socialism or capitalism?

What is the best economic system? Does the Bible have anything to say?

The challenges of Capitalism:

What is often referred to as  capitalism can result in either abuse of resources or abuse of others in acquiring them - and often does, though not automatically or necessarily. This is not so of true capitalism but rather the exploitation of it; sometimes referred to as "crony capitalism." This is what we often see today - particularly at the upper levels of government and the corporate world and especially within the monetary/banking system. This corrupted form of "capitalism" is fraudulent by design i.e. it is intentionally designed to exploit others. True capitalism - or free-market exchange or free enterprise - is intended to serve others. 

Making money isn't the primary driving force behind true free market exchange, service is. If we serve our fellow man well we also benefit. This is what is called a "win-win" scenario - when I help others acquire what they need or want I benefit in the process. This is not winning at the expense of another - which is exploitation - it is helping others get what they want or need.

Communism and socialism assume all gains (profit) are only the result of exploitation. This is not the case in a true free market system. 

Corruption of productivity also does not eliminate the necessity of production proceeding distribution (or the ⁴legitimacy of property ownership). We will address this more shortly.

Though capitalism addresses the problem inherent in socialism (having goods/resources to distribute) it poses its own set of problems. We still have to address selfish consumption and hoarding instead of sharing/charity. 

Productivity resulting in charity is actually the model promoted in the Bible. I prefer to call this free market productivity and exchange, vs capitalism, since crony capitalism and free market productivity are often lumped together. 

The limits of ¹Socialism:

¹Socialism does not work without production /productivity, i.e. you cannot give away what you do not have. Distribution of goods or services - socialism/communism - can not occur without something to distribute. This requires productivity first and the freedom (innovation) and incentive ²(fruitfulness) to be productive. Socialism kills both of these. Socialists themselves admit a productive economic system - i.e. capitalism - must be in place first before socialism - redistribution - can be exploited and implemented. 

In order for productivity to occur, several things must take place. For example, in the production of bread, you must have land to grow it on (which implies you own the land otherwise you must pay something to use it). The land must be fertile. Someone must plant, grow, and harvest the grain, grind it, bag it, mix it, cut the wood and heat the stove to bake it, pick up and deliver the bread, sell it, have a place to store it, with shelves to put it on display for customers to see and buy. The store must also be a pleasant place to visit if you are to see the maximum patronage -- or another store might offer a better buying experience and you lose customers -- etc, etc. There are many levels of effort/labor/energy that go into every level of production as well as the final product reaching the consumer. 

Giving away resources to others cannot occur without gathering, utilizing, and processing raw materials -- and raw materials must be available to process. This is why socialism or communism is often described as a redistribution of wealth. It's taking time, energy, resources, and wealth from somewhere and transferring it somewhere else...somewhere different from the origin of the energy that utilized resources to produce the product that finally reaches those who want and consume it. 

Since pure ¹socialism/ communism is an economic system that only redistributes instead of produces anything, it is parasitical in nature and design when it takes (vs gratefully receiving) from the producer and distributes it to non-producers. It can not perpetuate itself, i.e. it must have a "source" (host if you will) to draw resources from to distribute those resources. If it incorporates actual productivity (vs taking advantage of it), it is not pure socialism by definition. Why? Because productivity (capitalism, if you will) is considered exploitation in a purely socialist or communist model. 

Socialism and Capitalism are both right and wrong

The solution, however, isn't to oppose or shut down productivity/capitalism - the goose that lays the golden egg -- but to reassess charity -- what is the most God-honoring way to use those "golden eggs" he provides through our ²productivity. This is not only different from crony capitalism but from the general capitalist-consumption model. We could call this a third way. 

When productivity is only about personal/private consumption (for both the consumer and the producer) and does not take into consideration the importance of charity (blessing and benefiting others less fortunate) or proper care for the planet, it is not honoring God. The principles in scripture are to freely give what we have freely received and be good stewards of the gifts we are entrusted with. 

How is charity different from simple capitalism?

Fundamental to charity is recognizing our ability to generate a surplus (wealth) is a gift. All that we have, are, and can achieve comes from God. 

Deu 8:17  Beware lest you say in your heart, 'My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.' 18 You shall remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day.  19 And if you forget the LORD your God and go after other gods (money can be one of them) and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish. 

And since it is a gift we must heed the wishes of the Giver i.e. the source of life and all things. We should ask, who gave us our resources and why did He give them? Certainly at least to take care of those he has put under our direct care. But what about those who are not directly tied to us or dependent on us? God calls us to give as we have received. To not do so is to violate the very person and nature of God himself who is the overflowing, giving, sacrificial God of love who is always pouring out his goodness on others -- even those who don't acknowledge him or his gifts. To do so aligns us not only with the second greatest commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves but the very nature of God Himself. 

One of the most well-known statements made by Christ is, "...God so loved the world he gave…"  Jn 3:16

So the problem isn't being productive, it is being selfish. Instead of being givers, we become takers. We are however encouraged to be both fruitful, multiply, and good stewards of - "rule over" - the resources God gives us i.e. to use them as God directs. To put them to good use. To love others as we are loved.

The problem in our secular society is we have rejected the notion of God and therefore our accountability to use the gifts of life as He designed and intends. 

Christ said, "he who is faithful with a little is given more." So we are not only commanded to love our neighbor but promised an increased benefit for doing so.

We can not assume (or condemn) those who seek to be productive do so solely for ³personal consumption. Though this is certainly our tendency - and more so in a secular society - it is not necessarily the only motive or even the primary motive simply by virtue of someone being productive or having the desire to be productive. 

I once heard a Christian businessman say the following. He was making the distinction between the way of the world and the way of Christ when doing business (He was making about 2 million a year at the time he shared this...for what it's worth). 

"The world's way is to get all you can, sit on the can, protect the can, and don't let anyone get into your can. 

Christ's way is to get all you can so you can give all you can." 

A clever but accurate distinction I believe. Both involve "getting" but why we get and what we do after we "get" makes all the difference.

Institutional redistribution vs personal giving

Forced distribution - an inherent part of the socialist economic system - is not the same thing as cheerful giving. An issue of socialism is it is "charity" at the end of the barrel of a gun which is not true charity at all. It is not voluntary but imposed upon the producer by an outside authority. Law drives socialism, not love. This shuts down free association and free giving i.e. freely loving your neighbor. In short, it robs us of our dignity, freedom, and personal responsibility - not just for the provider but also for the recipient of the resources. 

Redistribution of wealth is institutionalized "charity" versus individual or private charity/giving. It is using the power of the state to enforce "charity" which actually means it is no longer true charity. Some may consider this okay as long as the person in need is cared for. But if the dignity of the giver (as well as the receiver) is to be honored and maintained, both must freely take part. Philanthropy would be an example of free (vs forced) distribution of resources. 

Difference in generations

How socialism is viewed has changed over the years. The shift began in the late 50s to early 60s. Many in the younger generations have little concept of lack that the generation before the Boomer generation experienced. The Boomer generation was closer to parents or grandparents who escaped communist or fascist oppression to seek life in "the land of the free and home of the brave." This was a major part of the "American Dream." Unfortunately, over time, much of the material elements of that dream became more important than the familial elements to the point that with the Boomer generation, both mom and dad worked and abandoned their kids to daycare, exhaustion, escape into recreation and entertainment, and the like. This naturally produced a backlash. Boomers, and even more so, kids of Boomers rebelled against consumerism and saw the damage it was doing to family and the environment. Hence eventually leading to the rise of Bernie, socialism, and environmentalism. In short, the difference between generations is not that one generation is "dumb" or wrong and the other is not -- often asserted by both sides of this debate. It's that the generations have a unique value system, shaped by their individual experiences i.e. they each value things the other generation no longer values due in large part to their individual experiences and the world they each grew up in. 

The solution:

Since there must be resources -- and the gathering, engineering, and production of goods and services needed -- before distribution can be made, pure socialism/communism cannot work alone. Some would argue socialism is the marriage of communism and capitalism. 

Since self-preservation is bound up in the hearts of humanity -- resulting in us not having a sense of accountability to our Creator  -- focus on productivity and profit alone often leads to personal consumption and hoarding. 

So do we force those who are productive to share their resources with those who are less able to produce e.g. by raising the level of taxes on the largest and most productive to the point it kills the reasons for being productive? OR do we encourage charity and seek to help man understand that all things are gifts from God and God gives to us in part, so we might, in turn, give to others, as well as reward us in doing so?

The latter is God's design i.e. to give because we have received. This is not something that government can or should implement. Government has proven to be the least effective means of implementing true charity. It's virtually impossible since mandated charity is not true charity at all. Governments may incentivize it but anything more is coercion and not charity at all. The same brokenness (natural inclination to selfishness) that keeps private citizens from properly loving their fellow man also infects those in public life i.e. government. And in some ways even more so. As the saying goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

Caring for others is the role of the people who trust God and believe they will be held accountable for how they acquire and use all the things God entrusted to them. 

Even if one rejects God, most agree with the golden rule...do to others as you would have them do to you. 

The bottom line? 

Due to humanity's natural fallen inclination to take care of "number one" (self), there will never be a complete utopia in this life -- the goal of all economic systems.

This does not mean we should abandon either productivity or loving others as we were designed to. However, the only way we can be who God designed us to be is when we are fully connected to God, the source of life, love, and all things i.e. The solution to the socialist/capitalist question isn't imposing or enforcing a particular economic model on any given counties citizens but our being fully connected and aligned with God himself. If the individual parts of a system - i.e. you and I - are broken, the system will not work, no matter how perfect that system may be. For this reason, there can never be a perfect system, only perfect values and people willing to pursue them. Ultimately this can only occur through people who recognize the Creator and their accountability to Him.

The solution ultimately is spiritual, not political or economic. It is in first knowing God and then making him known; not just in word but also in deed.

For a discussion on giving as you have received click here. 

For a discussion on being fruitful i.e sewing and reaping click here

_______________________________

¹I am using "socialism and communism" in the political and structured sense, imposed on us by the state, not in the organic sense. We are social-relational creatures and as God's image-bearers we are designed to receive and give love. However, we are also broken image-bearers. For more on our brokenness, click here. 

²We are clearly instructed in many places within the bible to be "fruitful." Most of these verses address spiritual fruit. However, spiritual fruit translates into actions that often produce material fruit. In fact, any action that produces material fruit should be driven spiritually i.e. by the Spirit. If it is, it is valid. It is spiritual in motivation with a material outcome. 

For several posts addressing operating in the Spirit click here.

³There is nothing wrong with personal consumption. A pursuit that is solely driven by personal and excessive consumption is our challenge, not consumption. If we do not consume vital resources -- water, food, shelter etc. -- we die. Consumption is not just necessary but vital.

*private ownership of property and the opportunity to acquire property through diligence is assumed throughout the bible. The founding fathers who penned the Constitution and Declaration of Independence acknowledged this when they declared we had a "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What most don't know is that the pursuit of happiness is the right to the fruits of our labor which includes owning property.  

For an interesting discussion of this, click here. 

Communism and socialism justify taking money from the producers and giving it to those who don't produce (and sometimes genuinely can't... though often those who claim they can't often can)  Because they assume all productive and profitable endeavors are built on exploitation when they are not. For a further discussion on this click here.

Communism and socialism are built on a victim mindset. A victim mindset is the fruit of not knowing God and seeing how he intends and uses pain for our good if and we trust Him. 

chosen for love, the essence and end (goal) of grace

The doctrine of election has been controversial since the early days of the church. The controversy first arose in the public eye through an ascetic moralist named Pelagius in the 380s. During this time he began to challenge Augustine, the highly regarded Bishop of Hippo, and Augustine's emphasis on the total depravity of man. 

Pelagius asserted man's will was not corrupted but free. (I touch on this more in-depth in several additional posts listed at the bottom). His view was eventually declared heretical by the Council of Carthage (418 AD). 

For almost 1200 years after this there was no significant public debate on this teaching again until Dutch Theologian Jacobus Arminius (the "father" of Arminianism) began questioning some of the points raised in John Calvin's "Institutes" in the late 1500s and early 1600s. Ironically, Calvin and Arminius never actually met or debated. Calvin passed away a few years before Arminius even gained notoriety. It was not Calvin himself directly, but others who argued and asserted the now somewhat famous [or infamous] 5 points of Calvinism.  These students of Calvin argued 5 counterpoints to 5 questions raised by Arminius's followers in the Five articles of the Remonstrants. This occurred years after the death of both Arminius and Calvin. 

It's worth noting that Arminius was more "Calvinistic" than some realize. Today's Arminianism is far more afield of scripture (and Calvin) than Arminius himself but his conclusions did plant the seeds for what is known as Arminianism today.

Years later, the controversy arose again when Arminianism was promoted by John Wesley -- and to a lesser degree, his brother Charles. This occurred during the First Great Awakening in the 1730s, resulting in it gaining a significant foothold in the church in America. Though *George Whitefield (a softspoken but committed Calvinist) and the Wesley's started together in England what would be later called Methodism (so named primarily due to their disciplined and methodical approach to the Christian life), they were at odds over this doctrine during their entire ministry. John strongly opposed Whitefield openly and publicly on this and sought to engage Whitefield in a debate several times over the years. Whitefield generally avoided the debate to avoid the controversy. For him, the teaching of sovereign grace was something to be relished, not debated. He even eventually relinquished full leadership of Methodism to Wesley -- though it can be argued that Whitefield was the greater influence in its inception and development. 

Later, towards the end of their ministries, John Wesley's brother Charles came around to a more Calvinist position and reconciled with Whitefield. It is also worth noting that John Wesley did not directly oppose Whitefield personally but more on his adherence to a Calvinistic view. John Wesley shared his respect and praise for Whitefield's ministry at his funeral. 

Controversy has obscured a vital truth

Because of this long-standing historical debate, which continues even today, the key takeaway I believe God intends from this biblical teaching has been somewhat obscured. 

What is that takeaway? 

God choosing us (i.e. election) is not about election per se - i.e. to debate it or try to make sense of it logically i.e. is it fair he picks some and not others etc - it is about love. Election is simply the means to that end for which we are chosen i.e. by and for love. The focal point (end) in scripture is love, not the means or mechanism of salvation. 

To say it another way election is important insofar as it demonstrates the extent and nature of God's love for you and me personally. 

Ephesians 1:4

To say God chose you is to say He set his love upon you. He did so at his own expense, by no merit of your own, and pursued you by various means - be that his written or spoken word regarding Christ's sacrificial love, the kindness of other believers, revealing himself to us through creation or other circumstances, etc. - until you finally saw, accepted, and embraced him in love. If you are not a follower of Jesus, your reading this right now is evidence that God is seeking to draw you to Himself. 

God's specifically choosing you for a personal relationship with him, when clearly understood, is intended to communicate the most practical and impactful reality of the personal nature of God's love. God specifically "picking" us is simply evidence of how personal his love is. "Election" is the means/mechanism by which we come into a personal relationship with him; knowing and experiencing him to the fullest extent possible is the end/goal. 

While hanging on the cross and taking our pain and suffering into his own body and soul, he specifically had you in mind. In fact, you have been on his mind from all eternity past. There wasn't a time he did not know of you (and have his good designs intended for you and set upon you). He had you in mind when his eternal plans were determined and made to restore you to himself through Christ. 

We have allowed ourselves to get so sidetracked and caught up by theological debate that we miss out on this most vital truth: God didn't have just anyone in mind when he died to restore fallen men and women; he had you personally in mind.  

Knowing his love was fixed upon you from all eternity past communicates the intentionality and specificity of that love i.e. God is not only or just love generally, but he also loves you specifically, deliberately, and personally. He didn't pick everyone to pour out his love on, he picked you. The fact that he didn't pick everyone is what makes this so significant.

You may be thinking this is unfair. What was Paul's response to this concern?

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” - ‭Romans 9:14-15‬

Should we feel undeserving? Yes, because we are undeserving. Is this fair? I'll address this more shortly. For now, we will say it certainly is gracious and merciful for those God redeems. And the offer for redemption is to any who will receive it. 

He knew what all your strengths would be, as well as your rebellion and your flaws. Christ was fully aware that it was your pain and suffering he was embracing and feeling, and your rebellion he was judged for. He was doing it not out of his love generally but out of love for you specifically. Again, Christ didn't die for the world generally, hoping some might come; he died for you, one of his lost sheep, knowing you would come (Jn 10:2-4;11, 15-16, 26-27; 17:6, 9-10, 24, 26). God's love wasn't a random shotgun blast into the air, hoping it would land on someone; it was a single rifle shoot aimed specifically at your heart by the perfect marksmen of love, knowing it would hit its mark. 

When we truly grasp (believe) that God's love is that specific and that personal, it transforms us. Not until we grasp it in this way, will we gain from this reality what God intends and be fully impacted by it as he intends and desires i.e. you can not appreciate the full extent of his love until you know the personal nature of it, that you specifically were chosen by him for love. The more we grasp this the more we are transformed. And that is exactly the point of his targeting you for mercy, so you would know the full extent (laser-sharp precision and focus) of his love and to experience that love in all its fullness as much as is possible for you, his infinitely beloved child, to experience. 

I propose that getting sidetracked into a theological debate regarding "election" is designed by "the adversary" (aided by our pride) to keep us from seeing this very vital truth of God's personal love and experiencing it to the greatest extent possible. Without seeing it clearly and truly you will not experience the full transforming power God intends his love to have on you and in you. This in turn will keep you from being most effective in spreading his love and glory to others. 

But it's not fair

Why is this teaching in scripture so hard for us to accept, and why are we so offended by it? The biggest challenge and complaint is that it's not fair. However, our very complaint is evidence of our ongoing rebellion against God - we are described in scripture as his enemies for good reason - and believe that we know better than God what is best (just as Adam did in the garden). In truth, our doubts of God's goodness are evidence of how set we are against him. You do understand that your very ability to question or disagree with God was given to you by him. Stop to ponder this. 

It's okay to admit we don't understand everything about salvation. Our problem is it's also humbling i.e. we don't like to admit we are not able to figure things out and are not the judge of our own lives, much less the judge of God himself. We think God should answer to us, not the other way around. 

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Rom 9:20

Since we, in our limited understanding, find election unreasonable (illogical), we question his goodness and whether this is a good plan (much less his perfect plan). We set aside the claim (and fact) that God is all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful, and all-loving (good). God can do no wrong, and he does no wrong, ever! How do we know? Because he tells us so. Simply because we can't (as limited/finite beings) understand how this is the perfect, wise, and good purpose of God, does not make it otherwise. He says He's good. We are called to believe him. Either we do or don't, limited logic aside. 

However, it is not a completely unreasonable position. The key to understanding election is not that God is unfair and unjust in choosing some instead of all; it is that God is merciful to some instead of none. We must clearly understand that no one deserves God's kindness and mercy.

To illustrate: if 10 men were on death row for committing a capital offense and confessed to doing so, would any of them feel the judge unfair if he carried out a death sentence on them? Especially considering they were all clearly warned that if they committed something forbidden, they would die. I trust we can all agree this is fair. However, what if the judge decided at the last minute to extend mercy to one of them? Would that be unfair to the other 9? They would likely not like it and may wish it were them that received mercy, but none would say this was unfair. They were getting exactly what they were warned of and deserved.

Nor do any seek God if left to themselves. Humanity actually runs away from God and has declared him their enemy. If God is who he claims to be and we do not like his claims or acknowledge him to be who he claims, we, in effect, are saying he's a liar and are opposed to him. 

It is only by the mercy of God that any seek him (and only some do), much less all.  Mankind left to his own devices never seeks God. If and when he does, it is only because God is drawing him. God could have justly walked away from Adam and Eve and left them to their own devices, but he did not.

Entitlement...a major problem

Our other problem is we experience his bounty and blessings (particularly in North America and the west in general) to such an extent we are used to the abundance his goodness, kindness, and mercy granted to us (it is so much a part of all our daily lives we take it for granted). As a result, we have become jaded, ungrateful, and even feel entitled to it. We are offended at the idea that in truth, we rightfully deserve God's condemnation for "biting the hand that feeds (made) us" and may even have come to feel we deserve his grace and mercy (if we did, however, it would no longer be grace and mercy would it?). 

Pride, not logic, is at the heart of our problem

Our sense of prideful independence is offended when we are asked, "does not the potter have a right to make from the clay the vessel of his choosing?"

But the reality is God is not being unfair to many, he's being kind and merciful to some who don't deserve it i.e. all who receive His offer of salvation. The reality is God is not obligated to be merciful to any, much less some. 


God's actions do not "complete" him

Nor does he need to be merciful, as if doing so somehow makes God complete. He chooses some out of the fullness of who he is and at his own expense, not out of something lacking within himself (which, if we are honest, is likely what we suspect. We do so because we project on to God our brokenness and lack resulting in our desire to do everything for personal gain).

It is against this backdrop the Father sent his Son (who willingly came) to take on the consequences and suffering for our rebellion and offer to remove it so he can extend kindness to those who receive his love as a gift. That is not being unfair to others, it is being kind, merciful, and gracious to those who don't deserve it. Could God not have rightfully let us all continue in our rebellion and eternal separation from him? Yet in his mercy, he chose to spare some from the destruction of it. His mercy is not deserved or earned.

Accountable for what we don't know?

Some may argue that who God is and what his designs are is not clear. However, scripture says otherwise, and that the only reason we do not see the true reality of these things is we submerge these truths in the depths of our hearts out of our rebellion (unbelief) to God. 

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." - Rom 1:18-21

A summary of our trouble with this teaching

The reasons God choosing some for salvation and not others is so hard for some to accept are 

• We do not understand the full extent of humanity's rebellion and the just deserts of condemnation.
• God's total justice if he had chosen to walk away from all of humanity in their rebellion.
• It makes God appear unfair, which creates suspicion/doubt of his claim to be good and loving.

When we recognize God did not pursue mankind out of guilt for letting things get so messed up (we are the one's who messed up, not God) or out of a need for creation to fill some kind of void in him, but rather he did it because he is a being of overflowing love and goodness and mercy, willing to take upon himself the full and justly deserved consequences of our rebellion so we might gain what is only rightfully his, then we can see his true nature of love. 

And once we do, we experience overwhelming gratitude for his infinite mercy extended to us in and through Christ. 

Election, the ultimate expression of grace and grounds for humility.

I would propose that you can never truly understand the fullness of God's grace and mercy (and therefore his love) until you understand the sovereignty of God in salvation i.e. election.

By this I mean we know that God chose us (saved us) based solely on his sovereign choice and not on any "righteous deeds" of our own i.e. anything that we accomplish (or attempt). It is only then we begin to understand how everything about our relationship with God is based on grace (i.e. a gift initiated and extended to us by him) that we begin to grasp the true nature of God's love. God is the initiator and cause of our right standing as well as our ongoing faithfulness to him (i.e. he alone by his Spirit/Love drives our God-honoring behavior), not us or anything we do. Our "work" is simply to believe in his offer of perfect unearned righteousness extended to any and all who believe.

This is the foundation on which [2]humility is built -- he resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. To be truly humble we must understand the grace of his sovereign choosing/election. To say it another way, we can in no way take credit for our salvation. Not just our initial salvation but our ongoing salvation. He does it all from start to finish. He reveals himself to us and only because he does, do we respond; not just in our initial coming but our ongoing obedience. It is us moving, but it is God - who he is - that moves us. 

Our part

It is us responding, not God. We do play a real part; our role is vital but we respond for two reasons, both of which are due to him. 

1. He designed us for love (i.e. he made us this way [in his image], we didn't make ourselves. Because he did, we can respond to love) and... 
2. He reveals himself as he truly is i.e. lovely, so we might respond. When he does and because he does, we respond accordingly and are moved to action (to say this practically, your reading this now is no accident). If he did not, we would not come.

God must open our eyes before we can see his beauty and willingly choose to pursue him. And when we do it is truly our choice.

The key to understanding "whosoever will may come" is that man comes freely by their own will; he is not coerced. But this is only because their eyes have been opened to see their dreadful state and antagonistic disposition towards God and his beauty simultaneously, thereby being drawn to him. If he was not love and did not initially reveal his beauty/loveliness to us, we would never have sought him. By grace and nothing but grace are we saved.

If he was not love and did not continue to reveal his beauty/loveliness to us, we would not pursue him now. By grace (our ongoing receiving and believing it) and nothing but grace, we are being saved in our daily life.

These reasons are why it is vital (not just theologically but practically) election be stressed and must be understood well in order for us to fully experience the extent of God's love and properly give him the full and rightful credit he deserves. Without understanding this we will not be properly empowered to respond to him as we were designed to. 

We still must choose

The challenge is to understand that election does not eliminate the responsibility of choice. Our "chooser" is still intact. We make choices every day and those choices are solely and truly our own, not God's. For example, God didn't make you read this blog. He may have led you here (through curiosity or some other reason) but whatever the reason, you are the one that decided to read this and what, if anything, you will do with the things discussed. 

The problem is our "wanter" is broken, not our "chooser." We choose the wrong things because we want the wrong things. And we want the wrong things because we are ^[1]blind to the best thing i.e. God himself and the fullness of love and life that only he is. And we are blind because we are spiritually dead...the fruit of (and warning for) our rebellious independence from God. 

Joh 3:3  Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless (i.e. until) one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 

When we clearly - though not yet fully - see the best thing i.e. God, we desire him. And when we desire him we choose him every time. So our prayer must always be, "God help me to see you as you truly are in all your beauty, majesty and glory so I will desire you more fully as you truly are and rightly deserve, the greatest and most desirable, beautiful and lovely of all."

So what do we do if we don't desire him?

You may be thinking "I have no desire to seek or know God." Maybe so, but you are reading this, so on some level, you do have an interest. Pray for God to mercifully reveal himself to you until you find him. Even if you don't want to pray, ask him to give you the desire. That is your choice and something you can do. If you are sincere, he will reveal himself to you. If you are not sincere in your prayer, pray he enables you to be. If you refuse to, that too is your choice but this reveals the true nature of the problem, not your inability to choose but your rebellion i.e. it is no longer a choice issue but a trust issue...you simply choose not to trust God. 

However, the very fact you are reading this and asking this question (assuming you are) is an indication he is drawing you. Pursue this as if your eternal destination depends on it...because it does. Otherwise, your desire may go away. 

If you are not asking these questions, pray they haunt you until you do. This too is your choice. 

C.S. Lewis once said, "God, in the end, gives people what they most want, including freedom from Himself. What could be fairer?"

How right he was. 

So are you chosen? 

For you and I, this is the wrong question. The only question God presents to us that matters is will you accept his free offer and gift of salvation i.e. will you come? He certainly invites you to. If you do and turn in trust to Him and away from your distrust of him (i.e. repent), he will never turn away from you. And what could be more kind or fair? 

Joh 3:15  that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16  "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 

Joh 3:18  Whoever believes in him is not condemned,

Joh 5:24  Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. 

Joh 6:47  Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love, he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." Eph 1:3-6

Romans 8

Election is hugely significant in Romans 8 in a very practical way. God is saying nothing is more important than his choosing you i.e. the fact that he has chosen you supersedes and overrides any other experience you are now having or may have. It is your direct assurance that because you are the object of his affection, nothing (no circumstances) can or will ever change his affections toward you regardless of what happens. 


Ongoing salvation (after you have come to Christ)

Rom 8:30-39  "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?

As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." 

Rom 8:33  Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 

·        "Free" will or heavily influenced? click here

·        Why Calvinists and Arminians are both wrong click here, 

·        Our "wanter" is broken, not our "chooser" click here 

·       The necessity of choice click here. 

·        Why freedom of choice is important click here

·       The question of fairness click here. 

·       The necessity of mercy click here.

·       Is the election and wrath of God unreasonable? click here.

_____________________________

^[1]we are spiritually blind because we are spiritually dead, which was the warning God gave in the garden "…The day that you eat (i.e. go contrary to my will and good design for you) you will die..." The day that Adam chose to break away was the day that God's Spirit departed and left man merely as a physical and soulish creature, yet still with the capacity for spiritual engagement and life upon our new birth and the Spirit's reentry i.e. being born again. 

[2] Humility is also the gateway through which grace (and therefore God himself) comes to us. 

Jas 4:6  But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” 

If you wish to know the grace of God you must first recognize your need for it. This is the heart of humility. The extent to which you do is the extent to which you will experience and appreciate God himself. Without it none of us will see God much less see him as he truly is. 

*For those who assert a "Calvinist" view (I prefer to call it a more biblical view) inhibits outreach, Whitefield was arguably the greater influence in the Great Awakening, though both he and the Wesley's played a key role. Whitefield spoke to crowds estimated as large as 30,000 at a time, preaching at least 18,000 times to perhaps 10 million listeners in the US and England. His understanding of election was a key driving factor

the necessity of God's mercy

We are told we will not and can not come to Christ unless the Father draws us. 

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day... And he (Jesus) said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." - Jesus. Joh 6:44, 65

Why are we in this condition? How did it come about? 

We died spiritually when we chose to rebel from our dependence on God. When we did we unplugged from God, if you will, who is the source of love, life, and the sustainer of all things. 

The life (Spirit) of God departed from us at our rebellion. We immediately #died spiritually. Evidence of this is Adam and Eve's attempt to cover their shame, hide from God and blame-shift (a fruit of shame/guilt). Prior to their rebellion there was no shame. 

#We are told that we alone had God directly breath his life/breath into us. Not just any life but the very life/breath of God himself.  

Gen 2:7  then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 

The Holy Spirit will not and does not live inside rebellious (¹impure) image bearers. When we choose to rebell and rejected God (and our dependence on him), he left (we could say his life/Spirit left. Though a residual of life lingered, as evidenced by our not immediately dying physically). 

Why did the Spirit/life of God depart from us? We are real beings with real choices that have real consequences. 

God honors us, our dignity, our being in his image, when he honors our ²choices.

Because of these realities, we not only died spiritually but we eventually died ³physically as well. 

Generally death (separation/ disconnection) is a permanent condition. We remain in this state unless something is done to reverse it i.e. unless God intervenes. Without God's intervention all men and women go into eternity separated from God spiritually and physically. 

Consider angels

When we consider angels, this is exactly what happened to them i.e. we have no indication that any of the fallen angels turned, can turn or ever will turn back to God. The only difference between them and us appears to be God's intervention (i.e. his mercy); his reversing the "natural" outcome of their rejection of him.  

The fact that our choosing to rebel from God was so complete/final, has nothing to do with the justice of God (at least, by God's mercy, it was not final as it was with the angels, yet no one thinks God unjust in leaving them in their chosen state of rebellion). God clearly warned our first parents (Adam directly and Eve via Adam) that the day they eat (a choice to no longer depend on God) they would die. By eating from the forbidden tree, they cut themselves off from God. It was their choice and they were warned of the consequences. Though certainly possible, we have no indication such a warning was given to the angels. 

Did Adam and Eve understand the consequences?

Whether they understood the full significance of this is neither here nor there. In fact not fully understanding the significance only affirmed the importance and necessity of complete trust by Adam and Eve in God's promise/warning. God requiring they trust him is simply expecting them to be who they were; finite and dependent creatures in his image. God was only asking them to believe he was all wise and knew what was best, not them. They certainly had no indication/evidence otherwise. They simply doubted this to be true based on a lie they were told ("...you will be like God..." i.e. no longer dependent but independent) and chose to believe it. 

Why would and did God create us in such a way this could even happen. Because love forced is no love at all and a choice forced is not a choice. In other words, if I follow you because I am programmed to do so, it would not be me choosing you out of trust and love for you, it would be the program directing me to do so. Without real trust there is no real love or real choice. 

If a husband is programmed to bring flowers to his wife, how does his wife feel (knowing his programming was the reason)?

When God reveals himself to us, he is intervening in and reversing our fallen (self imposed and deserved...after all they were clearly warned) condition/blindness. He's not violating our choice, he's awakening our hearts again to his love. Once awakened, we naturally go after the one who is all lovely and beautiful. This is in fact our response (choice) to seeing and experiencing his love and beauty. But it is God in his mercy opening our eyes so we might see him again as he truly is. A blind man can not heal his own blindness. 

To illustrate, what if you were blind and deaf (better yet what if you were dead) and someone placed a pot of gold in front of you and told you this is yours and it's value is a billion dollars. How would you respond? What would you do? Well, you would do nothing simply because you wouldn't be aware this had just occurred. Now, what if by some miracle all your senses were restored (or somehow you came back to life) while this pot of gold was there in front of you and now in this restored state, the offer was made again. How would you respond? Well, I dare say you would say YES and thank you. 

What changed? We're you forced to take the gold? Were you somehow given the will to choose the gold that you didn't previously see? No, you were now able to see what was there and responded (chose) based on how you were already designed i.e. you were attracted, draw to and choose that which is highly valuable (because we were designed to be attracted to God who is all valuable/worthy). 

Christ tells us unless we are born again we can not see the kingdom of God (the beauty, glory and joy of the King and being reunited with him). Birth and sight go hand in hand. The capacity for life was still there but dormant (dead). We just needed God's breath, breathed into us again, just as the original Adam did after being formed from the ground. 

Given this set of conditions/ circumstances, if God were to do nothing to remedy the problem (our spiritually dormant/dead state) created by the rebellious choice of Adam and Eve, it would have been perfectly just. To do anything to remedy the problem they created is rather an act of mercy by God. He was and is in no way obligated to resolve the dilemma they had created. 

Adam and Eve's choice was clearly a violation of trust on their part. A choice that totally ruined and destroyed their trust through which their relationship with God was sustained, alienating themselves from him, themselves, each other as well as the rest of creation.

Thank God our choice was not the final word, his mercy was. 

33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord,
    or who has been his counselor?”
35 “Or who has given a gift to him
    that he might be repaid?”

36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. Romans 11. 

·       The question of fairness click here. 

·       Is the election and wrath of God unreasonable? click here.

·        "Free" will or heavily influenced? click here

·        Why Calvinists and Arminians are both wrong click here, 

·        Our "wanter" is broken, not our "chooser" click here 

·        Why freedom of choice is important click here

·        The primary end for which we are chosen click here

________________________________________________________________

¹not singularly focused on the source of true and lasting life but believing life can be found outside and apart from God.

²God still honored our choice when he called us back to himself. He simply opened our eyes to see his beauty resulting in our choosing him again. He did not override our choice in so doing he simply removed our blindness so that we might truly see him again and choose rightly.

³Some have questioned the warning from God as untrue since man did not physically die immediately upon eating the forbidden fruit. But possibly this is because physical death is all we can relate to (since we are now born spiritually dead so we have nothing to compare it to), when in fact spiritual death was the primary caution God was giving which lead to Adam and Eve's death physically. 

This also may say something very significant regarding what is more vital: spiritual life or physical life? Both are certainly important but spiritual death (the loss of God's life/Spirit) was more vital as everything else (physical death, the curse upon the ground, pain in child bearing etc) flowed out of our disconnect spiritually (death) to God. 

God works in and through the natural

Ultimately God is in control and determines the final outcome of all things. But he normally works *through - not outside of or apart from - normal/natural means in bringing about his sovereign purposes (i.e. The supernatural will of the Creator is usually executed by means of or through the natural/created world). 

Why is this? God values the natural or physical world (so much so he fully embraced it in the incarnation). After all he created all material things and said it was all very good (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). 

He also desires the full participation and interaction of the natural with the supernatural i.e. He values and enjoys our participation and interaction with him as physical, not just spiritual beings.

He actually created the natural/physical world with exactly this in mind...so we could participate in and enjoy the wonder, beauty and joy of who God is and enter into and discover the joy of who he is as Father, Son and Spirit via created things. A major part (means) of him revealing himself and his beauty is through the natural i.e. His creation (Psa 19:1-6). So much so that he choose the natural (i.e. the incarnation of himself as a man) to reveal himself to us. His interactions with us spiritually are supernaturally through the natural creation.

We don't fully recognize how much Neoplatonism has infiltrated the church. This notion says only the spiritual is good and the material/physical is not. In fact, many within the church view the physical world as an anchor and hindrance. However, this is not the teaching of scripture. 

The abuse (misuse) of the physical world or created things is our challenge, not the material world in itself. 

This is why we will one day receive a glorified body and not be some disembodied spirit in eternity. It is also way Christ exists today in a glorified physical state and has ever since his resurrection and will throughout eternity as well.  

Christ not only embraced our humanity so he could give his physical life as a sacrifice for our rebellious mistrust (sin) but so he could be the God/man i.e. the mediator between God and man, not just in the past but now and into eternity. He understands both because he is both. To this day, he lives in a physical (albeit glorified) human body. 

_________________________________________

*Operating outside the natural would be the classic definition of a miracle. The fact that miracles are rare also gives some indication of his value of creation and natural processes.