a brief introduction to idea of divine election

Bruce A. Ware gets the opening spot in Perspectives on Election, ed. by Chad Brand, and he begins his argument with probably the most popular selection from the Bible for those defending predestination, the opening verses of Ephesians, Ch. 1, which state that "[God] chose us in him, before the foundations of the world, to be holy and blameless in his sight.  In love he predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ for himself, according to his favor and will..." (Eph. 1:4-5 HCSB).  Ware finds it extremely important that Paul opens his letter with these statements, that "God chose us!  God predestined us!" (Perspectives, 2).  Because Paul and the Bible puts so much emphasis on this, we should, too.  Yet, he asserts that if people in most churches were asked to list the reasons God is to be praised, very few would put election on their lists at all, much less at the top.

I have to comment, here.  I believe that Ware is literally true in his assertion that very few Christians would put their "election" at the top of their lists.  However, I think that most would put their "salvation," or some other word with essentially the same meaning, on their lists, and many would indeed list that word at the top.  Isn't it that we are saved through Christ by God's grace that we should praise God for, regardless of where we fall in the election debate?

The real introduction to, basically, the Reformed Church's view of election begins with his statement of intent, followed by an introduction and basic definition to some related terminology, which I give here in condensed form:

salvific election - election to salvation, specifically (as opposed to election to other things discussed in the Bible)

unconditional election - election not conditioned on particular attributes of the elect

individual election - God chose each individual, not groups of people (The underlying implications of this are a little unclear to me, and I hope to be able to bring them to light as I read more)

infralapsarian election - election after the fall; God knew before the foundations of the earth that we would be fallen and that he would choose to save some, but he did not view us as needing to be saved before the fall.

This hits upon the one of the main issues of predestination, in my mind. If God knew from before the earth was created that man would fall (and therefore some pre-known few would need to be saved), why was man created perfectly, or at all? Why was the tree placed in the garden that would allow man to fall, essentially with no hope otherwise, because God already knew man would fall? Why was the universe created in perfection, and why would God make something of His own accord that would begin “good” but would inevitably fall? This touches on issues of the omniscience and omnipotence of God as we understand it with our own, temporally limited minds, which is ultimately what the arguments for/against predestination are about,  I think.

The focus of the rest of Ware's essay deals mostly with the concept of unconditional election.  Tonight, I'll just list some of the highlights of his explanation, and I'll end with some of my thoughts and comments.

Elements of Unconditional Election:
- “specifically denies that God elects persons based upon his advanced knowledge, in eternity past, of their future decision of whether to receive Christ or not when presented the gospel” (p5.0)

- “assures the believer that salvation, from the beginning to end, is all of God” (p5.1)

- removes the danger that anyone “may boast before the Lord of any manner of contribution to his salvation” (p5.1)

Arguments against Armenianism:

- if election is conditioned upon “foreseen faith,” “there is one ultimate action relating to our salvation that we do and God specifically does not do and cannot effect” (p5.2)

Salvation is of us, not of the Lord? The realization that we need salvation does not mean that we are able to save ourselves. Here's an (imperfect) analogy:  A (conscious) man who is drowning knows that he cannot save himself from drowning.  Someone on the scene reaches out a saving hand, but the drowning man must decide to take the hand extended to him or to pass it up. Does that mean he saved himself? In some ways, one could argue yes, but I think the reality is no. Sure, he made the choice to reach out and grab the salvation offered in the extension of the hand, but if it had not been offered in the first place, he would most certainly have died, regardless of his own struggle. That is God’s abiding love and grace, that he loves us so much, he allows us to reject his help, even if it hurts us (and him) to do so.

- according to Ware’s understanding of the “supposed libertarian freedom of the individual" view held by Armenian perspective, "God cannot ensure that any person will believe. God does all that he can do, but the choice, in the end, is up to us” (p5.2)

I don't see these as the only options.  I think that, in his desire to be in real relationship with us, the pinnacle of his creation, God limits himself and allows us to choose to pursue him or not. Adam and Eve are the only two who had the advantage of coming at this from a state of sinlessness; we start in a fallen state, but with a knowledge deep in our souls that something is not right, and in seeking for the answer to this, God reveals to us his plan of salvation, which some will accept as that elusive Truth of our souls, and some will reject for a multitude of reasons. What are those reasons? They are as numerous as the different sins, but they usually boil down to a selfishness and desire to make our own gods.  The idea of God limiting himself out of love for his creation is seen in Jesus, who became man and therefore had to deal with all man's limitations, including obedience to death.

Maybe it seems that I already have a stance on the question of election, but I am truly open to all options, and I am merely inserting my own thoughts about these arguments, because I cannot at this point reconcile them to my understanding and experience of God, who loves all his creation.  Why would a God who loves everything he made only choose to save some?  Sure, he is well within his rights to do that, but why not simply start the whole thing over?  Why bother doing something that has the potential to redeem the whole world and not force the whole world to be redeemed?  I hope that I can offer some more concrete ideas, later on, but I'm too tired to think anymore, tonight. :)