A.2. Grace and Election

1. A.2. Grace and Election A.2.2. Contemporary Theology

2. Terminology • Grace • Prevenient Grace – divine grace that precedes human decision • Predestination • Double Predestination (Augustinian-Calvinist) • Elect and Reprobates • Foreordination • Foreknowledge

3. Question of Degree of Human Freedom • Wide disagreement about degree of human capacity to choose in terms of salvation • Some Biblical Considerations J.B.’s illustration of the C note string

4. Augustine and Pelagius • Augustine (354-430) • Doctrine of original sin • We all bear Adam’s sin • Emphasis on God’s sovereignty and initiative • Pelagius (c.354- after 418) • Concern over Christian lifestyle • Fall does not negate free will • Grace is present everywhere at every moment • No predestination • We can, by our own efforts, fulfill God’s commands without sinning • Augustine’s Response to Pelagius • Double predestination • 431 Council of Ephesus follows Augustine

5. Calvin and Arminius • Calvin(1509-64) • Follows Augustine on Double Predestination • TULIP • Total depravity • Unconditional predestination • Limited Atonement • Irresistible Grace • Perseverance • Arminius (1560-1609) • Raised Calvinist • God desires all to be saved (I Tim. 2.3-4) • Prevenient grace

6. 1. Karl Barth • A) as a Reformed theologian, he departed from Calvinism and regarded the doctrine of predestination as mispresentation of the Bible • B) Centrality of Jesus Christ; doctrine of predestination can only be formulated in light of God’s revelation and atonement • C) the eternal will of God is the election of Jesus Christ and this election of Christ and his incarnation shows that God wants to save, not to condemn people

7. 1. Karl Barth • D) the election is Jesus is not that of an individual but of entire human race • E) but Christ is not only the elected man, he is also the electing God = Barth’s doctrine of double predestination • F) universal election: all humans have been elected in Christ; the difference has to do with the fact that while some know they have been elected, others do not

8. 1. Karl Barth • G) universalism: after having rejected Christ on the cross, God never rejects any one else • Barth is ambiguous about “universalism”: “I do not teach it and I do not not teach it”

9. 2.Wolfhart Pannenberg 2.1. Place of the doctrine of election in systematic theology: • A) the topic of election, rather than being part of the doctrine of God or of salvation, is under “ecclesiology”: election primarily relates to community/people • B) it’s much less about choosing individuals for salvation or condemnation than it is about choosing of the people of God • here Pannenberg follows Melanchton over against Luther and Calvin

10. 2.Wolfhart Pannenberg 2.2. Criticism of Augustinian-Calvinistic view: a) it is abstract and not related to history b) it is deterministic: what is the role of human will c) it makes the idea of divine “calling” highly problematic

11. 2.Wolfhart Pannenberg 2.3. Biblical basis a) dynamic tension between individual and corporeal: the OT focuses on the election of people whereas NT has both the communal and individual perspectives in view • in the OT, even individuals (kings, prophets, etc.) are elected for the sake of the people and in service of people • in the NT, the church is the focus: it is not abstract since with the founding of the church, the people have a chance to be included in God’s saving mission

12. 2.Wolfhart Pannenberg 2.3. Biblical basis…cont. b) in the NT, election was extended beyond the people of God to include Gentiles • Yet, there is also a place for the election of individuals, but not at the expense of the community but rather part of it c) there is a call for individuals to respond: Jesus did not call so much the whole people as individuals to respond

13. 3. Clark Pinnock View of God a) God as “Unbounded Generosity” b) this God is committed to saving as many as possible

14. 3. Clark Pinnock “Open Theism”: criticism of traditional “Unmoved God”: God as loving parent a) God truly responds to the human actions, feels their power and takes them into consideration b) Love is the main attribute of God c) No determinism: God does not know everything that happens (only that which can be known by anyone)

15. 3. Clark Pinnock “Hermeneutics of Hopefulness” a) This was lost with Augustine’s notion of election = “megashift in theology” b) It leads to apathy, fear, and a false view of God

16. 3. Clark Pinnock A Revised View of Election a) election of community; individuals are elected as part of the community • election for salvation rather than for judgment b) wideness in God’s election: already in the OT, God opens the door of salvation even for some “pagan saints” outside of the covenant c) election of the People of God (Israel, church) is for the sake of the salvation of all rather than exclusion of most people

17. Toward an Evangelical Theology of Election 1. Dangers to be avoided: a) Augustinian- Calvinistic extremes: negation of freedom; opposition of nature and grace (cf. Eastern Orthodox idea of freedom of will) b) Pelagianism: independence of human being in salvation c) Barth’s universalistic tendency

18. 2. Proper Guidelines VMK proposes a modified Arminianism, developed by Wesleyan theology, fine-tuned by crucial insights from Pannenberg and Pinnock • A) Biblical data: some kind of choice left to humans • B) Election mainly relates to salvation rather than condemnation • C) Election relates to the community/people of God and individuals as part of it

19. 2. Proper Guidelines cont. • D) Human beings as God’s image: God wants real response and honors relative freedom • E) Contemporary culture: personal choice (which is never “individualistic” though!) • F) Wideness of God’s grace: God wants all men/women to be saved: if God wants something, it has some real implications