovereignty & Human Choice in Proverbs

    One of the core teachings of Scripture (and something that really should go without saying) is that God is sovereign. He is in control of the world He has made. Nothing is outside of His power or authority. He calls the shots. After all, if he’s powerful enough to create this universe, it would make sense that he could do anything he wanted with it.

    This concept of God’s sovereignty is something that Proverbs emphasizes a lot, because Solomon knew that only a foolish person would deny God’s power over his creation. A wise person, on the other hand, would submit to God’s rule. (And remember, Proverbs is intended to help us become wise.)

    But it’s also a concept that can easily be pressed too far beyond what the Bible states. It’s all too easy to pick out a handful of verses, read them in a wooden manner outside their context, and string together the notion that God predetermines everything that happens — including people’s decisions! (The technical name for this philosophy is determinism; you also may have heard it called fatalism.)

    But lest we begin blaming God for our own evil actions and throw human responsibility out of the window, we need to look at some of the strongest statements on divine sovereignty in Proverbs and examine what they’re really saying.

    What’s really the point when we say God is “in control”? And how should that impact our decision-making?

     

    Solomon the Fatalist?

    Let’s look first at what are arguably the strongest statements on God’s sovereignty in Proverbs.

    Proverbs 16:4 (CSB) — “The Lord has prepared everything for his purpose— even the wicked for the day of disaster.”

    One might get the impression this verse is saying that God actually creates people wicked; that he purposefully authors evil. He makes some people be bad, but it’s okay because it’s all part of the plan.

    But that’s not what this verse is saying, for two reasons. One is that this would make nonsense out of all the verses in Proverbs (and the rest of Scripture) that speak of God’s judgment of evil (Prov 11:19, 21; 16:5; 21:12), his hatred of sin (Prov 6:16-19; 12:22; James 1:13-14), and his desire that people choose wisdom and righteousness (Prov 1:29-31; 3:31-33; 8:1-21; Ezekiel 18:21-32).

    And two, this interpretation doesn’t fit the original Hebrew of the verse. If we translate it literally, it says everything is made to correspond “to its answer” (לַֽמַּעֲנֵ֑הוּ). In other words, God sovereignly makes sure that everyone and everything reaches an appropriate outcome. The second line gives a specific illustration: namely, the wicked will certainly receive the “day of disaster” their actions merit.

    Let me say it this way: This is not a statement about predetermination, but about retribution! It’s saying God will ensure that each life’s outcome corresponds to its deeds. Compare the NET translation: “The Lord works everything for its own ends— even the wicked for the day of disaster,” or the GNT: “Everything the Lord has made has its destiny; and the destiny of the wicked is destruction.”

    Indeed, elsewhere Solomon points out how foolish it is to blame God for people’s wicked choices: “A person’s own foolishness leads him astray, yet his heart rages against the Lord” (Proverbs 19:3, CSB).

    God’s purpose is not to create evil, but to allow it, work it into a greater good, and ultimately judge it.

    Proverbs 21:1 (CSB) – “A king’s heart is like channeled water in the Lord’s hand: He directs it wherever he chooses.”

    Here we are reminded that even though we may think that human rulers are in control, God is actually the King of kings. He sets boundaries on what human leaders can do.

    Again, we need to be careful not to take this verse in an overly deterministic manner, as if God dictates every choice human leaders make. That would mean that God specifically directed Hitler to order the murder of millions of Jews, for example (yikes!). But this is not at all what is implied by the imagery of this proverb.

    The illustration used here is of a farmer setting irrigation channels to steer water in his fields. It’s an image suggesting oversight, direction, and setting boundaries. This verse isn’t saying that God overrides or predetermines the will of human leaders; rather, it means that he guides and sets limits. And it’s a reminder that God’s power is to be respected more than that of human kings.[1]

     

    The Proper Response to God’s Sovereignty is Humility

    Proverbs 20:24 (ESV) – “A man’s steps are from the Lord; how then can man understand his way?”

    Here is a verse that gives a strong statement of God’s sovereign influence over human lives. It’s also tricky to translate, and the meaning depends on the two different Hebrew words for “man” that are used.

    Here’s a closer approximation of the Hebrew: “The Lord guides the course of life of even a mighty man (gever), so how can a mere mortal (adam) hope to fully comprehend his life?”

    The rhetorical intent seems to be to remind us not to get too overwhelmed by trying to figure out all there is to know of life, or to be jealous of seemingly powerful or influential people. Even the “mighty” don’t have it all figured out, and indeed they should be humbled by the fact that it is not they but God who is ultimately the master of their fate.

    On the other hand, the faithful can rest easy knowing that God is the one who manages the circumstances of their lives. We don’t have to have it all figured out before we can trust him.

    Proverbs 16:9 (NET) – “A person plans his course, but the Lord directs his steps.”

    Here the sovereignty of God is contrasted with the will of man. Make sure you notice that God’s involvement and human decisions are placed side-by-side and compared as regards their extent; the former does not remove the latter. God’s rule does not cancel out human decision-making.

    Far from saying that your every decision is predetermined by God, this proverb is telling us that we can and should make decisions and have plans, but we should also humbly recognize that the particular outcomes are subject to God’s sovereignty and the circumstances he allows.

    But before we make those plans and decisions, we should consider one more important feature of God’s sovereignty Proverbs reminds us of — and that’s that God will hold us accountable for our decisions. He is even able to examine our motives:

    Proverbs 21:2 (CSB) — “All a person’s ways seem right to him, but the Lord weighs hearts.”

    Proverbs 24:12 (CSB) — “If you say, “But we didn’t know about this,” won’t he who weighs hearts consider it? Won’t he who protects your life know? Won’t he repay a person according to his work?”

    There’s no pulling a fast one on the Ruler of all, so be sure to act and think accordingly!

     

    Some Practical Implications

    This emphasis on God’s sovereignty throughout Proverbs is meant to enforce several ideas in our minds:

    1. We ought to be humble and fear the Lord when it comes to making choices in our lives. Since he’s in charge, we should seek to honor him.

    2. We can find encouragement in the fact that God, not humanity, is ultimately in control of our destinies. God’s sovereignty is a good thing. Notice Proverbs 18:10 (NLT) – “The name of the Lord is a strong fortress; the godly run to him and are safe.”

    Because Jesus is on the throne of the universe, we don’t have to be fearful when we make decisions, and we don’t have to be fearful of current events. He’s still in control, and he doesn’t feel threatened by the dilemmas we so often fixate on.

    But it’s also because he’s on the throne that we should seek him for guidance in our lives. Ultimately he alone knows what’s best.

    How do we seek the sovereign Lord’s guidance for our lives?

    As we look at that topic, I want to stress that Proverbs (and the rest of Scripture, with it) teaches us a balance between several ideas. Think of these like three tennis balls we constantly have to juggle when we make choices in our lives:

    1) We have a will of our own to make decisions. God created us to be personal beings who can make choices so that we can genuinely relate to him and to others.

    2) We ought to submit our will first and foremost to what God has already revealed in his word. That’s the ultimate source of direction.

    3) We can and should also ask God for personal guidance and wisdom for our unique life situations, but keeping (1) and (2) in mind.

    So for example, God isn’t necessarily going to tell you what to eat for lunch every day. No doubt he could, but it isn’t exactly high on heaven’s priority list whether you choose the burger or the taco!

    But even still, you can follow biblical principles like avoiding gluttony and being a wise steward of your money and relationships. Those still count as God’s directions for your life.

    We’ll talk more about direction in the book of Proverbs in the next post — should the sovereign Lord allow! 😉

    See you down the path.

    [1] Of course, the question of why God allows some human leaders to carry out such horrible atrocities like the genocides of the twentieth century is a difficult one no matter how one understands God’s sovereignty. We might ask why he didn’t set some much stricter limits on, for example, the Nazi regime’s choices. It’s a question worthy of bigger discussion, but for now suffice it to say that I trust God has his reasons, his perspective is far bigger than ours, and all evil and suffering ultimately come to a resolution on the cross where God himself suffered.