N. T. Wright on Predestination and Election

[Humble_Disciple]

Since N. T. Wright is the gold standard of conservative Biblical scholarship today, it's worth hearing what he has to say about predestination and election as taught in scripture:

It seems Wright understands election as a corporate election of the church, for anyone who freely chooses to be in Christ, rather than individual souls to salvation determined at the beginning of time.

As election was understood for Israel in the Old Testament, election was for Israel as a whole, rather than individuals to salvation.

The New Testament term for the church "ekklesia," which is related to the English word "elect," was also used for the people of Israel in the Greek Septuagint.

The Corporate View of Election

The main difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is not whether God's enabling grace is necessary to repent and believe the Gospel, but whether this enabling grace is given to all people equally or just a select few:

When Calvinists point to John 6:44 as an example of particular irresistible “drawing”, Arminians will often quickly refer to John 12:32 to demonstrate that the drawing of John 6:44 cannot be a reference to regeneration. The reason is that Jesus states in Jn. 12:32 that he will “draw all men” to himself. The same Greek word is used here as in Jn. 6:44. The implication is that if Jesus was speaking of irresistible regeneration in John 6:44, then his statement in Jn. 12:32 would lead to the conclusion that Christ will irresistibly regenerate all men. This would be a plain case of universalism (the teaching that all will be saved), a teaching that both Calvinists and Arminians reject (Luke 13:24)...

I have no problem with their consideration of John 12:20-22, nor with their statement that he includes the Greeks in “all men”. The part I take issue with is their conclusion that when Jesus says “all men” he means only “all without distinction” or “all kinds of people”. This is a conclusion that Peterson and Williams have read into the passage based on the necessities of their Calvinist theology. There is no exegetical justification for reading “all men” as “some men” from among “all men” in this passage. It makes just as much sense to say that because Jesus’ drawing power would go out to “all men” (without exception), that the Gentiles of Jn. 12:20-22 could then rest assured that they too would have access to the gift of God’s salvation. To say that the presence of Greeks in vss. 20-22 necessitates that Jn. 12:32 must be understood in a restrictive sense is a huge leap in logic, and a conclusion which the un-biased reader of Scripture would likely never come to on his or her own.
Is The Drawing of John 12:32 Universal or Particular?

 

[anna ~ grace]

The difficulties of navigating Soteriology are vast. You learn one thing, than learn another, than… as you are beginning to possibly wander out of Calvinism and are beginning to look at other things, I would urge you, take your time, study, and pray most of all.

There is more to Soteriology than Calvinism vs. Arminianism, though I think right now, you are trying to puzzle things out, and that’s ok.

I like your African Jesus avatar. Here are some more beautiful images of Christ, some from Ethiopia;

 

[Humble_Disciple]

There is more to Soteriology than Calvinism vs. Arminianism, though I think right now, you are trying to puzzle things out, and that’s ok.

I'd be interested in learning what Eastern Orthodoxy has to say on predestination and election, since few people outside of Orthodoxy seem to talk about their position.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I'd be interested in learning what Eastern Orthodoxy has to say on predestination and election, since few people outside of Orthodoxy seem to talk about their position.

A good place to ask that would be TAW;

The Ancient Way - Eastern Orthodox

Mind you, it’s for genuine questions and not for debating stuff, but there are a whole bunch of knowledgeable, kind people over there.