This follows in the same vein as my post on Psalm 139.
_________________________
6.4.1 The Question
There is little denying that Paul used language of predestination in some of his letters. The system that Augustine and Calvin created maps to at least one side of Paul's language. The question is whether they have read that language in context or possibly ignored another aspect of his language. For example, is it possible that Paul uses both language of predestination and language that implies human freedom on some level?
If so, one might argue that Augustine and Calvin have systematized Paul's theology in a way that has resolved unresolved tensions in Paul's thinking in only one direction. If Paul had language that supported both determinism and freedom of choice, did Augustine and Calvin systematized out of existence the choice dimension of his thinking? One might ask the same thing of those who have systematized Paul's teaching in the direction of freedom. Have they thereby underplayed Paul's language of election and predeterminism?
6.4.2 Paul's Earliest Letters
Language of predestination is not a major feature of Paul's earliest letters. Paul does tell the Thessalonians that he knew God had chosen them because of the power that accompanied his first ministry there (1 Thess. 1:4-5). But we should note that Paul does not apply this observation to individuals -- it is a collective election of the church at that location.
Similarly, Paul does not say why God chose them. For example, Paul does not indicate that they played no role in that choosing. Could not the fact that God knew they would be receptive to the gospel have informed his choosing of them? In short, the passage gives us no information on the mechanism of God's choosing.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 indicates that God chose the Thessalonians to be the firstfruits to be saved. This is, again, a collective choosing, and the choice is about the order in which the gospel was preached. It is nothing like a statement of individual election.
Finally, Galatians 1:15-16 indicates that God had a plan for Paul that went back to the time before he was even born, perhaps echoing the imagery of Jeremiah's calling (Jer. 1:4-5). It is again important to note that Paul gives us no explanation of how this works. Calvin would interpret these comments in terms of unconditional election, with Paul's will playing no role whatsoever. However, one might easily suppose as well that God looked into the future and knew the choices Paul would make.
We might point equally to passages in Paul's earliest letters that seem to suggest some kind of "libertarian freedom," by which we mean a genuine choice for his audiences. 1 Corinthians 10:13 at least seems to suggest that the Corinthians had a choice as to whether they sinned or not when they were tempted. God provided a way of escape if they were willing. It was up to them.
2 Corinthians 9:7 indicates that the Corinthians have the freedom whether to give or not give. They were under "no compulsion." Galatians 5:13 at least sounds like it says that it is up to the Galatians as to whether they use their freedom in the Lord as an opportunity to serve each other or to gratify the sinful desires of their flesh.
However, Calvinists would simply say that we have the appearance of choice. We experience these events as moments of personal choice, but a determinism underlies it. William James promoted this option called "soft determinism" in his 1902 writing, The Varieties of Religious Experience. Philosophers sometimes call this perspective "compatibilism" because it aims to make determinism and freedom of will compatible.
Those who believe in libertarian freedom, on the other hand, might insist that James is making a distinction without a difference. Just because we experience a choice as free, it is not truly free if it is ultimately determined.
In the end, the point is once again that Paul does not work out these details. He uses language that certainly sounds like we have a genuine choice. But the Calvinist has potential explanations for that language. And the Arminian -- a school of Christian thought that believes we have a genuine choice -- has an explanation for determinist language too. [1] John Wesley (1703–1791) and the Wesleyan tradition followed Arminius in affirming genuine human freedom, especially in the context of what he called "prevenient grace" -- an empowerment by God to make such choices.
6.4.3 Romans 9-11
The locus classicus for predestination in Paul's letters is of course Romans 9. John Calvin and modern Calvinists consider this passage ground zero for understanding Paul's deterministic theology. It is the lens through which the rest of Paul's writings are read on this topic.
A few contextual notes are in order, however. The context of Romans 9 is clearly the question of God's inclusion of non-Jews, "Gentiles," into his plan of salvation. Although one can read the words of the chapter in terms of individual predestination, that is not really the point. The background is that most of Israel at that time had not accepted Jesus as their Messiah, but many Gentiles had.
It prompted a critique. How could Jesus truly be the Messiah when most of Israel rejected him? And how did it make sense that so many Gentiles had? These are the questions that stand in the background of Paul's excursus in Romans 9-11.
Paul's answer is what we might call a remnant theology. Not all Israel, he insists, is actually Israel (Rom. 9:7). God has a plan. In that plan, God will harden the hearts of most of Israel while "grafting" the Gentiles into the people of God (11:8, 25). Then God will bring the rest of Israel back in as well (11:26).
Accordingly, election in this part of Romans is the election of groups rather than individuals. One might respond that, in order to elect a remnant, one must choose individuals within the group. That may be logically true, but it is not part of Paul's rhetoric. When Paul talks about God's election of Jacob over Esau, he is thinking about groups that God had chosen (9:10-13).
As with Paul's earlier letters, we find both language of predestination and libertarian freedom in Romans 9-11. If one only reads 9:14-24, one will come away with a strong sense of unconditional election. "I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. And I will show compassion on whom I will show compassion." We get a stark picture of God creating some "vessels" -- humans -- just so that he can show his glory as he destroys them (9:22).
Yet, when we get to Romans 11, we do not find individuals whose destiny is fixed. Paul talks about how Gentile believers who might turn their back on God's kindness can be cut back out of the tree of the people of God (11:21-22). Meanwhile, the Jewish branches that God has cut out can be grafted back in (11:24).
This indeterminacy in relation to who is currently in or out fits far better with a libertarian view of freedom of will than with a predestination that goes back before the creation. Calvinism resolves this tension by suggesting that it is just an appearance of freedom, with the final state predetermined. Arminianism might suggest that God's predeterminism is based on his foreknowledge or that Romans 9 is more rhetorical than literal.
The first suggestion might find its basis in Romans 8:29, which says "those whom he foreknew he also prearranged to be conformed to the image of his Son in order that he (Jesus) might be the firstborn among many brothers [and sisters]." However, what seems to be predetermined here is the plan rather than individual predestination. That is to say, the plan is for those who are resurrected to be transformed into the likeness of Christ's resurrection, as 1 Corinthians 15:49 indicates. The first thus is not about individual election.
The second option seems more likely. Given that Romans 11 indicates the possibility for the elect to stop being the elect and the non-elect to become the elect, we should probably take Romans 9 as somewhat rhetorical. "What if," in other words (9:22). The point is that God is in charge and can do whatever he wants. God's plan is to let the Gentiles in by faith. Unbelieving Israel needs to deal with it.
What right has the clay to say to the potter, "What are you doing?" (9:21). So unbelieving Israel has no right to say to God, "Why are you letting the Gentiles be saved by faith without keeping the Law as we must?" God is God. God is sovereign. If God wants to save the Gentiles by faith, that is his prerogative.
6.4.4 Ephesians 1
Some of the most concentrated language of predestination language is found in Ephesians 1:
God chose us in him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him, in love having prearranged us for adoption through Jesus Christ according to the purpose of his will (1:4-5).
He made known to us the mystery of his will... which he purposed in him (Jesus) as a plan for the fulness of time... in him we received an inheritance, having been prearranged according to the purpose of the one who brings about everything according to the council of his will (1:9-11).
However, we note that these verses are not explicitly about individual predestination. All the referents are plural (e.g., "us"). Further, it is the plan that is predetermined. They are predestined to be holy. That is, everyone who is in Christ must be holy. It is part of the deal. Ephesians 1:10 explicitly means that it is the plan that is prearranged, a plan that results in the audience receiving an inheritance.
In the end, it turns out that Paul's language of predestination falls far short of the work that John Calvin and other Calvinists think it does. Yes, he does use language of predestination, but it focuses on groups and God's overall plan rather than the arrangement of individuals for (or not for) salvation.
At the same time, he assumes choice as the primary mechanism of justification. After all, the very essence of faith is to choose to trust in God through Christ. It is to give one's allegiance to Jesus as Lord. This choice can be explained as a mere manifestation of underlying forces of predestination, but Paul never says anything of this sort.
[1] Arminianism is named after Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), who modified the dominant Calvinism of his day to allow for libertarian freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment