Leighton Flowers– election; and my reformed response re-examined
Leighton Flowers– election; and my reformed response re-examined
Over the last three or four years, my conviction about what I once held to as a Christian have changed and grown. Now do not get me wrong: I am still a Christian– that has not changed; however, what has is that I am no longer reformed (or Calvinistic) as these ideas can only be forced upon scriptures from external theological presuppositions. In other words, when we allow the full contexts of every passage to be read from beginning to end– none of them can be read honestly to support such doctrines– so as you can tell from this small introduction I will not be concerned with such ideas after this re-examination. Let me make a point here that helps us understand my new position: I am an advocate of what can be described as biblical theology; and not systematic theology. That is to say: we read the texts in context to see what the point that the Apostle or Prophet is making in the broader and much larger story narrative. The whole bible is a narrative and story that is essentially surrounding Christ.
What I want to do here is keep Leighton’s answers along with my former responses; and then give readjusted answers so that we can see what the bible teaches.
The Initial question
Leighton’s statement:
“The question is, is He saving people for no apparent reason, or is He saving people for a reason? In other words, besides some secret, hidden counsel that we can't possibly know about, some unconditional reason that is not there, in other words, the Calvinist will often say, we just don't know what the reason is, therefore can you say with certainty there is no reason based upon our choices, or our decisions independently of God that would cause Him to show favour to one person over another?”
My former response:
Now we don't even get into the first few words without getting a misrepresentation of what Calvinism; reformed theology teaches. Notice he said: “Is He waiving people for no apparent reason, or is he saving people for a reason? In other words, besides some secret, hidden counsel that we can't possibly know about, some unconditional reason that is not there, ” This opens up the whole issue of whether he was truly ever a Calvinist as he continually claims. Personally there is not a shed of evidence that he was. And His question makes this very evident. It is as clear as day; and bright as the sun in the sky. He never was. Now what of this question. Do Calvinist believe God saves people or choses people for no apparent reason? No—this is not the case. To begin with everything God does is to bring Himself glory. That is the sole motive. And as for his attack on God’s secret will—I wonder how he takes it with Deut. 29:29.
Now as I think about Leighton’s answer above it does not seem so far-fetched to see that the idea of election in Reformed or Calvinistic theology leads us to the conclusion that it is “for no apparent reason,” or to put it in more straight-forward manner: Calvinistic election is based on something that is not biblically derived but humanistically derived– it is a false human philosophy dreamed up by men like Aquinas and Calvin. Let us be honest with these things. If someone wants to hold it and follow it that is their business; but let us come to see it for what it is an unbiblical premise.
Now the one thing that needs to be mentioned here is the fact I fell into the dangerous position that Calvinism leads all its adherents into– and that is questioning someone's honesty about whether someone is a Calvinist or was one. And sometimes this mentality can also lead one to almost question whether someone was or is truly saved. A very dangerous position to be in. Someone may ask: how does doing the first lead to the second? Simple really: it is a slippery slope of doing one and inevitably carrying the implicit assumption of the other.
The bottom line is no one has the right to cast aspersions such as this one. Let us continue with my former response:
And scriptures confirm this very fact. In Ezekiel 36 we are told this of God reason in what He will do in saving a people:
Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went. I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord,” (Ezekiel 36:22-23)
And this can be seen in many New Testament text such as:
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counsellor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:4-6)
Now we must ask a simple question: what do these passages have in common? What is it that they teach regarding God's motive in saving a single person—let alone, multiple millions of people if that be his will. The purpose in all things is that God be glorified. The idea that there is no reason behind God's action is surely a misplaced understanding of what the reformed position is. And if someone says it based on ignorance—then it could be forgiven; but the problem is that Leighton, at this very point, was apparently a Calvinist for ten years—and has been corrected by various reformed apologists and teachers. There is the first error. So then, what is the reason that Leighton offers?—he does have one—and we will deal with it later on.
None of these texts in context prove Calvinism at all. However, what they do prove is this– God has always had a purpose which he is working out through the history of man (Isaiah 55:1-13). But what is this purpose? Even before we get to the great chapters of Romans 9-11 the Apostle has summarised it in these terms:
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
That is the purpose that God is working out in human history: being conformed to Christ. That is the goal of redemption.
Let us consider another point he makes that I responded too:
He then adds this: “in other words, the Calvinist will often say, we just don't know what the reason is, therefore can you say with certainty there is no reason based upon our choices, or our decisions independently of God that would cause Him to show favour to one person over another?” Now this is one of the most important statements for us to take note of. For there are several categorical errors being forced into one statement. Let us deal with them one by one.
He says that Calvinist basically trump the “mystery card” in order to get out of difficult situations. Is this true? I believe it is—but only if we admit that every Christians does in certain situations. For example: one of the key doctrines of the faith is the Trinity. The one being of God existing as three persons. We may confess it as truth; we may teach it as truth. But tell me do we really and truly understand everything that is to be believed. Now this is not to say that we are wrong; but simply to admit that we as humans do not have the capacity to fully grasp this truth adequately in our minds. Now how does this apply in the situation of God’s decree of Election?
Now I still do hold to the Idea that there are things that we hold to that are a mystery– in the sense of them not being fully understood to us humans– but Election is not one of those things. However, the doctrine of the Trinity is one such case.
Let u now turn to my two points i used to support the idea that election is a mystery (to some degree):
The scriptures clearly teach that God has a secret will which is at the back of everything that takes place in creation. Genesis 50:20; Deut. 29:29; Psalms 33:10-12; Daniel 4: 34-35; John 6:37-40; Acts 4: 24-48; and Romans 9. But this very fact can be seen in the lives of two Old Testament Saints: Jonah and Job.
Do any of these scriptures support election (as the Calvinist holds)? No– not at all. Let us note that there are essentially two parts to God's purpose: (1) the first part is that God set everything in motion for the eventual arrival of His Son in this world as the redeemer– that is what the whole mosaic system was put in place for. (2) As I mention above we are being conformed to the image of Christ; therefore John 6 and Romans 9 (and Ephesians 1) speak to our union with Christ and the outcome that that brings which is we become his elect people.
Although we can know that this is what God has done in saving His people throughout history; and He still does. We must be real with this truth and say that we can not know every aspect. We know there are no external motivations. But we do not know whom God has chosen to save. Our knowledge is only evident after one is saved and it is made known through their lives.
The first line is correct– but that is as far as it goes. The rest is pure reformed fiction. There is one motivation: Christ being glorified through our being conformed to his likeness.
When one has no decree of God; and abhors the idea of election being personal and unconditional—they have to adopt one of many other views or even worse, have no discernible position. It is hard to know what they believe in on any number of issues and how they all connect? Or if they do at all? And in this case—we can not find any other teaching—it is rather unhinged. But we do know one thing for sure. The God that Leighton promotes is not the biblical God—for when He says “therefore can you say with certainty there is no reason based upon our choices, or our decisions independently of God that would cause Him to show favour to one person over another?” This is a startling confession. He is saying that God cannot do anything to save man—except that which man allows Him to do. This is paganism. This is heresy. The one true God, says the scriptures, does whatever He wills—according to his purpose.
I can no longer stand by this statement. Leighton does present the biblical position on most issues– even if he does not have any teaching on that matter. I would say that Calvinism does not present the biblical teaching on God.
The preliminary point:
Let us come to Leighton next statement:
“You know, when we ask about election, we are talking about, mainly, God having favour on somebody, Him choosing someone over someone else. Matter of fact, whenever we use the word choice, a lot of times we are thinking of the verb form of it, like I made a choice between these options. But if you go into the grocery store later today, and you go to the choice meat section, the word choice there is used more of an adjective, it's describing the type of meat, it's the type of meat that is favourable over the other, lesser favourable meat. And so when you talk about something that is a choice, you are not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favourable meat. There's a reason to have the choice of that meat. So the question becomes really, in this debate, does God really favour some people over others?”
While I do not necessarily agree with the meat analogy that Leighton offers up in his talk– I have no issue with him using it in order for him to show his perspective. My new view on election, I will lay out very soon.
My former response:
And now we come to the slightly troubling analogy that Leighton throws out—and this is a common thing in his talks. More will be said on this in a moment. Let us first note the words of the statement prior to it. He says: “Matter of fact, whenever we use the word choice, a lot of times we are thinking of the verb form of it, like I made a choice between these options.” I would have to say this one thing—he has hit the nail on the head. The Bible, when it comes to God's action of choosing someone, this is precisely what happens. In every place that choice is spoken of—and God is the subject of that action; and we are the object of it—we are only and always speaking of a verb. But the error in this matter—lies in the fact that Leighton is not at this point discussing God or the Bible. He has posited man into the equation. And there is only reason he is doing this—in order that he can make room for an unbiblical premise.
Now let us bring forth my new view which is the true biblical view: the word “elect” or “election” does not pertain to some eternal choice whether it is dependant on man’s action such as we see in Arminianism; or even independent of man’s actions which is the Calvinistic view. No– these ideas are humanistic ideas in nature. So the question is this: what does the bible teach about election?
Election– whenever it is used in scriptures like many other words such as called; saints and many others is describing an outcome of another important truth regarding what we become when we are converted to Christ. The point being established is this: union. Through our union with Christ we become one of his people (the elect). In other words, we are never chosen in eternity (dependent on or independently of our actions); no– we become elect dependent on Christ’s action of being obedient to the will of God. So there is an eternal part in election– Christ’s own promise to the Father to be obedient.
Take note of one of the central passages:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Note that it is through our union that we are being blessed, that we become the chosen, that we become God’s son. Therefore, it is because we have been united to Christ that we have favoured. And this central reality of our union with Christ can be seen as the motivation for Paul’s longing for his fellow Jews; even to the point of his exclusion from the blessings which it accrues in Romans 9: “I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh (that is, his Jewish inheritance).” (vs. 1-3) What a great picture! Paul would surrender his own place for other Jews– even though that is an impossibility– That is his heart.
So election does not need such theological– or what it truly is, reformed philosophy to be understood. It is the outcome of being united with Christ– and only becomes a fact after conversion as we see in another interesting passage in Romans 16: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” (vs. 7) (Without realising what he had done– a dear friend and brother in Christ had shown this verse to me– and it started a war in me against reformed election) But here is the question? If election is eternal as Calvinism posits– how can it be true that you are one of the elect without being in Christ? And how can someone else in Christ before another person from such a vantage point? It simply does not work. And Faith plays a pivotal role in this too.
The analogy:
Leighton comes to the real issue as he defines it,
“But if you go into the grocery store later today, and you go to the choice meat section, the word choice there is used more of an adjective, it's describing the type of meat, it's the type of meat that is favourable over the other, lesser favourable meat.”
As I have said, I have no problem with this understanding; therefore, I will not be commenting on it. However, I do have a problem with what is to follow.
My former response:
Notice the problem. He has slipped in the adjective form of choice—as in choice which is based around the items inherent worth and quality. I want to make it clear—and it must be done. This is not the way that we do exegesis of the text—by supplanting it with analogies which are designed to foist a false ideal into a theological matter. This is also known as a false teaching which is being read upon eisegesis. The most dangerous thing in all of this is that it is assumed and never proven. Let us now note that the use of favourable and unfavourable meat— the unbiblical; it does provide a teachable moment: if we were to correctly identify what kind of “meat” God chose according to the scriptures. Then I ask: which of these is more biblically accurate? What are all human being called? And why is the act of regeneration so necessary in the first place?
Granted. This is not the way to do exegesis– however, let us be quite frank neither is the way the reformed handle the text of scriptures how we should exegete scriptures. Let for the moment turn to another passage that the reformed mangle–shall we?
In Romans 8 we are told the following:
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
The reformed understanding of the term “flesh” is "sinful nature,” so that when they read the context it is found to mean that the sinful man cannot obey the law. And from there they extrapolate some kind of inability on natural man. This is bad exegesis– in fact, it is nothing short of eisegesis. The context is not speaking of natural man; nor is it speaking of sinful man in any sense. Here we are dealing with believers (Christians) both from the Jewish background; and those who are from the Gentile background. The issue is a common one: false teaching regarding Gentiles being saved and living life under the law for sanctification. And in particular: Gentile converts.
So let us return to the term “the flesh;” it refers not to sinful nature– a common canard; but rather to the Jewish identification marker that sets them apart from all other groups of human beings: Circumcision. Now let us think about the above statement: the mind that is depending on circumcision to gain life under the new covenant is hostile to God; for it does not submit to God’s law (that is, it does not understand the purpose of the law in shutting the Jews up in their sin –rm. 3:19-20) Indeed it cannot. Those who are dependent on circumcision for life in the new covenant cannot please God. Do you see how the point flows more naturally from the fact that Romans 7 is speaking of a Jew under the law being enslaved to it; and no Christian is under the law but under righteousness. What a wonderfully liberating truth!
Now let us return to my former response:
The answer is because all human beings are born in sin; and shapen in inquiry—we are all alike: unfavourable meats. In fact, we can go much further in this: we are spoiled and rotten to the core. So much for this analogy—it does not help him as he thinks but in reality gives us a more important lesson about the true nature of man. He is not favourable. And God if he really decided to He could throw us aside—but has chosen to show us grace and mercy in and through His Son Jesus Christ. He continues on with this analogy—and beats that old straw-man to death: “And so when you talk about something that is a choice, you are not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favourable meat.” In this line of thinking that Leighton has put forth there is no room for God actively choosing a person; no—it has to be all in man's hands. And as we have noted, there is a reason for God choosing a person without reference to that man's inherent goodness as there is none; of any good thing he has done. It is into the glory of God that one is chosen in Christ.
Putting aside the analogy– there is one thing in this statement that I must address. In the first portion I was alluding to several passages to support the reformed doctrine of Total depravity/total inability. Let us consider the statement:
The answer is because all human beings are born in sin; and shapen in inquiry—we are all alike: unfavourable meats. In fact, we can go much further in this: we are spoiled and rotten to the core
Now the most important point to make is that this doctrine can not be found anywhere in scripture– whether by name or by concept. Let us ask the question: which scriptures was I thinking of and alluding to?
The first one is this:
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Immediately we can see that there is no connection between what is being spoken of which is the Jewish way of life which Paul is speaking of when he speaks as he does above; and the reformed idea of being born in sin. Infact, Paul uses a Jewish term to highlight his whole point: the flesh… or our flesh. Which as I made the connection in Romans 8 refers to the fact of circumcision which is the identification marker of the Old Covenant. But as I also noted that the New Covenant has nothing in connection to the Old way of life which means being circumcised cannot make you right with God. The Lord Jesus Christ makes this point in his teaching on the shrunken cloth and wineskins (Mt. 9: 14-17); and the reformed with their covenant theology meshes together the Old and New Covenant realities– and the reformed does this.
And this is further bared out later in the chapter with these words:
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
The Gentiles who came to the faith did so by the same means as the Jew through the shed blood of Christ and the work of the Spirit. And were never expected to keep the Law or become a Jew in order to become a Christian.
The second one is this:
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouths are full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Again, the reformed have shoehorn a doctrine into this passage where it does not belong. So what is being discussed? The Jew and Gentile under the sin– and that is all it is discussing. And how do we know this? Note how it begins: “What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,” we, as unregenerate men and women, are both enslaved to sin in this life– as a result of our own choices in sinning. But both are under sin. But for the Jew it is far worse because they have been given so many blessings by God as his people– it is far worse because that which should be a blessing becomes a curse as they could not keep it due to their sin inflaming its punishment; and they become enslaved to it as a result: they are slaves to sin and the Law. And all of this can be understood by the quotes from the Old Testament from verse 10-18. This is what Paul is speaking of as a historical reality.
And this fact concerning the Jew under the law is further seen in the last statement: “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” To whom does Paul refer to with the words “to those who are under the law”? It cannot be the Gentiles for they, we are told in Rm 2:14-15, are not under the law and never were. But Paul does say this of another group in Rm 7 “those who know the law “ that have an intimate knowledge of the Law through being in covenant to it. Yes, that is correct: Romans 3 19-20 agrees with Rm 7:1-6 that it is ONLY the Jews under the law. Therefore, the reformed are incorrect.
Now to my final former response:
There's a reason to have the choice of that meat. So the question becomes really in this debate, does God really favour some people over others?” And this can be put to Leighton with even more force. No matter how you want to play out this analogy—it still comes back to the same point: why did God choose one person (the favoured meat) over another person (whether he is of the same substance or not: favoured/ not favoured)? What exactly does one have that the other does not? He or she might have done such and such a thing that put them ahead in the race—but now explain the Apostle Paul. He persecuted the Church—and yet God chose Him. Did God simply forget this “favoured meat” concept in the case of Paul? It appears that this analogy of Leighton's falls apart when it is pushed.
This one time I will have to make a double response: both Leighton (although it is slightly better than the latter); and the reformed response fall short. The really sticking point is not to be found in either viewpoint– there is only one elect person throughout the whole scriptures: Christ Himself. Matthew 12 quoting Isa 42 makes this point with clarity that the Servant; who we know is Christ, is the only one that the Father favours and has chosen to be the sole sufficient means of redemption. And it is in and through us being united with Christ that we become favoured in God’s sight– this has always been the case.
Let us end with that passage from Matthew:
Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all and ordered them not to make him known. This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah:
“Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not quarrel or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smouldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory; and in his name the Gentiles will hope.”
The scriptures are to be read and understood in a Christocentric fashion where everything finds their meaning in Him.