--- In pipertalk@yahoogroups.com, "Rod" <rodanddanni@i...> wrote:
> Dr. Caneday,
>
> In your opinion is "election" a doctrine worth defending to the
point of creating a division in the church?
>
> Do you see a conflict between what Piper writes about election in
POG and what Grudem writes about election in his Systematic Theo.?
>
> Thank you!
>
> blessings,
> Rod
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rod,

I'm sorry for my delayed response (which reminds me that I owe
someone else a response, too).

I went back to read your original note in which you quote Piper and
also Grudem. Unless I misread your note, you mixed categories. Your
quote from Piper concerns "election." Your quote from Grudem
concerns "particular redemption," "limited atonement." I think this
is where confusion arises. They are not speaking about precisely the
same thing. So, no, I don't think that Piper and Grudem are
contradicting one another.

I am willing to go to the wall for belief in "unconditional
election." This is how firmly convinced I am that Scripture reveals
that God's choosing of us is not grounded in anything we are or do.
So, I am deeply convinced of its rightness.

However, as you pose your question for me, my response has to reflect
a thoroughly pastoral dimension. "In your opinion is "election" a
doctrine worth defending to the point of creating a division in the
church?"

Because we cannot control people's responses to our preaching and
teaching of the Scriptures, who can anticipate when people might rise
up against one's teaching to divide the church? Fear of potential
division will not stop me from teaching and preaching "unconditional
election" in the church. On the other hand, knowing that it is often,
if not usually, the manner in which one teaches "unconditional
election" that divides churches, I always take great care how I teach
and preach these things and all things. If anyone will take offense
at my teaching, I endeavor always to make sure that the cause of the
offense is not my manner but the substance.

The following is entirely an ad extra that goes way beyond your
question for anyone interested in my expanded thoughts related to
this issue.
____________________________________

I would like to suggest one other matter. If we teach and preach the
Scriptures in the categories of the Scriptures, I find that people
are much more ready to embrace and to believe things than if we teach
and preach the Scriptures in the categories of systematic theology.
Scripture does not call us to preach systematic theology. Of course,
it is impossible for us to preach properly without doing systematic
theology, but this should be done principally in the privacy of our
studies rather than overtly in the pulpit. So, when I preach and
teach on God's choosing us, I avoid using the
expression "unconditional election." The expression comes from
systematic theology." The term certainly expresses a biblical truth,
but it has become so thoroughly stylized that when some people hear
the expression, they instantly shut down their hearing or have a
violent reaction because of prior associations.

Why not use 1 John 4:19 with 4:10 to teach the truth that systematic
theology identifies as "unconditional election"? Gently lead and
guide people who are natively opposed to the biblically grounded
belief by taking them to a passage that they already embrace but do
not realize that it is a passage that establishes the same point as
the designation "unconditional election"? Is not God's unconditional
choosing of us his unconditional love for us? God does not love us
because we first loved him. We love because God first loved us. God
does not lovingly choose us because we first lovingly chose him. We
lovingly choose him because he first lovingly chose us. Who could
possibly reject this, except those who reject Christ?

Much offense that many ministers attribute to the nature of the
teaching actually is due to the way we teach rather than the thing we
teach. If we wrap our teachings in the categories of Scripture rather
than in the worn categories of systematic theology, we run the risk
of having our preaching and teaching being received. I think this
risk is worth taking. This is how I teach my college students. They
don't hear systematic theological cliches from me.

When we preach the Word, we should preach it in its unitary
wholeness, not separating what Scripture does not separate. Indeed,
we need to distinguish what Scripture distinguishes, but we must not
separate what Scripture does not separate. For example, IMHO, much of
the hullaballoo in Reformed circles today over the intrusion of the
so-called "New Perspective on Paul" originates from people who are
heavily (excessively) devoted to systematic theology over against
biblical theology. Many of them, if not all, separate justification
from sanctification, something Scripture does not do. Indeed,
Scripture distinguishes between the two but never separates the two.

Systematic theology entails the abstraction of Scripture's teachings
from one another for the sake of learning the various doctrinal
strands of the Bible so that we become properly aware of Scripture's
diverse teachings. However, what so easily happens is that young
theologians get in the habit of making real these abstractions.
Diversity trumps unity. Making real these abstractions eventuates in
separation. But Scripture does not present its teachings this way.
Scripture entangles the various strands together in such a way that
to unravel them into individual strands, separating them from one
another, turns Scriptures' teachings into an entirely different form.
The multiform, multichromatic, and multi-textured teachings of the
gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, takes on monoform,
monochromatic, and mono-textured qualities when we unravel the
strands from one another and present them isolated and separated from
one another. If we teaching Scripture's teaching of what
systematicians call "unconditional election" within the context of
Scriptures' individisble and unitary wholeness, we will not be as
likely to isolate this precious teaching from complementary teachings
of Scripture. Thus, we will not be as likely to incite unnecessary
offense for those who have been inclined to take offense because of
prior hearings of the teachings.

IMHO, Graeme Goldsworthy is leading the way back to the way Jesus and
the Apostles preached and taught. Look for his excellent books.

A. B. Caneday