"God has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity..." -- 2 Timothy 1:9 (NASB)
I've always had a keen wonder concerning this sort of remark; not concerning the latter half of the statement, but the former. "His purpose": must it really be that difficult to comprehend? It seems plainly obvious that those who quote such a passage seem to imply that there is no reference to value or ability to respond on our part before an omnipotent God, and because of such depravity the question of our ultimate good is of trivial importance, and the matter transcends precisely to a God who makes our ability to perceive goodness possible and His ultimate intentions. A God who is love (1 John 4:8) must have something else in mind. In our own theological conceptions we assume something murky and conspiratorial is at work regarding the divine purpose regarding this specific passage: something deeper than the essence of God's being, and therefore, I would warrant, something not of God at all. A deity of maximal excellence does not need to carry out any task, foreign or no; if this were so, it would be impossible for such an entity to be God. Perfection, as it relates to the divine, is precisely the state of self-sufficiency. Our God is sufficient in Himself. Only through self-subjected creation -- an act of pure and paramount aesthetic expression, in my opinion -- did He bestow His capacity to relate with something less than eternal. It would seem obvious that as far as intentions go, they would carry out only as far as this imperfect creation, and how far His perfection can act as a luminary to our impoverished reality; and such would also transcend to His ultimate purpose: that which we are not called according to works. With all this in mind, not from an arrogant or ostentatious stance, I claim that God's purpose is candid and inexorable: love. Indeed, one whose purpose is love, and love alone, cannot possibly choose us according to our works; this is to miss the entire point of charity: edification, with intrinsic respect for the subject in question. As Frost would say, love is blind, and should be left so. I am simply advocating that God's essence foreshadows any possible intention that He would imagine; and I believe that Paul's reference to His election not based on us or our spiritual character is not a way of negating our intrinsic value (we are, regardless of our depravity, made in the image of God [Gen. 9:6; Jas. 3:9]) and our relation to this divine plan, but of revealing that pure, agape love has no cares for standings of spiritual character, and therefore God's ultimate purpose is indeed His purpose in relation to mankind, for such is the expression of His glory. Honestly, how can it be otherwise? His plan must not be something that is done for the hopes of a progression of His own character; as stated before, such is impossible with perfection. His purpose must be something done out of the purest of self-sufficient love, and therefore, given that love is precisely relational, how He may embellish mankind with this unconditional gift.
Perchance from this understanding we can weigh our perceptions of the divine, from the wondrous and heartwarming conceptions seen in the gospels through the quintessential man Jesus Christ, to the seeming insufficient and unloving God of the Old Testament. Where subjectivity ends, reality continues. And it is through faith that we hold value in those things that are true regardless of our ability to at least partially comprehend them. This is indeed why I believe that God loves every man, for I realize that every degree closer I come to His perfection, the more compassion I have for my fellow man, regardless of his moral standing. Shall we therefore out-mercify God? It seems not, for in the act of creating man He loves them into existence. Anything less than this would be to contradict His essense (1 John 4:8), and therefore be an injustice of superlative degree against the very one our capacity for justice weighs.
God's election, therefore, is simply His calling and providential response to those who have the capacity to receive that which He freely bestows. It is not according to works, lest any man should boast. How foolish it is to believe that it could possibly be according to such a system, for in this very method of drawing love itself is left out! Indeed, a man who boasts in love is boasting not in love but in something imperfect; and to draw according to works with a purpose of love is to contradict the very purpose you hold, for the purest love has no conditions in relation to the subject at hand. And so it goes. A God of love cannot help but draw unconditionally, but this lack of conditions on our part does not negate the universal love He has for mankind, for God is love. It turns then, perhaps ironically, that God's admittance to election does not negate the possibility of His omni-benevolence; it fulfills it. God, who loves all, soteriologically loves those who will have a standing in His world; and such is only possible through anything less than arrant denial.
How does this tie in with the ontological present? In the very same sense an act of love does to a man in need: there are no conditions by which we weigh this man 'worthy' of our sympathy -- to claim such is to contradict love. He is perfectly free to respond to our call, or deny us. Yet the man of the highest compassion will not allow a man of feeble doubt to withstand his desire to express that which has fueled him to even be able to express such a moment of affection; nothing is inexorable but love. The only man who is irredeemable is the one who is of such a contaminated and obstinate nature to repel that which is good: the one who loves the very opposite of that which gives this man of aid reason for living. Such men are, if you will, incapable of election.
"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." -- John 3:20,21 (NASB)
Of course, this verse, while giving aid to previous allegory, also maintains a definite problem for those who would maintain God's definite calling, but deny His essential nature as love. The second verse states that those who practice the truth come to the light; they are not already in it. The only escape seems to be to claim that those who God loved prior to their existence unconsciously, and involuntarily, practiced a truth only given to them. But this is to contradict God's essential nature (1 John 4:8), as well as raise ambiguous interpretations of verses that indicate the possibility of man's repentance in the face of God's potential wrath (cf. Romans 2:5): how can one merit blame for something one cannot do without the assistance of that which makes it possible -- such being only that which God has bestowed upon the elect, according to the group of theologians who maintiain God's limited benevolence? Blame would become futile, and therefore unjust. The only plausible interpretation seems to be that man has the capacity to be drawn by the intrinisic beauty of God -- that is to say, he has the capacity of response. While no man seeks God in his own power, God, being love, seeks him, and through the contingency of response comes the contingency of salvation.
With all this stated, I believe I have stated my case well enough. My underlying and fundamental point is that grace, while undeserved, is also the gift of a God of love who could not but express the depth of His love through the incarnation and death of His son, made in His likeness. Thoughts?
I've always had a keen wonder concerning this sort of remark; not concerning the latter half of the statement, but the former. "His purpose": must it really be that difficult to comprehend? It seems plainly obvious that those who quote such a passage seem to imply that there is no reference to value or ability to respond on our part before an omnipotent God, and because of such depravity the question of our ultimate good is of trivial importance, and the matter transcends precisely to a God who makes our ability to perceive goodness possible and His ultimate intentions. A God who is love (1 John 4:8) must have something else in mind. In our own theological conceptions we assume something murky and conspiratorial is at work regarding the divine purpose regarding this specific passage: something deeper than the essence of God's being, and therefore, I would warrant, something not of God at all. A deity of maximal excellence does not need to carry out any task, foreign or no; if this were so, it would be impossible for such an entity to be God. Perfection, as it relates to the divine, is precisely the state of self-sufficiency. Our God is sufficient in Himself. Only through self-subjected creation -- an act of pure and paramount aesthetic expression, in my opinion -- did He bestow His capacity to relate with something less than eternal. It would seem obvious that as far as intentions go, they would carry out only as far as this imperfect creation, and how far His perfection can act as a luminary to our impoverished reality; and such would also transcend to His ultimate purpose: that which we are not called according to works. With all this in mind, not from an arrogant or ostentatious stance, I claim that God's purpose is candid and inexorable: love. Indeed, one whose purpose is love, and love alone, cannot possibly choose us according to our works; this is to miss the entire point of charity: edification, with intrinsic respect for the subject in question. As Frost would say, love is blind, and should be left so. I am simply advocating that God's essence foreshadows any possible intention that He would imagine; and I believe that Paul's reference to His election not based on us or our spiritual character is not a way of negating our intrinsic value (we are, regardless of our depravity, made in the image of God [Gen. 9:6; Jas. 3:9]) and our relation to this divine plan, but of revealing that pure, agape love has no cares for standings of spiritual character, and therefore God's ultimate purpose is indeed His purpose in relation to mankind, for such is the expression of His glory. Honestly, how can it be otherwise? His plan must not be something that is done for the hopes of a progression of His own character; as stated before, such is impossible with perfection. His purpose must be something done out of the purest of self-sufficient love, and therefore, given that love is precisely relational, how He may embellish mankind with this unconditional gift.
Perchance from this understanding we can weigh our perceptions of the divine, from the wondrous and heartwarming conceptions seen in the gospels through the quintessential man Jesus Christ, to the seeming insufficient and unloving God of the Old Testament. Where subjectivity ends, reality continues. And it is through faith that we hold value in those things that are true regardless of our ability to at least partially comprehend them. This is indeed why I believe that God loves every man, for I realize that every degree closer I come to His perfection, the more compassion I have for my fellow man, regardless of his moral standing. Shall we therefore out-mercify God? It seems not, for in the act of creating man He loves them into existence. Anything less than this would be to contradict His essense (1 John 4:8), and therefore be an injustice of superlative degree against the very one our capacity for justice weighs.
God's election, therefore, is simply His calling and providential response to those who have the capacity to receive that which He freely bestows. It is not according to works, lest any man should boast. How foolish it is to believe that it could possibly be according to such a system, for in this very method of drawing love itself is left out! Indeed, a man who boasts in love is boasting not in love but in something imperfect; and to draw according to works with a purpose of love is to contradict the very purpose you hold, for the purest love has no conditions in relation to the subject at hand. And so it goes. A God of love cannot help but draw unconditionally, but this lack of conditions on our part does not negate the universal love He has for mankind, for God is love. It turns then, perhaps ironically, that God's admittance to election does not negate the possibility of His omni-benevolence; it fulfills it. God, who loves all, soteriologically loves those who will have a standing in His world; and such is only possible through anything less than arrant denial.
How does this tie in with the ontological present? In the very same sense an act of love does to a man in need: there are no conditions by which we weigh this man 'worthy' of our sympathy -- to claim such is to contradict love. He is perfectly free to respond to our call, or deny us. Yet the man of the highest compassion will not allow a man of feeble doubt to withstand his desire to express that which has fueled him to even be able to express such a moment of affection; nothing is inexorable but love. The only man who is irredeemable is the one who is of such a contaminated and obstinate nature to repel that which is good: the one who loves the very opposite of that which gives this man of aid reason for living. Such men are, if you will, incapable of election.
"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." -- John 3:20,21 (NASB)
Of course, this verse, while giving aid to previous allegory, also maintains a definite problem for those who would maintain God's definite calling, but deny His essential nature as love. The second verse states that those who practice the truth come to the light; they are not already in it. The only escape seems to be to claim that those who God loved prior to their existence unconsciously, and involuntarily, practiced a truth only given to them. But this is to contradict God's essential nature (1 John 4:8), as well as raise ambiguous interpretations of verses that indicate the possibility of man's repentance in the face of God's potential wrath (cf. Romans 2:5): how can one merit blame for something one cannot do without the assistance of that which makes it possible -- such being only that which God has bestowed upon the elect, according to the group of theologians who maintiain God's limited benevolence? Blame would become futile, and therefore unjust. The only plausible interpretation seems to be that man has the capacity to be drawn by the intrinisic beauty of God -- that is to say, he has the capacity of response. While no man seeks God in his own power, God, being love, seeks him, and through the contingency of response comes the contingency of salvation.
With all this stated, I believe I have stated my case well enough. My underlying and fundamental point is that grace, while undeserved, is also the gift of a God of love who could not but express the depth of His love through the incarnation and death of His son, made in His likeness. Thoughts?
