Friday, 26 September 2008
-
Does Everyone Have a Chance At Heaven?
Guest post submitted by amberiasoasis
I've been having a really awesome debate with this woman on another blog, and I kind of figured I would write my own.
This debate has centered around the idea that God chooses who will be saved and who won't be (basically is the gist, I believe). Now, I don't generally like to talk deeply about things I am not well-versed in. I have to admit, I like to play devil's advocate a little bit and that requires me to know the opposing side. In this case, the idea of election is not something I've ever really thought about before. Since I can't very well discuss it fully without knowing it well, I'll just say what I believe.
I believe that Christ came to save everyone. EVERYONE. I believe that everyone has the potential to be saved. Without a doubt, many choose to turn their backs from God. If God only intends to save certain people, why did He send his Son to die for everyone?
"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works."- Titus 2:11-14
I also believe that not only does everyone have the potential to receive salvation, but those that do must receive it of their own accord (and just to clarify here, I'm not saying that we earn salvation, I'm simply saying that in order for us to receive it, there are certain things we must do such as denying ourselves and following God). If we are destined to be saved, it seems that it kind of removes the power of faith and free will. If we don't choose to follow God, our faith doesn't really mean anything does it?
Now, like I said, I probably don't have this idea of election down very well and have probably misunderstood some things. But I think it's an interesting idea, even though I don't agree with it, and I was curious about what you guys thought of it.
Soooo...go. Give me thoughts.
-
recommend
- recs 1
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (120)
This one is always tough but fun. First of all, we look at how Jesus refers to believers. He calls us "the elect"(Matt 24:22, 24, 31, Mark 13:20, 22, 27. Next, we see that Paul also refers to the believers as "the elect"- Romans 11:7, 28- 2 Timothy 2:10- Titus 1:1
Also Peter tells us that we are elected in 2 Peter 1:9.
Now, the theological definition of the word, "elect" means to select for divine mercy or favor. So what all of these verses are saying is that we were chosen by God for his purpose and his will to be done.
However
There are many other biblical locations showing us that it is our choice in either picking salvation or picking worldly, materialistic things.
This whole debate can almost be summed up as such:
God, being an omniscient God, knows who will be saved and who will not. He knows this before we are born. He can't help but know it. That said, God has elected us... Because he knows.
We also have a choice in the matter. Remember that God gave us free will. That doesn't mean he doesn't know what we will choose.
It is God's decreed will that everyone be saved- thus- elected. It is God's divine will that some choose salvation and some choose worldliness
So... in the question, "Are we chosen by God to be saved, or do we determine our fate?" the answer is, of course, yes.
@Theophilus166@xanga - I would disagree that Jesus does not teach on the subject of election. In Luke 4:16-30, Christ reads a prophecy regarding Himself, being specifically addressed to His being the Chosen One. Those who heard did not believe it, since He grew up in their village, and to poor and ill-regarded parents whose status on the social front was quite low. In short, the Jews of "status" were quite incredulous at the idea.
He responds by teaching them the doctrine of God's election as seen throughout the Old Testament in God's special graces toward specific sinners saying,
"..many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and there was a great famine throughout the land; But to none of them was Elijah sent except to Zarephath, in the region of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.
And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian."
@Allen_Oz@xanga - Actually, no. I have had this debate many times, and election actually means that God predestines some to be saved and the rest to go to hell. What you're speaking of is foreknowledge.
I believe Christ died for everyone. I believe that he first chose us, and we choose him in return... or deny him.
@nicolevw@xanga - Thank you for your comments. Everything I wanted to say and more! LOL! I, too am a Calvinist. Not a popular thing to admit. Thanks again. You made great points and explained to wonderfully :)
@Theophilus166@xanga -
"The debate comes down to whether accepting something is 'works-based.'"
Not quite. Martin Luther would be a pretty famous example of a person who did not believe salvation was works-based at all. Yet he did not believe in free will and and did believe in things being predestined by God. Here is a quote out of Klosko's History of Political Theory vol. 1 (p299) that summarizes his beliefs quite well and then provides a quote from Luther himself:
"Luther's lack of faith in reason is accompanied by lack of faith in free will. His view is presented most fully in The Bondage of the Will. Like Augustine, believes that man is by nature sinful. To the extent that he has free will, this is limited to the ability to express sinful urges. The very idea of free will is absurd, moreover, if God foreknows all things. How can the individiaul be free to choose what to do, if it is foreknown that he will choose a certain course?
'[God] foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. This bombshell knocks "free-will" flat, and utterly shatters it; so that those who want to assert it must either deny my bombshell, or pretend not to notice it, or find some other way of dodging it.' Martin Luther (BW, p181)"
Luther used his ideas about free will and predestination to arrive to his conclusion that salvation was not worked based at all. So while works and faith might play a role in this arguement, it is no where near the center point of it.
@ElizabethSnow@xanga - AMEN!
@whataboutbahb@xanga - I think you missed my point. My point was that the accusation that free will leads to a "works-based" salvation is unfair. And your example of Luther doesn't make sense to me. You said he believed that salvation was predestined and not by works. Well that's what they all believe, so I'm not sure that example really says anything. My point is that determinists who claim that "free will" = "salvation by works" are inconsistent in the way they use the term 'works.' In no other area of life do we consider accepting a free gift as in any way earning it.
@ElizabethSnow@xanga - I think to take Luke 4 as Jesus teaching on determinism is reading a LOT into it. In fact, I'm not even sure how you get predestination out of it. The reason people were upset was because Jesus pointed out that rather going to heal a Jew with leprosy, Elijah went to a Gentile. Jews, clinging to their status as God's chosen people, were indignant that a teacher would make that statement.
I'll also point out that it's important to make a distinction between predestination, and the predestination of salvation. I believe scripture teaches that Christ was predestined, entire sanctification is predestined, but individual salvation is not.
@Theophilus166@xanga -
Luther used his arguments about our lack of free will and predestination as an arguement for a system of salvation by faith, not works, since works could accomplish little if you weren't a "true" christian in the first place. You could possibly infer (I say possibly, since I haven't read anything specific on what he thought on this exact issue) from that that Luther thought free will= salvation by works (since people are actually able to earn their salvation if they have free will, which they can't do in this theology). I'll try to find a quote by him that tries to address this specific area.
"Well that's what they all believe,"
The majority of Christians believe in free will, except for Calvinists and some other smaller denominations. Luther did not. So what he believed is not everyone else believes (i assume you were referring to christians today when you said they).
@Papillon_Mom@xanga - I don't see how there's a difference. But I already made a post on this about a week ago giving my opinion more in depth. I don't think either are completely supported in scripture as being superior to the other, but I will say I believe scripture seems to suggest that free will is superceded by God's will, which makes sense since we are God's creation.
I think Jonah is a good example of this. Here's someone who choose to go against God's will and God "persuaded" him to change his mind and follow God's will.
I'm surprised I didn't see Ephesians 1:4-5 in my skim over the comments.
I am a Christian who believes in the Doctrines of Grace; Calvinism, "T.U.L.I.P."
God has, in fact, predestined his children. But I don't want to go into the Romans 9:22-23 aspect of it; that's really complicated for those who have just heard of Limited Atonement for the first time.
But, studying the death of Christ does give more depth to the subject, and it is something everyone is familiar with (I hope). "Christ died on the cross, why? To be the atoning sacrifice for our sins." That's easy, but then it can get tricky: "Did he atone for everyone?"
Think about it. Have the unsaved been justified and given salvation? They have not; otherwise Universalism would make sense. But then we come to the Armenian perspective (the view of this entry's author) over the death of Christ. Was Christ's death sufficient for those he died for? Hopefully you know that it is; otherwise God is not all powerful, and therefore not God. Christ's death was sufficient to those he died for.
If you disagree with "those who he died for" or "the sufficiency", you are either saying that everyone is saved because Christ died, or, that Christ is only powerful enough to go half way and that we have to take the extra step of faith. The problem with that: if we could do anything of our own accord, then Christ would have died for nothing (Galatians 2:20-21). Faith is not a work, if it were, then Christ's promise of salvation would be feeble.
Now, you can recite John 3:16 or 1st John 2:2 and emphasis "world" and "everyone", but those statements aren't literal. In the Old Testament and in the New Testament, you'll find lines like: Israel received all the riches of all the world. But, Israel didn't really gain the all the wealth in existence, did it? "everyone" can mean everyone within a specific area, group, or type.
If you find Election misinterpreted or meaningless, the beauty of the doctrines of grace is that you don't need to believe them to be saved. (But, it is a comfort to know Christ has authority over all things). The point of Calvinism is simply this: Christ saves sinners. So accepting this doctrine isn't necessary to salvation.
Just be weary of "Hypercalvinism". It's a killer.
@Allen_Oz@xanga - I don't believe anyone or anyone's will can "supersede" God. God is all powerful, our creator. How can the created being "supersede" the creator?
@whataboutbahb@xanga - By "that's what they all believe" I was meaning determinists. They all believe that if salvation is a free choice, then it is a salvation of works. That's why I didn't understand the quote of Luther. He seems to just be saying what all the determinists are saying. And again, I'm not sure we EVER say that accepting a free gift in any way earns it, so why do we make that connection when it comes to salvation?
@sugartomyhoney@xanga - Oh whoops! I totally meant the opposite. Sorry!
@metal_core1@xanga - Amen to another Calvinist! Who knew there was more than one or two around here on xanga!
@whataboutbahb@xanga - @Theophilus166@xanga -
I said earlier:
"You could possibly infer (I say possibly,
since I haven't read anything specific on what he thought on this exact
issue) from that that Luther thought free will= salvation by works
(since people are actually able to earn their salvation if they have
free will, which they can't do in this theology). I'll try to find a
quote by him that tries to address this specific area."
After reading more, I really don't think that inference could be fairly made. Luther believed that salvation by faith was needed because salvation by works was basically an impossible task since we are so sinful. Free-will could lead to attempt for salvation to be made by works, but most people could not succeed that way in Luther's opinion.
My main point to your post was that the issue of free-will versus predestination is not simply an issue of if one believes if salvation by works or salvation by faith, seeing as you have people who believe in salvation by works and some people in salvation by faith both on the side of no free will and the same thing on the other side.
@Allen_Oz@xanga - You know what! I think it's my oops! LOL! I went back and reread it.....or did you edit???? Anyway, it is good to know you don't think our will supersedes God's will. That was a scary thought!!!!
@sugartomyhoney@xanga - If I did my use of Jonah as an example would seem very confusing wouldn't it?
@Allen_Oz@xanga - I totally agree with you there. I believe in a balance of both, and that is really the only way that it can possibly be for Scripture to fully support it.
I don't understand it as well as those who follow it, but basically those who believe in Pre-D believe that God determines who will go to heaven. He "cherrypicks" them, so to speak. I don't believe that.
@metal_core1@xanga - "The problem with that: if we could do anything of our own accord, then Christ would have died for nothing (Galatians 2:20-21)."
As I've been saying your error is in thinking that accepting a free gift is somehow earning it. Accepting a gift is not doing anything "on our accord."
In your interpretation of passages such as John 3:16 that "everyone" doesn't really mean "everyone", do you think it applies to 1 Timothy as well? "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
If God determines who will be saved, and he wants all men to be saved, why are all men not saved? Is God not getting what He wants? The standard Calvinist interpretation of that passage about 'classes' of men seems to be a major stretch, in my opinion.
It's rather easy for both sides of this discussion to proof text, and we have to admit that there are standard responses to each text for both sides.
@Theophilus166@xanga -
Hrmmm I was never trying to make an arguement for determinists. All i was doing was disagreeing with your statement of:
"The debate comes down to whether accepting something is "works-based."
In my opinion, this is not what the debates comes down to because whether a person believes salvation is works-based or faith-based does not logically conclude he must think one way or another on the issue of free-will. That's all I was trying to say.
While it might be interesting to argue the determinist position, I really don't have the time to adequately do it today.
@Papillon_Mom@xanga - I think the alternative to predestination is far scarier though; the idea that either God doesn't know or slavation can be lost.
http://www.gotquestions.org/predestination.html
@Allen_Oz@xanga - I actually did an extensive study a while back and did a post on it. I mean, pre-d is there. We can't deny it. I just don't think it came be taken to the extreme that Jesus only came to save SOME. That's heresy, plain and simple.
I believe it to be a combination of both... Pre-D and free will working together in a way we can't understand.
@whataboutbahb@xanga - What I am not suggesting in any of my beliefs is a form of preference, as in, this is what I prefer to believe. The Bible is what it is, written as it is written, and I won't even debate it's validity in what many feel is an enlightened society. I think God is, well, pretty good at backing Himself up. He doesn't need us to validate Him to anyone.
Preference opens the door for so many views that would, upon even light consideration, render the Word of God useless except for some moralistic guidance. That's my view, anyway.
As for your question, it's not that I'm a universalist. I just think there is a deeper level than the common road of pentecostalism from whence I came. Bottom line is, we exclude people, including those we feel are sinners, because of denominational doctrines, and yet Christ openly ate with the very folks the church of that day (the Jews) considered sinners.
I lean towards predestination, but in a more open format. We are predestined, but we also live in time. God created time, is outside of time, so He has all the time in the world to work His ways in our lives as we enjoy free will. Predestination often leads to fatalism, which I beleve makes us ambivalent to the deeper side of God, and the freedom He has given us. The inevitable is anything but that in God's world.
@Theophilus166@xanga - Yes, there is a lot of scriputre on both ends. That's why it's a good thing that this isn't a nessecary doctorine for salvation. Although, I honestly do think it would be very benifical in all aspects of a Christian's life to believe in at least 3 of the 5 Points of Calvanism (TULIP).
I'm sorry, but I don't have much time to respond to your comment. Here is a link to something really cool that I read once and I remember it as being insightful: Is it God's will that all people be saved?
The answer is actually yes.