data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c568b/c568b34acba514bdeaa1d1e62c1270d4488a9692" alt=""
Many people object to the idea of election. Some object that election is fatalistic. In this they fail to understand the difference between fatalism and determinism. Fatalism is deterministic, but determinism does not have to be fatalistic. The reason for this is that fatalism is inherently meaningless. Determinism need not be meaningless. God’s election is purposeful, not capricious. God is understood to have sovereignly decreed all that will come to pass. This includes the election of some to salvation. But this is not something that is without meaning. God’s purpose in this is His own glory.
Others object that election is antithetical to “free will.” However, in this they fail to see that “an action is free if causally determined so long as the causes are nonconstraining” (Feinberg). Ultimately, people are free to choose that which they most desire to choose. We choose whatever we want, but what we want stems from who or what we are and what we believe.
Some object that election is not fair. That's correct. The fair thing would be for all people to be eternally condemned. Election is an act of mercy and grace.
Some object that the gospel call cannot be genuine. However, as we proclaim the gospel, we don’t know who will come to Christ. We cannot determine who is elect and who is not. And so we are to proclaim the gospel to everyone. Ultimately, the fact that men cannot respond does not affect the sincerity of the offer. Any who will come may come.
Steve, every now and again, I will come across a concept or proposition that I find down right revolutionizing. This remark and its context is one of those:
ReplyDelete“Fatalism is deterministic, but determinism does not have to be fatalistic.”
The profundity of this observation is matched by its simplicity.
Thanks.