On the Nature of Divine Election

Patrick Schreiner has a put together a good synopsis of the arguments put forward by Brian Abasciano (corporate emphasis/conditional election) and Tom Schreiner (individual emphasis/unconditional election) here.

He includes the two opposing articles (Abasciano’s article is a response to Schreiner’s work some ten years before, and Schreiner’s article is a response to Abasciano’s response).  I want to highly suggest you reading them both.  They will stretch your mind, and that is good.  And depending upon what side of the debate you are on at present, I would encourage you to a cool frame and tempered, teachable disposition in reading the article that exegetes and argues contrary to your position.  As Piper has said, “it is more important to learn what they are saying than to hear what you want to hear” (paraphrase).

I will tell you, also, that after reading them both, I still land somewhat predictably and unhesitatingly with Schreiner’s position.  I won’t bother you with my own thoughts beyond that.  Just read the articles and we can talk later.  And, p.s., I don’t think this is a peripheral issue!

3 Responses

  1. Abasciano has written a further reply to Schreiner (which has been called forceful and compelling; see here for that judgment: http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/814) and it may now be found online: Brian J. Abasciano, “Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election”, Ashland Theological Journal 41 (2009) 59-90 (http://evangelicalarminians.org/Abasciano-Clearing-Up-Misconceptions-about-Corporate-Election). I would urge you to read it. Schreiner got the last word in the JETS debate. You may end up being convinced by Abasciano’s response.

    • Arminian,

      I will read Abasciano’s response. In all honesty, though, I doubt that it will change my understanding, and not because of Schreiner’s arguments only, but because as I read Abasciano’s first article, I found his interpretations and inferences to be largely contrary to clearer biblical passages, biblical theology, the best understanding of the relationship of the covenants and particular theological (not theo-sophical) truths. Nevertheless, for the sake of understanding, I desire to act responsibly and with intellectual integrity. Therefore, I will read his response to Schreiner, write up my own thoughts to his rebuttal and have them for you soon on the blog. Thanks for your care for my soul. I know that you think that his arguments are right and a more biblical path, and so I thank God for you in that you are doing what you think best and most edifying for me. I simply disagree, however, that his understanding of Romans 9 and the inferences drawn from it are right and more biblical. At the end of the day, I want to believe, think, speak, write, and practice that which most glorifies God, and to that end, I will seek to labor and toil for the sake of my own joy in Him, and the completion of that joy in your joy in God also. Thanks for the response, and may the Lord grant us all more light than heat, and from light, heat (that is, passion for God and love for Christ and the advance of the gospel of our Lord),

      Your servant in the Lord,

      Brian R. Mahon

  2. Hello, all the time i used to check webpage posts here in the early hours in the morning, as i like to
    find out more and more.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: