Is election a "christian secret"

[shelly]

Up until a few weeks ago the only catechism we taught our children was a warped one that was strongly arminian. At least I was extremely inconsistent, maybe they won't remember it.

We're now using the First Catechism with our children and going over the scripture from the shorter catechism that corresponds.

Our 9 year old asked us what does elect mean. Chosen was our short answer. It was more like "chosen. Ok the next one is..." Whew! That was close.

At our bible church we were told that basically the whole idea of election is like a christian secret and you're not supposed to let those who aren't saved know about it, and that especially includes your children. Is this right?

Where is the offense of the cross if no one ever knows that not everyone is chosen by God? Or is the idea of the "offense of the cross" a leftover phrase from my IFB days? It seems like its just another thing that was redefined, so maybe its ok.

Is it okay to teach your children about election? It seems like this is a major part of the gospel. And if they don't hear the gospel then how can they be saved?

shelly

 

[Hungus]

Should Predestination Be Publicly Taught & Preached?


by Francis Turretin (1623-1687)


The following article has been extracted from Turrettin's Institutio Theologiae Elencticae (Question 6). This e-text makes use of the unedited translation of George Musgrave Giger (professor of Latin at Princeton University, 1854-1865); it is now in the public domain and may be freely copied and distributed. This material was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink.


Whether Predestination should be publicly taught and Preached? We affirm.


Occasion of the Question
I. Some of the breathren of Gaul in the time of Augustine started this Question: For since he in his books against the Pelagians had inserted and nculcated many things concerning Predestination, so as in this way to defend the truth against their Impious doctrines, many were disturbed by it., as appears frost the two epistles of Prosper, a disciple of Augustine and of Hilary, bishop of Arles, prefixed to the book de Predestinations Sanctorum, et bono perseverantiae, (Tom. vii. Oper. August.). The reason was, not that they judged it to be at all false, but because they thought the preaching of it was dangerous, and invidious, better to be suppressed, than brought into prominence.

II. There are some of the same opinion at the present day, who wearied with the contentions arising from this doctrine in almost every age, think that it is best for the peace of the Church and the tranquility of conscience, to let these Questions alone, since by them scruples are suggested, and doubts generated, calculated to weaken the faith of the weak, and to drive men to desperation, or into carnal security. But this opinion is more honest than true, and cannot be readily received by those who have known the richest fruits of consolation and sanctification to believers from this doctrine properly understood.

III. Whence we think that this doctrine should neither by wholly suppressed from a preposterous modesty, nor curiously pried into by a rash presumption, but taught soberly and prudently from the word of God, so that two dangerous rocks may be avoided, on the one hand of "affected ignorance," which wishes to see nothing, and blinds itself purposely in things revealed; on the other of "unwarrantable curiosity," which busies itself to see and understand everything even in mysteries. They strike upon the first, who, sinning in defect, think that we should abstain from the proposition of this doctrine; and upon the latter, who, sinning in excess, wish to make everything in this mystery scrupulously accurate, and hold that nothing should be left undiscovered in it. Against both we maintain with the Orthodox, that Predestination can be taught with profit, provided this is done soberly from the word of God.

Predestination Should Be Taught
IV. The reasons are, 1. Because Christ and the Apostles frequently taught it, as appears from the Gospel, Matt. 11:20, 25, 13:11, 25:34; Luke 10:20, 12:32; John 8:47, 15:16, and in other places; and from the Epistles of Paul, Rom. 9 (the whole chapter), 8:29-30; Eph. 1:4-5; 2Tim. 1:9; 1Thes. 5:9; 2Thes.2:13. Nor otherwise do Peter, James and John express themselves, who speak repeatedly of this mystery whenever occasion offered. Now if it was proper for them to teach, why is it not for us to learn? Why should God teach what would have been better to be unspoken? Why did he wish to proclaim those things which it would be better not to know? Do we wish to be more prudent than God, or to prescribe rules to Him?

V. 2. Because it is one of the primary Gospel doctrines, and foundations of faith. It cannot be ignored without great injury to the Church and to believers, since it is the fount of our gratitude to God, the root of humility, the foundation and most firm anchor of confidence in all temptations, the fulcrum of the sweetest consolation, and the most powerful spur to piety and holiness.

VI. 3. The importunity of the Adversaries, who have corrupted this primary head of faith by deadly errors, and the infamous calumnies they are accustomed to heap upon our doctrine, impose upon us the necessity of handling it, so that the truth may be fairly exhibited, and freed from the most false and iniquitous criminations of evilly disposed men; as if we introduced a fatal and stoical necessity, as if we would extinguish by it all religion in the minds of men, and soothe them on the bed of security and profanity, or hurl them into the abyss of despair; as if we made God cruel, hypocritical, and the author of sin, I shudder to relate it. Now as all these things are perfectly false, they ought unquestionably to be refuted by a sober and healthy exhibition of this doctrine from the word of God.

Sources of Explanation
VII. Although wicked men often abuse this doctrine imporperly understood; its lawful use towards the pious ought not therefore to be denied, unless we wish to have more regard for the wicked than for believers; 2. If, on account of the abuse of some persons we should abstain from the proposition of this mystery, we must equally abstain from most of the mysteries of the Christian Religion, which the wicked abuse, or laugh at or satirize; such as the mystery of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the like. 3. The calumnies launched against the doctrine of Paul by the False-apostles, could not cause him to suppress it, yea, he thoroughly discussed it in his inspired way, so that he might shut the mouths of Adversaries. Why then should we refrain from its presentation? Let us only follow in the footsteps of Paul, and with him speak, and be silent.

VIII. If some abuse this doctrine, either to licentiousness, or to desperation; this happens not per se, from the doctrine itself, but accidentally, from the vice of men, who most wickedly wrest it to their own destruction. Indeed, there is no doctrine from which more powerful incentives to piety can be drawn, and richer streams of confidence and consolation flow, as will be seen in the proper place.

IX. The Mystery of Predestination is too sublime to be comprehended by us, as to the why, and he is rash who would attempt to find out or to assign the reasons and the causes of it; but this does not hinder it from being taught in Scripture as to the fact, and from being firmly held by us. Two things, therefore, must be distinguished here, the one what God has revealed in his Word, the other what He has concealed; the former we cannot despise unless wickedly, the latter we cannot investigate unless rashly. "The secret things," says Scripture, "belong unto God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children," (Deut. 29:29). To neglect things revealed argues ingratitude, but to search into things concealed argues pride. "We must not therefore deny what is plain; because we cannot comprehend what is hidden," as Augustine expresses it.

X. The Fathers before Augustine spoke more sparingly concerning this mystery not because they judged it best to ignore it, but because there was occasion presented for discussing it more largely, the Pelagian heresy not having as yet sprung up, indeed it is true that they sometimes expressed themselves, without sufficient caution: nevertheless Augustine, in his book de bono Perseverantiae, ch.15, proves that they did not pass over this truth in utter silence, (for who could be ignorant of that which is so clearly set forth in the Sacred Scriptures?) the testimony of Ambrose, Cyprian, and Nazianzen being adduced for this purpose.

How Predestination Should be Taught.
XI. While we think that Predestination should be taught, we do not further suppose that human curiosity should be unclasped, but believe that there is need here of great sobriety and prudence, both that we may remain within the bounds prescribed by Scripture, nor endeavour to be wise beyond what is written, and that we may prudently have a regard for the persons, places and times, to regulate the proposition of it; for it ought neither to be delivered immediately and in the first instance, but gradually and slowly; nor equally as to all its parts, for some ought to be more frequently inculcated as more useful and better suited to the consolation of the pious, as the doctrine of Election, but others ought to be handled more sparingly, as Reprobation; nor ought it to be set forth so much to the people in the Church, as to the initiated in the School. Again, Predestination must be considered not so much a priori, as a posteriori; not that we may descend from causes to effects, but ascend from effects to causes; not that we should curiously unroll the book of life, in order to see if our names are written therein, which is forbidden to us, but that we should diligently consult the book of conscience, which we are not only permitted, but also commanded to do, that we may know whether the seal of God is stamped upon our hearts, and whether the fruits of election, viz; faith and repentance, may be found in us, which is the safest way of procceding to the saving knowledge of that doctrine: In one word, all curious and fruitless questions must be avoided here, and what Paul calls "foolish and unlearned questions," 2 Tim.2:23, which usually gender strifes and contentions; and our only object should be to increase our faith, not to feed curiosity, to labour for edification, not to strive for glory.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by shelly
Our 9 year old asked us what does elect mean. Chosen was our short answer. It was more like "chosen. Ok the next one is..." Whew! That was close.

At our bible church we were told that basically the whole idea of election is like a christian secret and you're not supposed to let those who aren't saved know about it, and that especially includes your children. Is this right?

Where is the offense of the cross if no one ever knows that not everyone is chosen by God? Or is the idea of the "offense of the cross" a leftover phrase from my IFB days? It seems like its just another thing that was redefined, so maybe its ok.

Is it okay to teach your children about election? It seems like this is a major part of the gospel. And if they don't hear the gospel then how can they be saved?

shelly

Shelly, it is easier and far more productive (and theologically sound) to teach (anybody) how God saves His people via covenants.

This is ground-zero for the Reformed. The doctrine of election gets unduely emphasized these days. It is more precise to focus on the "order of salvation" - the stages of how God saves his people as taught in Scripture (which includes election.) Also, keep election connected to Christ being chosen and the goodness of God.

This also necessarily includes the Gospel -- so, it is rich with anti-unbelief toxin!

It is quite sad that in our time election is so negatively considered when back in Paul's day he exhuberantly taught it since it affirms so much hope (if God does not choose us, who is in control of the universe?)

Another tactic is to begin with Jesus Christ - the Chosen One of God. Christians are not merely individuals that God chooses...we are chosen IN Christ. This is what a r-e-l-a-t-i-o-n-s-h-i-p with Jesus means in the Bible. The elect are chosen IN Christ.

Sooner or later, young ones must learn of the terrible danger we are in when it comes to dealing with the true and living God! Is God dangerous? Is God free to choose whom he so desires? Absolutely - because THAT is what it means to be G-O-D. Is God unjust? Never.

Of course you already know these things. Keep at it. Don't "fear" weighty doctrines as though they'd alienate the kids.

Michael Horton's new book: "The God of Promise" is a superb and useful explanation of all these things!

May God guide and watch over your diligent study!



Robin

 

[shelly]

Robin,

I don't know anything about covenant theology. I've recently learned a few names of some OT covenants. It seems people disagree on the definition of the New Covenant or even if there is one.

It seems like there is almost too much arguement about it for me to get into it. Your posts always seem to be reasonable so I went ahead and ordered the book you recommended. CT is very new territory for me. How can I teach my children how God saves through the covenants when I have absolutely no idea?

I do "understand" the doctrines of grace and how they are woven together to show who God is and his salvation. It was through that study that I came to Christ. He drew me to him. I was studying what I had been taught my whole life was heresy. It was very unsettling. I can show my children to God by the same path that I came to know him.

My husband and I refer to the DoG as the lowest common denominator of what the gospel is. ie If you disbelieve that God chose who he would from before the foundation of the world; then you are believing that God had to go to plan B in providing redemption. If you believe that God chose based on who he knew would chose him, then you believe in a God who is not really sovereign because he doesn't really choose, we do, he just can see the future. Everything is tied together. You can't take one thing away and have it still be talking about the same God. (I'm not saying you are)

Anyway that's some of the discussions my dh and I have. He is currently working his way through The Bondage of the Will. I read online and we compare notes. It gets interesting!

As a sidenote: We are going to be talking tonight with a PCA pastor we met a few years ago, but have just started going to his church 3 weeks ago. Poor guy will have to hear us in person In person I mix up everyone I talk with because in some strange way I make sense and I know more than they think I do and so they're not prepared. I'm not saying I know much, because given enough rope I could hang myself. It's more like I have just enough to be dangerous. We hope to have some questions answered tonight, should be interesting.

shelly

 

[Robin]

Wow - Shelly! You're on the road to learning so much more about Holy Scripture!!

Understanding the Bible's covenants IS understanding how God saves His people - for God only relates to man via covenants. CT is the "key" to putting everything together. Yes, there's disagreements. What's behind most of the debates is the true Gospel is under attack by those who (inadvertantly?) would send us back to "Rome" and/or commit the error of the Galations. The Gospel is worth fighting for. (I'm sure you'd agree.)

Not a moment too soon, Horton's new book is the best source to get clear on these matters!

Once you grasp the distinction between the covenants; the distinction between "testament" and "covenant" and how eschatology affects all of it....you'll enjoy the assurance of God's faithful promise keeping in this life and the next! (CT is so very important.)

Go slow; prepare to read a lot of Scripture and understand (perhaps for the first time) what "God's Story" really means.

Hearing your story reminds me of a reference in Acts about those who were saved by God yet knew nothing of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1-3) and yet were already saved having John's Baptism. They simply needed more learning (maturity). God was already at work saving them even as they progressed and matured in the Faith. Praise God that He does the saving, entirely!

Getting the covenants and getting them right is to understand the entire "scaffolding" on which the Scriptures are built. The Lord's purpose will not be thwarted. He will keep His promise to save His own from sin and death.

Take heart, S, the Lord has not brought you this far to fail you.



r.

 

[shelly]

My dh talked with one of our pastors (Bible church) tonight and found out that the church believes Dispensational is wrong but so is covenant theology and instead believes something in the middle. BTW the Bible church does believe in the doctrines of grace.

We've been trying to go to both churches but haven't done very well at that. When you sit on the first row behind the pastor he kinda notices when you don't show even if it's a huge church:bigsmile:

I can easily pitch everything I ever heard at the arminian churches, but its harder to go against what has never been said at our Bible church. CT has never been noticeably mentioned in the three years we've been there, and we have been cautioned about it as though it's part of a pendulem swing related to leaving the arminian church. It's not. The pendulem swing was 3 1/2 years ago when I realized that none of the answers to my questions made sense and I wanted to just chuck the whole God and church thing out the door and forget the whole thing.

Lots of things buzzin around my head.

shelly

 

[turmeric]

Shelly, if you're anything like me, you're going to LOVE Covenant Theology! For the first time I feel safe, loved, like I'm not in a universe that is capriciously run, but ordered and secure. God does what He says He will do, He makes that clear in all His dealings with man in the Scripture. And when He says He will save to the uttermost through Christ our Representative, you can take that to the bank!

When I was involved with Arminian theology I never knew which end was up. What did God really want? Was He ever going to tell me, or was I just going to have to read His mind? What was He going to think up to do to me next? I DID leave Christianity at that point; I don't think I was really saved. But now God has graciously revealed something not only true, but very comforting!

Does your Bible church pastor call his "in-between" idea New Covenant Theology? Just wondering.

 

[Robin]

Shelly, here's something to consider when thinking about your children; God's covenants and election....



Of God's Will Concerning Believers and their Seed

"And Jesus said unto him (Zacchaeus), This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham," Luke 19:9.

With these words Jesus points us to God's promise to Abraham, "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee," (Gen. 17:7). God's purpose in election and in His work of grace by which He becomes our God in Christ is personal, but it is not individualistic. Jesus saves a church. He says, "I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," (Matt. 16:18). Gathering that church according to the counsel of God out of all nations, Jesus commands the gospel to be preached to every creature (Mark 16:15). In that preaching and gathering of the elect, the nations are gathered into His kingdom and made disciples (Matt. 28:19). The world God loved is saved (John 3:16). As many as are ordained to eternal life believe (Acts 2:47; Acts 13:48). To this working of God's will belongs the truth that God saves His people in families and believing households, gathering His elect in the generations of believers (Gen. 17:7).

When Jesus passed through Jericho on his way to Jerusalem and the cross, He did so for a purpose"”to save Zacchaeus. He was accomplishing His Father's will. He indicates that this is the case when He calls Zacchaeus down from his perch in a tree and says, "for today I must abide at thy house," Luke 19:5. Jesus does not simply say what He will do, "abide at thy house," He says, "I must abide at thy house." It is something that "must" be done. It was necessary because His sheep must be saved and gathered. Jesus further explains this when He says, "This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost," (Luke 19:9, 10). Jesus' reference here is to God's promise to Abraham, and the promise to His seed (Gen. 17:7). That promise was in Christ Who is the seed above all (Gal. 3:16) and to those who are the spiritual offspring of God's grace, children of promise ( Gal. 3:29; Gal. 4:28). Such was Zacchaeus, "a son of Abraham" not simply after the flesh, but one who, though lost in himself, was made a spiritual son, one who had the faith of Abraham. But in bringing that salvation to Zacchaeus, Jesus was not bringing it to him alone, as an isolated individual. He brought it to his house, to his family. Jesus says so. "This day is salvation come to this house," (Luke 19:9).

In His work of grace God makes dead sinners living children of God, a spiritual seed of Abraham, whether they be Jew or Gentile. This was the teaching of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:9; Luke 3:8). It is also Jesus' instruction concerning Zacchaeus. But that work of grace saves a believer and His seed, not mere individuals. This is the blessing which was given Abraham, first in his seed after him in his generations, in which God gathered a spiritual, believing seed who loved God and were His people. This blessing was not due to any natural connection but was a work of grace. God established His covenant with them, became their God, and made them His children. This was not all the offspring of Abraham, his natural descendants, but a spiritual seed gathered in the generations of his natural seed. The Pharisees and scribes were also Abraham's children after the flesh, His seed in that natural sense, but they were not Abraham's true children for they did not have Abraham's faith. (John 8:39, 40). According to His promise and founded upon His will, God saved a spiritual seed who were born by grace from above. That is what Isaac, the child born by the promise, represents. Hence the Word of God says, "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise," Gal. 4:28.

God also intended that there be a spiritual seed unto Abraham among the Gentiles. When the Apostle Paul says, "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise," (Gal. 4:28) he is addressing Gentiles in the church of Galatia. It is the Gentiles to whom John the Baptist is referring when he says, "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham," Matt. 3:9. Hence the Apostle Paul says to the Gentiles, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise," Gal. 3:29. As we have seen, the promise was not to Abraham as a mere individual, "I will be a God unto thee," but it was to his seed, "in their generations. " When Jesus addresses Zacchaeus, it is that promise which He has in view, including the fact that God sets his grace in families. God is always pleased to save his people, "in their generations." He is pleased to command the grace of election to run in the generations of believers, to gather of the children of believing parents a people who are his own possession, children born of His grace as Isaac was. For this reason Jesus does not say to Zacchaeus, this day is salvation come to you, personally, alone. What Jesus says is, "This day is salvation come to this house," Luke 19:9. He did not say this because now the building had a believer living in it. Jesus is pointing us to the nature of God's promise to Abraham, and behind that to God's will to save His people in households, gathering believers and their elect seed in their generations into the blessings of salvation.

This has to do with the truth of election. We see this also when Jesus declares His Father's will concerning the children of believing parents who sought His blessing for their children, "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God," (Mark 10:14). God in Christ saves His people in the generations of believers. Election and the grace of God are made to run, according to God's will, in the generations. Not by any power of the flesh nor by any cause in man is this the case. It is God's sovereign determination. Hence the gospel is not merely, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," but it is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house," Acts 16:31. The gospel in Acts 2 is not, "the promise is unto you (Jews) and to those afar off (Gentiles), " but the promise, to those pricked in their hearts of the Jews, is "unto you and your children," Acts 2:39. Moreover, when it comes to the Gentiles, those "afar off," the promise is, "believe...and thou shalt be saved and thy house," Acts 16:31. At issue is not first of all such a matter as infant baptism, (though a necessary result) but the will of God"”God's will of election, God's promises in Christ. The gospel itself is at issue. Jesus says of the children of believers"”and they were infants"”"of such is the kingdom of God," (Mark 10:14). Jesus blesses them because such children are the objects of His grace and saving work"”His blessing. Jesus brings salvation to a believer's household. "This day is salvation come to this house," (Luke 19:9). It is likewise not insignificant that two of Jesus' resurrection miracles involved the raising children from the dead, the widow's son at Nain and Jairus's daughter. Jesus also wrought other miracles among the children of believers (Matt. 15:21; 17:14; John 4:46). Jesus came to save His people from their sins, also the little ones of His kingdom (Matt. 18). Has Jesus brought salvation to your house?

By Rev. Thomas Miersma, Missionary Pastor

 

[shelly]

Originally posted by turmeric
Does your Bible church pastor call his "in-between" idea New Covenant Theology? Just wondering.

I don't know. The pastor was running late for a meeting and had to go before they could get into it. He and my dh will definitely speak again on this topic.

Aren't there different meanings given to New Covenant Theology? It seems like people use the same words, but mean something different.

Thankfully I know my dh will study this out (CT) before he decides anything. Our church doesn't hold to the Westminster Confession. The question my dh wants to ask is "What parts do you not agree with and why?" But before he does he said he wants to study through it himself.

Anyway, that's whats going on here.

shelly

 

[shelly]

Robin,

I can't really reply to your last post yet. It's a lot to take in.

Is the household thing something commonly believed? Would my children have to have been infant baptised to be included in the covenant? How are they included?

I haven't gotten that book yet. I don't know what assumptions he has about his readers understanding. Hopefully he is writing to an audience that has no clue about CT and he starts at the beginning.

shelly

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by shelly
Robin,

I can't really reply to your last post yet. It's a lot to take in.

Is the household thing something commonly believed? Would my children have to have been infant baptised to be included in the covenant? How are they included?

I haven't gotten that book yet. I don't know what assumptions he has about his readers understanding. Hopefully he is writing to an audience that has no clue about CT and he starts at the beginning.

shelly

Shelly,

"God of Promise" is simple and clear. You'll probably be fine...however, the "residue" of Arminianism tends to linger on us all for a time. Becoming reformed is a process and will include lots of questions, some answers, some headaches and most certain: arguments with loved ones, friends and former church people. Be prepared for your entire "world" to shift....Covenant Theology changes everything!

Jesus said: "let the little children come to me..."

Take it easy and slow....one question at a time, if you can.

R.