One of the leading objections to the doctrine of unconditional election is that it makes God to be a "respecter of persons," that he is guilty of showing partiality and discrimination. We have replied to some of this line of reasoning already but want to elaborate on it. We have shown how it is not unjust or unfair for God to favor one person over another, that God is not obligated to give all his creatures equal abilities and gifts. Because creatures are clay and the result of God's work as a potter, no creature has any right to complain to God that he is unjust because he did not make him better than he is. Paul, citing God's word in the old testament, asks rhetorically - "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" (Rom. 9: 20) Isaiah wrote this oracle:
"Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' Or shall your handiwork say, 'He has no hands'? Woe to him who says to his father, 'What are you begetting?' Or to the woman, 'What have you brought forth?'" (Isa. 45: 9-10 nkjv)
God has made many kinds of creatures, from the highest angel, seraphim, cherubim, down to human beings and further down to animals. God has a right to determine the kind of creature to make and creatures are wrong to insult their Creator by murmuring against him for not making them different. It is ironically unjust for rational creatures to charge God with injustice for exercising his own sovereign rights. This is the sin of those who are called "trans" today, people who don't like the fact that they were born male or female and seek to make themselves into the opposite sex (or "transcend").
The doctrine of election, particularly in its Calvinistic form, teaches that God chooses individuals for salvation independently of their merit or actions, being in this sense "unconditional." This raises the question of whether this choice by God makes him guilty of showing partiality or favoritism. While the doctrine is sometimes seen as a form of preferential treatment or discrimination, and therefore an unrighteous thing for God to do, it is really not as it seems, as we will show. Rather, those who say God chose A because A had quality B, and rejected those who did not have that quality (or didn't perform a certain action) are the ones who really make God a respecter of persons and to show partiality. That is truly ironic. It is ironic because they are saying that God's choice is based on some difference, some betterment, in the ones chosen. However, as we have seen, God's election is not based upon any inherent quality or merit or good of the individual, but rather on his own sovereign will and purpose.
Respecting Persons is not Righteous
"These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment." (Prov. 24: 23 KJV)
"To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress." (Prov. 28: 21 KJV)
"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." (Leviticus 19: 15 KJV)
"Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous." (Deuteronomy 16: 19 KJV)
These texts denounce showing partiality or respect of persons in judgment. It also gives some things that define what it means to show respect of person. Clearly to show respect of persons is "wrong" and a case of doing what is "unrighteous." God does not want people being partial or showing respect of persons. Further, he does not do this himself and his choice of people, such as Isaac and Jacob to be his children, is not a case of showing respect of persons.
One example of showing respect of persons in judgment is seen in cases where one's decision to show favor is based upon whether a person is "poor" or "mighty." We have "person of the poor" and "person of the mighty." No one should be favored or declared innocent or guilty, judged to be right or wrong, based upon his financial statement. A person should not be declared innocent because he is poor, or rich, though this is often done in courts.
In God's choice of Isaac and Jacob, as we have seen (or of everyone of the vessels of mercy), it was not based upon whether they were rich or poor. Paul plainly affirms that God's choice could not be based upon something in Isaac and Jacob, or something they did, for God chose them before they were ever born, and who had "not yet done either good or evil," concluding that God's election of sinners to salvation "is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy."
It is therefore an error for Arminians, and others who deny unconditional election, to say that for God to choose some unconditionally to salvation (and not choosing others) is a scenario where God is being unfair and unrighteous, for he is guilty of partiality and showing respect of persons. However, that is fallacious reasoning. If it was valid reasoning we would then have to conclude that God was partial and a respecter of persons when he chose Isaac and rejected Ishmael, and when he chose and loved Jacob and did not choose nor love Esau. The Arminian argument therefore forces him to say for God's election of either angels or men is God's decision to choose those persons who have or do XY, and Z. That is, God's election must be based upon conditions or it is not just and right. That is, God chooses those who believe and obey and rejects those who do not believe and obey. In the Arminian mind, this is the only way God can rightly base his election of sinners to salvation.
Is God A Respecter of Persons?
In the text at the head (Romans 2: 11), it is clearly said that "God is no respecter of persons." (kjv) Other translations say "God does not show favoritism" (niv) "God shows no partiality" (esv).
Weymouth's translations says: "God pays no attention to this world's distinctions." (which is more a paraphrase) "For God judges everyone by the same standard." (Good News translation)
However, I favor "respect of persons" as the older versions. The reasons for that will become apparent when we look more closely at how the bible defines and describes what it means to show such respect of persons.
"Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts." (II Chronicles 19: 7 KJV)
"And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear." (I Peter 1: 17 KJV)
"God is no respecter of persons." (Acts 10: 34)
We must be careful in proclaiming that God is no respecter or persons, and that he is impartial, and that he judges all by the same equal standard. For instance, do these verses say that people should not be respected? No. Why? Because it teaches us to "give honor (respect) to whom honor is due" (Rom. 13: 7) as in respecting one's elders and parents. God also shows respect to those who please him. So we read:
"And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell." (Gen. 4: 4-5 kjv)
Here Lord God respected both the person and religious acts of Abel but did not respect the person and religious acts of Cain. So, as previously stated, when God is said to not be a respecter of persons, this is not to be understood to be true in every respect. God respected Abel because he was a man of faith and brought the proper sacrifice and did not respect Cain because he was not a man of faith nor brought the right gift. We also learn from the scriptures that the reason Abel had faith was because he was given faith by God.
As regards God showing partiality or favoritism, we have also already addressed that question. We looked at passages that speak of being good to some "especially," or more than others. Are persons to be faulted because they love their spouses or children more than others? Is it wrong for God to give more grace to one than to another? It it wrong for God to naturally endow some people with greater abilities? God is partial in ways that are right. He is not partial in deciding who has done right or wrong. His partiality or favoritism is not based upon merit or any natural difference between men. This is the chief meaning of "grace."
Definition
"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." (James 2: 1-9 KJV)
This text shines light on what it means to show respect of persons. It also reiterates the fact that to "have respect of persons" is to "commit sin" and be designated "as transgressors." It is to base one's treatment and judgement of others on their "faces," or "persons" (personas), whether they are rich or poor, learned or unlearned, high society or low life, famous or unknown, etc.
God does not choose any to salvation because he or she is in any way superior to others. It is not a choice of those who have differentiated themselves from others by having made better choices and had better successes. However, it is the Arminian idea that God chooses those who first choose him, who chooses to love those who first loved him, to choose those who made themselves to differ from another. The apostle said that God "out of the same lump" makes one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. The clay that was made for honor was not any different from the clay made for dishonor prior to God beginning his work on it. The difference came after the Potter's making each piece of clay different. Recall Paul's question - "who makes you different from another and what do you have that you did not receive from God?"
Abel was different from Cain. Isaac was different from Ishmael. Jacob was different from Esau. The chosen seed in Egypt was different than the Egyptians. So we read:
"But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." (Exo. 11: 7 kjv)
Recall that in a previous chapter we showed how God instructed Gideon to choose those soldiers who showed they were superior in wisdom and military skills, or who merited being chosen, and denied that God's choice of sinners to salvation was likewise a choice of the most deserving, a choice of those who were wise enough to have made the right decision to believe God or to obey him. God's choice is what makes the difference and so any such difference cannot be the reason for God's choice. So, we cannot say that "God chose me because I chose him" but rather say "God chose me before I chose him." Therefore the doctrine of unconditional, or unmerited, election is not a case of God showing partiality or respecting persons.
No comments:
Post a Comment