Soul Sorting and Election<\/p>\n
In my prior posts on the “soul sort narrative,” I’ve commented on what I’ve called the Chick Tract Gospel<\/a> and on the theme of Justice<\/a>. <\/span>I suggested in those posts that the real issue is not the fact of “sorting,” but the question of “election.” <\/span>In my mind, this is the heart of the “theodicy of soteriology” problem: <\/span>how does God decide who receives the gracious gift of salvation?<\/p>\n This is an enormous question, which has been debated by the great minds of the Church for over two thousand years, and which probably cannot be resolved at all, much less in a blog post. <\/span>It feels like a cop-out to relegate this question to the category of “mystery,” but ultimately I think this instinct is correct. <\/span><\/p>\n Do you find the category of “mystery” helpful in response to the problem of “sorting” and “judgment?” <\/span>How do you understand the nature of God’s election in the economy of salvation?<\/b><\/p>\n In Biblical terms, a “mystery” is something that is now only However, I’d like to highlight some strains of thought about I would place in the “less helpful” category what I see as The former view is an extreme form of Arminianism. <\/span>As Roger Olson points out in his The latter view is a strong form of Augustinian A third option is that offered by Karl Barth: <\/span>election refers to God’s election of all of humanity<\/i> in Jesus Christ. <\/span>Barth refers to passages such as Psalm Barth’s approach has often been used to support universalism, It’s tempting to present Barth’s view as a “third way” On this question of particularity, a “missional” approach to We, the Church, have been elected for mission<\/i>. <\/span>But Meanwhile, we who know Christ go into the world with great What do you think <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Soul Sorting and Election In my prior posts on the “soul sort narrative,” I’ve commented on what I’ve called the Chick Tract Gospel and on the theme of Justice. I suggested in those posts that the real issue is not the fact of “sorting,” but the question of “election.” In my mind, this is the heart of the “theodicy of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":70,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6321","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gospel"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nhinted at and that will be revealed by God in the fullness of time. <\/span>The final resolution of eschatological
\ntime seems to fall clearly into this category. <\/span>Contrary to the Chick Tract Gospel, scripture does not spell
\nout in great detail the precise accounting of the final judgment. <\/span>Scripture does tell us that God will
\njudge our works, that all of our works ultimately fall short, and that all those
\nwho are saved enjoy that status only because of the atoning work of
\nChrist. <\/span>Scripture also tells us
\nthat repentance and faith are basic to salvation. <\/span>We are not, however, given a simple formula for “who’s in
\nand who’s out.” <\/span>Indeed, many of
\nJesus’ parables (the Sheep and the Goats, and the Workers in the Vineyard, for
\nexample), suggest that we should expect to be surprised at the last
\njudgment. <\/span>The final reckoning is
\nin many ways a true mystery. <\/span>At
\nsome point our only response is to trust in God’s goodness and justice.<\/p>\n
\nelection that I’ve found less helpful as well as approaches that seem to me to
\nbe on the right track.<\/p>\n
\nopposite extremes: <\/span>(1) the view
\nthat “election” means only “foreknowledge” of human choices, and (2) the view
\nthe “election” implies “double predestination.” <\/span><\/p>\n
\nexcellent book <\/span>Arminian
\nTheology: <\/span>Myths and Realities<\/a>,
\nit is not even a properly Arminian view – it is in fact a Pelagian view that
\nconditions salvation on human works and human will. <\/span>Scripture is clear that God’s election with respect to
\nsalvation involves more than passive foreknowledge of human choices. <\/span>Only God saves.<\/p>\n
\nCalvinism. <\/span>A number of Bible
\npassages – notably Romans 9:14-18 – can be enlisted in favor of this view. <\/span>In my judgment, however, this view does
\nnot adequately account for God’s inherently just and loving character. <\/span>If God’s choices are truly just and
\nloving, then they are not merely arbitrary. <\/span>The God who “so loved the world that he gave his one and
\nonly son” (John 3:16), who became man and entered into our sin and suffering on
\nthe cross, seems a prodigious and generous lover, not the gnarled and irritable
\ntyrant of High Calvinism.<\/p>\n
\n89:3 and Luke 9:35, which refer to Jesus as the one whom God has chosen, as
\nwell as to passages such as Romans 5, which indicates that Christ is the
\narchetype of the new humanity (in contrast to Adam, the archetype of the old
\nhumanity). <\/span>Barth’s view suggests
\nthat God has made the positive choice of election but that human beings retain
\nthe freedom to say “no” to God by rejecting Christ. <\/span>A similar view was expressed by C.S. Lewis in his allegory The
\nGreat Divorce<\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nbut it does not necessarily lead to universalism. <\/span>Nevertheless, the Barthian approach (as well as Lewis’
\nallegory) leave ample room for “those who haven’t heard” to be saved, for it is
\nonly those who in decision and disposition finally choose against <\/i>God who will lose the benefits of salvation.<\/p>\n
\nthrough Pelagian, Arminian, and High Calvinist views of election. <\/span>However, Barth’s view also does not
\nseem to do justice to the fullness of Biblical teaching about God’s sovereignty
\nand election. <\/span>Scripture
\nseems to suggest quite strongly that God chooses a particular people<\/i> in Christ.<\/p>\n
\nelection seems to be emerging. <\/span>In
\nthis view, “election” refers primarily to God’s choice of some people to engage in His mission<\/i> of redeeming
\nall of creation. <\/span>When we reflect
\non the doctrine of election, the point is not to divine “who’s in and who’s
\nout” in terms of final judgment.
\n<\/span>The final judgment is God’s prerogative alone. <\/span>What we can<\/i> know
\nis that, having received the grace of the Gospel, we are chosen to bring the
\nGospel, in all its fullness, into all of creation. <\/span>(For some hints at this approach, see Leslie Newbiggin, The
\nGospel in a Pluralist Society<\/a>, and Christopher J.H. Wright, The
\nMission of God<\/a>.)<\/p>\n
\nthis emphatically does not<\/i> mean that
\nthose outside the visible Church are forever outside the reach of God’s grace. <\/span>Barth’s approach is helpful here: <\/span>God has already said “yes” to all <\/i>of humanity in Christ. <\/span>The eschatological victory over sin,
\nevil and death is sealed. <\/span>In my
\nview — given what I know of God’s character revealed in Christ – <\/span>at the final judgment, only those who
\npersistently reject God’s grace will remain outside the Kingdom. <\/span>Karl Barth, C.S. Lewis, Hans Urs von
\nBalthasar, Leslie Newbiggin, Donald Bloesch, Dallas Willard, and the like, were
\nright: <\/span>it is wrong to suggest that
\nall people who do not (as far as we can see) have access to the Gospel in this
\nlife are simply cast off by God. <\/span>(Whether
\nGod’s salvation encompasses an ongoing post-mortem “harrowing of Hell,” as many
\nEastern Church Fathers and contemporary Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians
\nsuggest, I do not know, though I personally suspect something like this is so.
\n) <\/span>Yet, as always, it is not for me
\nto pretend to constrain what God can or cannot do, or to pry too deeply into
\nHis mysteries. <\/span>Judgment and
\nsalvation belong to God alone.<\/p>\n
\nhope and anticipation for the wedding feast to come, as people chosen by God
\nfor His mission of redeeming all of creation, trusting that nothing God has
\ndone or will do is in the slightest way unloving, unjust, unfair, or wrong, working
\nout our own salvation, and content to leave the mystery of final judgment to our
\ngood and beautiful God.<\/p>\n
\nabout a “missional” approach to election?
\n<\/span>How can we best answer the difficult question of why God’s great
\nsalvation seems to reach so few people in this life?<\/b><\/p>\n