Different Things God is teaching Me

(NOT) Dead Beyond Choice

~A brief & general challenge against the Reformed denomination's "doctrine of election"

It was Francis Schaeffer who struck/shook/challenged my previously held Reformed views on man's salvation by God's election, with this: That man, though fallen, had the ability to influence history and the capability for accomplishing the greatest nobility and the greatest cruelty. Schaeffer rightly pointed out that "only humanism reduces man to a zero."
There are many facets to the Reformed faith and just as much as you find many kinds of Baptists, so you will never find one kind or trait of Reformed thinking. Yet at the core, Reformed doctrine defines fallen, unredeemed man as incapable of choosing God and saving himself. Rather than regarding fallen man (who, remember, is still created in the image of God) as in a sickened, paralyzed state where he is lying before the Divine physician and can choose to desire or reject His treatment, the Reformed doctrine has taught us to see fallen man as completely dead because (in their understanding of Scripture) this is how God defines/views fallen man.
In short, fallen man is indeed incapable of saving himself; in this, he is indeed, dead. For so long we have mistakenly viewed those (we call) of "Armenian thinking" as being border-line humanists who deny the work and grace of Christ and glorify man. (Of course, there may be a few out there who actually believe that.) The mistake lies in the fact that Armenians contend for the Scriptural truth that we are "saved by faith" and we of the Reformed denomination accuse them of heretical/humanist teaching of a "salvation by works". We, of the Reformed denomination, have concentrated far too long in quoting only part of Ephesians 2:8 : "By grace you have been saved...". We must finish the sentence. "....through faith."

I have come to the conclusion that the truth of the Bible does not reside solely in either camp; whether of the Reformed or the Armenian. God's Word is not only clear on the grace of God, but also of the expectation from God of man; God holding man responsible for the freewill he possesses to choose everyday between good and evil, hate and love, righteousness and sin. Schaeffer (as well as John Piper [who believes in the doctrine of election, yet]) explains Biblically that this is the beauty in how God purposed and created man. In one of his books, Schaeffer voiced the question we have all probably wondered: Why did God give us freewill; why didn't He just program us as a machine to obey Him? He points out that you can program a machine to say "I love you" or "Jesus is Lord" but that is not love because love is a choice. Love is dependent on choice and a relationship. God gave man a choice to choose, before and still after the Fall. Romans 1 (as well as the rest of Scripture) is clear on man's choice to either acknowledge and glorify God or "suppress the truth (Christ) in unrighteousness."

The reason for this Reformed doctrine of election to be 'reformed' is that it is first of all not completely Biblical and thus it causes much confusion especially for new believers. Isn't it somewhat strange that in our evangelism, the Reformed doctrine of election is not the first thing we will talk about? I say it's "not completely Biblical" rather than its "heretical" because it is built on a sincere, convicted understanding of Scripture with excellent backing up of verses; though I think they are not interpreted correctly. The Bible speaks of God's grace AND man's faith in it. Romans 5, Abraham was an uncircumcised man who was blessed by God because he believed and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Isn't it interesting that the Holy Spirit did not inspire Moses to record "It was accounted to God" but rather "to Abraham for righteousness." I'm just stating a fact here; contend with the Divinely inspired writers if you don't like what you find there.

I must take a moment to clarify: I am no Palagian nor do I believe that Palagianism is a Biblical doctrine. I do not at all believe that we are born innocent, as a "blank sheet" that has the possibility to be stained or be kept from staining by the influences of sin. No. We are already infected (having inherited) the curse of the First Man's sin. The effect of the Fall can be translated into the situation of nuclear waste being dumped into a spring or river's head and the waters below it being tainted and infected as it flows down. No. The Bible does not at all teach or view mankind as born innocent but rather already tainted and under the judgment of God. This is the truth that the doctrine of election retains.

Now, beyond that, the matter of whether God chooses man or man chooses God is clear in Scripture as "both" and not as an "either/or". If this is not true, than how can we (on the basis of what Scripture says about God and just simple God-given logic) can we conclude that God is a just and reasonable God for punishing those who have no choice, who are dead? Why burn in wrath against a cemetery? If man is already hard-wired/destined/purposed/doomed to have no ability to choose God, than how can God justly punish? Test it Scripturally (and through plain simple logic), it just doesn't work.

Even further for the fact that at least twice in Scripture, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul and Peter to write that it is "not God's desire for any to perish" but that His desire is that "all men would come to repentance." This does not make the work of Christ void. We should not teach that fallen and finite man has the capability to accomplish salvation for himself. What we should be teaching is what God's Word clearly states: Man has the responsibility to acknowledge God. He is not dead beyond choice. He is created in the image of God, he has been given the power to make choices of his own freewill and it is by this that God holds man responsible and is justified in His justice towards him. He is dead beyond hope for himself yet not dead beyond hope and faith IN CHRIST. Dead men have no conscience or knowledge that they are dead. God's Word shows that man knows his fallenness because His law (even the truth of His Godhead, the Trinity) is clearly seen in life.

What God's Word teaches (as we all know) ultimately matters. [Yet I would just tag on here that all I've read from Francis Schaeffer and his study of Romans 1, shows that God's Word teaches man is fallen, he can't save himself and still that does not defeat the fact that he is alive enough to know his fallenness as well as God's existence and His law.] If the Reformed fathers' doctrine does not line with Scripture, it should humble itself to "reform", to change and to submit. The Reformed church has been known for declaring: "Reformed and always reforming." Its time they lived out the second part because Scripture proves their doctrine is faulty.

And if you're offended in reading this, please know that though I do not hold the Reformed fathers at all in contempt, yet that doesn't mean I value their works above what God's Word clearly teaches. Iron sharpens iron, my friend; we must not get focused and comfortable with our doctrines but rather rest in what Scripture teaches. Be willing to change and reform; I will do so also, if you can clearly show that God's Word doesn't teach these things.