Why I Am a Calvinist (Part 7)
March 28th, 2007
. . . and why every Christian is a Calvinist of sorts.
(By Phil Johnson)
Part VII: A second look at one of the shortest verses in the Bible
We’re looking at five doctrinal implications of a very short verse, 1 John 4:19: “We love Him because He first loved us.”
We’ve reached point three. This verse not only highlights the perverseness of our fallen state; and teaches us about the priority of God’s electing choice; but, third, it shows us—
3. THE PARTICULARITY OF HIS SAVING WORK
What do I mean by that? Look at the verse again: “We love Him, because He first loved us.” Those words express John’s conviction that God has done something special for us. “We love Him . . . ” but not everyone loves Him. God has done something on our behalf and in our hearts that He does not do for everyone. He has demonstrated a particular love for us.
The apostle John was always keenly aware of this fact. He gloried in the knowledge that Jesus’ love for him was a special love. That is the implication of his favorite self description: “that disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21:7). John used that phrase again and again because he delighted in the knowledge that Christ loved him in particular. God had redeemed him in particular. He was not merely the beneficiary of a general goodwill that God has for all creation; he was convinced that Christ’s love for him was personal and special. Jesus loved him in particular.
You know what? Every born-again Arminian will say that, too: He loves me in particular. He loves me with a special love. I’m not merely a dog, licking up the crumbs of God’s general love for all mankind. I am one of the children He has seated at His table. He has a special love for me. Every believing Arminian could refer to himself, as the apostle John did, as “That guy whom Jesus loves.”
By the way, I do believe with all my heart that God has a general love of God for everyone in the human race. “His tender mercies are over all His works” (Psalm 145:9). Acts 17:25: “He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things”—and those are tokens of a genuine goodwill and lovingkindness that extends to everyone who was ever born. God even loves His enemies (Matthew 5:45) so “He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”
Yet God’s love for the elect is a particular love. He loves them with the love of a Father for His own children. He loves them each uniquely. He loves them in a special way. His love for them is the highest and most sacred kind of love known to man. No greater love can possibly be extended to any creature. And that great love is manifest in a particular way. It is a sacrificial kind of love that will stop at nothing to preserve its object. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Christ’s love moved Him to give His life for His friends.
Look back a few verses at verses 9-10: “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” The proof of His electing love—and the thing that lovingly guarantees the salvation of His people—is the atoning work of Christ.
God gave Christ to die for them in order to be a propitiation for their sins. That simply means He satisfied justice on their behalf. He satisfied the wrath of God on their behalf. He bore their guilt. He died in their place and in their stead, so that they wouldn’t have to suffer the penalty for their own sins. He bore the wrath of God on their behalf. He paid in full the penalty of their sins. He was their substitute. He died for them in particular.
So let’s talk about “limited atonement.” Some of you are thinking, There’s a doctrine no Arminian presupposes. Actually, I think anyone who believes the atonement was substitutionary presupposes a Calvinistic doctrine of the atonement. And historic, evangelical Arminians do believe in substitutionary atonement. Christ suffered in my place and in my stead. He wasn’t such a substitute for Judas’s punishment, because if what Jesus said about Judas is true, Judas is in hell this very moment, bearing the wrath of God for himself.
I don’t like the expression “limited atonement,” because it suggests that the atonement is limited in its sufficiency.
Let me clear this up for you: No true Calvinist believes that. If you had the idea that Calvinism places some limit on the value or sufficiency of the atonement, forget that idea. Any Calvinist who denies that Christ’s death was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world is a bad Calvinist. Christ’s sacrifice was infinite in its sufficiency, “abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” (In fact, that phrase, “abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world,” is quoted directly from the canons of the Synod of Dordt, which is the original manifesto of Calvinism.) The death of Christ is infinitely sufficient and that one sacrifice could have atoned for the sins of the whole world, if that had been God’s design.
But was that God’s design? Or was the central and supreme object of His death the salvation of those whom God had loved with a special love from before the foundation of the world? I believe those questions are definitively settled forever by 1 Timothy 4:10: “We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.” In the design of God, the atoning work of Christ has a special significance for the elect, because it was the means by which He secured and guaranteed their salvation forever. “The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). And even Arminians affirm the basic gist of that truth—Christ’s atonement is efficacious only for those who actually believe.
Notice: when John writes, “We love Him, because He first loved us,” he is addressing those who were the particular objects of Christ’s redemptive work. Look once again at verse 9: “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.” This was the object of God in the death of His Son: “that we might live through Him.” He undertook this saving work for us in particular, because we are special objects of His eternal love.
There’s more. Here’s a fourth doctrine we find taught in this verse:
4. THE POWER OF HIS LOVING DELIVERANCE
Look at our verse again: “We love Him because He first loved us.” John is saying that God’s love for us is the cause—the effectual cause—of our love for Him. Once again, he is not saying merely that God’s love is a motive or an incentive for our love. Rather, John’s point is that God’s love is the actual productive cause of our love.
Remember that it is impossible for an unregenerate person to love God. The heart of fallen flesh is by definition an enemy of God. It has no power to change itself, any more than a leopard can change its spots. It is the nature of a sinner to love sin, and nothing is more contrary to a sinful heart than love for God. So it is morally impossible for the sinner to love God.
“Who then can be saved?” Do you remember Jesus’ answer to that question? “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). He does the impossible. His own love for us is such that He purchases us and pursues us and persuades us lovingly to love Him. And in order to make that love possible, He even graciously gives us new hearts that are capable of loving. That’s the promise He makes to His people in Ezekiel 36:
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My judgments, and do them.
That speaks of God’s regenerating work, whereby He resurrects us to a state of vibrant spiritual life, enlightens our minds to understand His truth, and makes the glories of His love so attractive to us that we find them absolutely irresistible.
In fact, that is exactly the expression we sometimes use to speak of this truth: irresistible grace.
Some people misunderstand that term and imagine that there is some type of violent force or coercion involved in God’s drawing us to Christ. But irresistible grace isn’t something that pushes us against our wills toward Christ; it is something that draws us willingly to Him.
It is similar to my love for my wife. I find her irresistible. But she doesn’t force my love for her. She doesn’t employ any constraint other than the sheer attractiveness of her charms to draw me to her. But she is irresistible to me.
God’s saving grace is irresistible to the elect in the very same sense. We speak of it as “effectual grace,” because it always secures its object. God always procures a reciprocal love from those upon whom He has set His redemptive love. As Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:14, “the love of Christ constraineth us.” He died for us, so we cannot henceforth live unto ourselves.
Think about what this means: We cannot take personal credit for loving God. Our love for God is a fruit of the Spirit, according to Galatians 5:22. It is the work of God in us. “We love Him, because He first loved us”—our love for Him is the natural fruit of His great love for us. So you see the power of His loving deliverance.
Here’s a fifth doctrinal lesson from this simple verse: It also reminds us of—
5. THE PERFECTION OF HIS REDEMPTIVE PLAN
Just consider the first two words of our verse: “We love.” Again, that speaks of a totally transformed heart. At first, we didn’t love. “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” That’s Titus 3:4 5. It speaks once again of that regenerating work that turns our cold, unloving hearts of stone into hearts that are capable of true love for God.
And inherent in the same lovingkindness that obtained our salvation is a guarantee that we will persevere in that love to the very end. We love Him. We’re completely free from that sinful enmity that once kept us hostile to Him. And He loves us. He will not permit anything or anyone to snatch us out of His hand.
Notice verses 17-18:
17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as He is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
That love is a fruit of God’s own Spirit, and therefore it is a permanent love. It casts out fear; it gives us boldness even in the day of judgment. It will not fade or diminish. Why? “Because as He is, so are we in this world.” This love conforms us to His image, and keeps conforming us to His image, until that goal is perfectly achieved. In other words, the same love that guaranteed our salvation from sin in the first place guarantees our perseverance in the faith.
(To be concluded tomorrow)
Very nice teaching of such an abstruse Bible doctrine.
“God always procures a reciprocal love from those upon whom He has set His redemptive love.”
This may be where many non-Calvinists will be pricked, for to them this isn’t genuine, but forced love.
“But irresistible grace isn’t something that pushes us against our wills toward Christ; it is something that draws us willingly to Him.”
Amen.
I’m glad you don’t like the term “limited atonement.” It’s not biblical. Though in one sense all Calvinists do believe in limited atonement — it is effective only for the elect, the number of which is decreed unconditionally by God. So the issue slides the focus over to election: is it unconditional (Calvinism) or conditional (Arminianism)?
For Calvinists, “God always procures a reciprocal love from those upon whom He has set His redemptive love.” And necessarily leaves to perdition those upon whom He has not set His redemptive love. I don’t believe in “limited redemptive love.”
I don’t mind using the term limited atonement, though many hate the “L” of the TULIP.
The thing is this to me: did our Savior blood pay for the sins of His people. Was every drop precious, or was there some of His blood that didn’t matter?
I believe Christ’s blood, every drop was holy and paid for every sin that it was intended to pay for.
Could His death pay for the sins of a trillion worlds? Surely! And ten times that much! But I believe like Phil says here, His love was for a particular people, and even a particular person.
Phil,
Good study!!! I recently preached on the subject of Effectual Call, which is in the area of irresistible grace. It appears to me that God removes all of our heart’s natural depraved resistance to His truths and person. How else can I explain how an enemy of Christ turns and becomes a lover of Christ.
Charles Wesley’s hymns are full of Particular redemption.
The Lord in the day of His anger did lay
My sins on the Lamb and He bore them away.
Is an excellent example.
I find it interesting that the doctrine of limited atonement is so controversial. Of the 5 points, it’s the one that seemed to make the most sense initially (assuming I am understanding it correctly).
I’ve always thought it was primarily a justice issue. My sins need to be punished – either Jesus takes the punishment or I do. In other words, if I am saved then Jesus was punished for my sins. If I’m not saved then I am punished for them personally.
In light of God’s justice, it seems illogical that both Jesus and I would be punished for my sins if I were not saved.
Is this not what limited atonement is teaching?
I think you’re right on the money Denis. Something that I found infinitely helpful with the doctrine of limited atonement or particular redemption (whichever you like) was #1, Phil’s own seminar on the atonement from the 2003 Shepherds’ Conference. http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1027.htm
Also, in MacArthur’s NT commentary on 2 Peter, he addresses the issue of the perseverance of the saints, and in so doing kind of goes all through the 5 points (because total depravity implies the other 4). In the commentary MacArthur quotes Spurgeon and David Clotfelter. Here’s Spurgeon first:
We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, on the other hand, our opponents limit it; we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question–Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if” –and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say that Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it. (Cited by J. I. Packer, “Introductory Essay,” in John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ [n.p., n.d.; reprint, London: Banner of Truth, 1959], 14.)
He adds this from David Clotfelter:
From the Calvinist point of view, it is Arminianism that presents logical impossibilities. Arminianism tells us that Jesus died for multitudes that will never be saved, including millions who never so much as heard of Him. It tells us that in the case of those who are lost, the death of Jesus, represented in Scripture as an act whereby He took upon Himself the punishment that should have been ours (Isa. 53:5), was ineffective. Christ has suffered once for their sins, but they will have to suffer for those same sins in hell.
The Arminian atonement has the initial appearance of being very generous, but the more closely we look at it, the less we are impressed. Does it guarantee the salvation of any person? No. Does it guarantee that those for whom Christ died will have the opportunity to hear of Him and respond to Him? No. Does it in any way remove or even lessen the sufferings of the lost? No. In reality, the Arminian atonement does not atone. It merely clears the way for God to accept those who are able to lift themselves by their own bootstraps. The Calvinist does not believe that any fallen person has such power, and so he views the Arminian atonement as unsuited to the salvation of sinners and insulting to Christ. (Sinners in the Hands of a Good God [Chicago: Moody, 2004], 165; emphasis in original)
That was astoundingly helpful to me when I was shady on limited atonement. I hope it can be equally as edifying.
Ephesians 4:29,
MIKE
“But irresistible grace isn’t something that pushes us against our wills toward Christ; it is something that draws us willingly to Him.”
No, by definition it is God drawing Himself to Himself through an unsuspecting conduit that has no responsibility, no desire for God, no morality, and no inherant knowledge of God. Like winding up a doll and hearing it say “I love you”, God implants His will into a fallen shell and solely by His own power and design He makes His subject say “I love you” to Himself.
No marriage seminar would call that love, they would call that solitaire.
Henry (Rick) Frueh “No marriage seminar would call that love, they would call that solitaire.”
I happen to be married to a wonderful woman who didn’t necessarily fall head-over-heels in love with me the first time she laid eyes on me, so I had to win her affections.
The concept of God drawing sinners to Christ by making Him irresistible makes perfect sense to me, and it’s NOT anything like solitaire.
If you’re married and you truly don’t understand how the idea of “irresistibility” is perfectly compatible with voluntary love—and especially if that’s the way you see God’s sovereignty working—I’m truly sorry for you.
The doctrine of irresistibility does not contend that God makes Jesus irresistible, it clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit draws the sinner by changing him and his Spiritual capability. As far as God winning a sinner’s affections like, as you say, a husband to a wife that is non-analogous. The totally depraved sinner has NO inherant affection for Christ and will only desire Christ when he is given such empowerment, which, cannot be refused. So without the plausibility of rejection the definition of love becomes unremarkable because it exists without any defining relief.
Holding up a pure white paper against a pure white white background makes the paper and its size, shape, and meaning unrecognizeable. Now if you are saying that the Spirit opens the eyes of the sinner to the reality of Christ and that the person of Christ when Spiritually seen is always irresistible the that is different than what Calvin taught.
I see your comparisons but they are incongruous with what Calvin himself taught. And when in the midst of a substantive discussion about the truly deeper issues of theology, why does it always seem as if the Calvinist camp seems to malign the free will point of view with other than honest Biblical discussions?
“I feel sorry for you.” That, my brother, was the first personal interjection in what was heretofore a stimulating exchange.
How many types of grace does God have? Why is only His grace unto salvation irrisistible? We experience God’s grace every hour of every day and in all kinds of situations. His divine enablement for one person to forgive another of adultery, for example, can only be credited to the Holy Spirit working personally in matters of the heart. And, yet, many have unforgiveness in their heart for various reasons. Are they choosing not to forgive? Or has God chosen not to release grace in that person’s life to forgive? Or maybe God has all different kinds of grace?
Henry,
Another thing about love, is that it becomes mature, and it swells with affections for the One who loves us.
God loved me from before time, and I can say I love Him more now than at my new birth, back in 1984.
Chris,
The way I see it is that all the righteous things we do are by His grace alone, and God receives all the glory. And all the shortcomings, sinful behavior, unforgiveness, and bad things we do, we take full credit.
And yet on that Day, God will commend His children for what we have done for Him. The treasures that we have built in heaven will be ours, though by His grace.
Henry (Rick) Frueh “And when in the midst of a substantive discussion about the truely deeper issues of theology, why does it always seem as if the Calvanist camp seems to malign the free will point of view with other than honest Biblical discussions?” Please, Rick. Solitare? Marriage seminars? Are there any other “honest Biblical discussions” that you would like to share with us?
Hobbs, you obviously missed the point. Metaphors are fair, personal condescensions (I feel sorry for you) are not.
Still, by that theology, His grace for us unto salvation is by His will and His choice alone. It is irresistible once it is given. We have no part in it because our choice would always be to reject. Thus He chooses those who He will bestow His grace upon, and those that reject He does not. Is that a fair description of the Calvinist’s picture of grace? Then why is His grace for divine living not also by His choice and His will alone. If any of His grace is irresistible then it all must be. The reason why I have not forgiven is because God chose sovereignly not to bestow His grace upon me. How do I know this? Because if He did, I could not have resisted and would have therefore forgiven.
In that same theology one may say that because God made a conscious choice to give His grace to some and withhold His grace from others then it is His will that specific people will go to heaven and specific people will go to hell. Most Calvinists I have met would say that this statement is true. Then why can I not say that because He made a conscious choice to give grace to forgive to some and withhold His grace to forgive from others then it is His will that I do not forgive. Grace is grace.
“Then why is His grace for divine living not also by His choice and His will alone.”
You were once dead, and a child of wrath, but now aliove, and a child of the kingdom. We are surely totally dependant upon His grace for any good or righteous act we achieve.
For your other thoughts Chris, I believe the Apostle Paul actually anticipated such questions of God’s sovereign election by grace in Romans nine.
“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? …. You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’” Verses 14 & 19
Have a blessed Lord’s Day.
“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? …. You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’” Verses 14 & 19
I think this is one of the places where context comes into play. These chapters are about Israel. Paul is making a distinction between the “selection” of Israel and the “election” of the Gentiles.
Let Scripture interpret Scripture. If Romans 9 means what you say it means then it would appear to contradict the abundance of other passages that contain IF THEN statements. I don’t know if any of you have ever taken a course on Digital Logic or any Programming courses, but an IF THEN statement is a conditional statement. Something must occur for something else to occur. Further, when applied to a person a choice is implied. Romans 9 can’t mean what you think it means.
in love,
>>zack
I don’t understand your answer. Are you agreeing that it is His divine will that only certain people (even brethren) forgive at certain times, and who are we to question that fact. That seems like what you are saying. Please clarify.
I’ve heard that any text without a context is a pretext. When Romans 9 is read within the context of the verses preceding it, Paul uses the main body of the chapter to answer his own sincere question as to why all of God’s chosen people, Paul’s brethren, the Jews, cannot all be saved. The entire chapter is spent answering that one seemingly unfair idea that a once chosen people can become “unchosen”, or that the rules can seem to change change in the middle of the game. Romans 9 must be discussed as the answer it was written to be. Paul even states that it is so troubling that he, himself, wishes he could be accursed so that all his brethren might be saved. And he swears the validity of that statement upon the witness of the Holy Spirit. Many people make the mistake of applying this specific answer to this specific question universally to a Gentile church when it was meant to describe a Jewish plight alone.
Chris,
God calls all humans to live before His face blameless. And surely that includes forgiving others. if we don’t forgive, then we are in sin.
But, no one can live this life. We sin because we are sinners, and sold under it.
However, praise the Lord, there was One who lived, and never sinned. Jesus, God’s only Son. And Jesus imputes His righteousness to us, and He took all, every single one, of our sins!
What a Savior!
So, when we forgive when is called for, it’s by His grace. When we don’t it’s sin.
To Chris & Zack:
Romans nine says God loved Jacob, but hated Esau. He chose Jacob before he was ever born, before he ever did any good or bad. Jacob was one of God’s elect.
We are God’s elect. He chose us before the foundation of the world, and it was before any of us did good or bad.
Romans eight says, “Who can bring a charge against God’s ELECT?”
This same context is carried into the nineth chapter as far as I can see.
Sure God chooses Israel. Amen. But is He not talking about the individual jacob here to make a point about how God also elects persons.
“So it’s not to HIM who runs, or to HIM who wills, but to God who shows mercy.
God shows mercy to whom He wills to. He even hardens whom he will. He sovereignly has mercy on Jacob, because He chose to. He likewise does the same with all who are His elect.
I would carry Pauls thought from chapter 8 through to chapter 11.
This is some deep teachings. Have you ever read James White on this? He is quite a fine teacher, scholar, of the Scriptures.
I am not one who can expound on the Scriptures as well as someone like him.
Though I do read romans and see it much less complicated than you do.
GOD SHOWS MERCY TO WHOM HE WILL. PERIOD. It could be a nation, and that could be Israel, or America, or Palestine. And individual humans make up these nations, and God created each and every one of them in His image.
have a blessed day.
The context of Paul’s question to himself begins an entirely new line of thought. It is true that from the first chapter to the last chapter of Romans, there exists some amount of contextual and related subject matter. Within the etirety of Scripture that is true also. However, just because we are called Jacob in one place in scripture, does not necessarily mean that we are Jacob everywhere in scripture. The question Paul voices is specific and limited to his concern for Jewish unbelievers. In that context, Jacob refers to the believing Jews and Esau to the unbelieving Jews. The obvious point of which is who are we to question God as He has chosen Jacob over Esau is limited to the contextual question. Who are we to say that it is unfair that the older brother didn’t receive the blessing of the firstborn and the younger did. That is the full extent of the analogy. Period.
“So, when we forgive when is called for, it’s by His grace. When we don’t it’s sin.” But my point is, what is His will? One may say that because His grace is irresistible, he gives it to those that are chosen and withholds it from those that are not. In light of that truth, it is His will that certain people which He has chosen will be remanded to hell. Who are we to go against His will.
More simply stated, where is the untruth in the following? -
1. God’s grace is irresistible
2. Only some people will go to heaven.
3. The only way to heaven is through God’s gift of grace.
4. If God’s grace is irresistible then all who are given it must respond with true conversion.
5. Therefore, God chooses those who will NOT go to heaven by who He chooses NOT to give grace to.
6. When God chooses, it is, by definition, His will.
7. Who are we to wish something other than God’s will?
1. God’s grace is irresistible
2. Only some people will forgive others.
3. The only way to forgive is through God’s gift of grace.
4. If God’s grace is irresistible then all who are given it must respond with true forgiveness.
5. Therefore, God chooses those who will NOT forgive others by who He chooses NOT to give grace to.
6. When God chooses, it is , by definition, His will.
7. Who are we to wish something other than God’s will?
By the law of noncontradiction either both scenarios are true or both are false. Or God has different kinds of grace.
Ten men walk toward a large pit and one by one they fall into it. They are falling to a certain death and they all are now clinging to a small indentation but they are rapidly losing the strength to hold on.
A man with a truck pulls up and looks over the edge of the cliff and sees all ten men holding on. He takes a rope and attaches it to his truck and pulls one man up to safety. He does this again and again. As each man gets to safety they thank the man and start to help him throw the rope down to the others. After the third man has been helped to safety the man begins to wrap up his rope.
The other men urgently inform him that there are seven men still left down there. The man replies that he is aware of that but he is done saving with those three. The three men cannot believe what they are hearing and they plead with him and ask him why he would not save the others.
The man with the truck tells them that he didn’t even have to save them so do not question him about the others, he just doesn’t want to save them and that’s that.
How do think the cavalier attitude of the truck man would affect the feelings that the three saved men should have for him? Could they feel respect and full gratefulness for the truck man when he left their friends in the pit to die simply because he didn’t want them saved?
It is one thing if the truck man lowered the rope to all ten and seven refused it, but to never lower the rope is being a respector of persons and shows the truck man to be arbitrary and uncaring. And even the three saved men would not respect that.
Additionaly, the three men tried to lower a rope to their seven friends but it was in vain because the truck man refused the use of his truck. As the truck man left he instructed them not to lower the rope anymore because he would rescue whoever he wanted and their help was unnecessary and sometimes out of his will.
“But my point is, what is His will?”
This question is a wonderful one, that we all need to take to heart.
I need to always be asking myself, “What is Your will for me, Abba Father?” Or, “Lord what will You have me do?”
And then with the Holy Scripture hid in my heart, and fresh in my mind, I need to pray in faith that the Holy Spirit will give me the power to do His will, and the grace and love to bring glory to His name.
Chris, the same would go for you as well. And for all people, especially those in the household of faith.
Understanding it is great, and we need to dig deep in the Bible for understanding, as we fearfully and prayerfully present ourselves before His throne for grace and mercy.
But simply doing His will is what is called for even more. The just shall live by faith.
Let me quote the Apostle Paul agian. And this truth is exactly the same for all born-again believers.
“But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet NOT I, but the grace of God with me.”
“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”
I know these verses most likely don’t satify you, but these are extraordinary truths, that can satisfy the heart and soul of every true follower of Christ Jesus!
Have a blessed evening.
I just finished reading one of the best papers I’ve ever read on this subject. It is called, “The Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of Man:
A Quest for Balance.” Incredible.
You can find it here…
http://www.gracenotebook.com/calvin_or_arminius.htm
“As to the scope of the passage, it will by now have become obvious that it is all about God’s dealings with men and nations historically and dispensationally, and is not about individual salvation and destiny beyond the grave [emphasis added]. Now that is the absolutely vital fact to remember in reading the problem-verses of these chapters, especially the paragraph ix. 14-22.
John Calvin is wrong when he reads into these verses election either to salvation or to damnation in the eternal sense. That is not their scope.”
This paper doesn’t deal with the immediate context, which I believe is vital to hermeneutics, is it not.
I think Calvin is correct, and “A Quest for Balance” is wrong.
Thanks for sharing the article.
The immediate context is of the utmost importance. That is sort of the point of looking at the overall context. If we look at the immediate context without first looking toward the overall context our interpretation of the immediate context will almost always be flawed.
The paragraph before what you quoted actually does addresses this issue.
“Well, that is the background problem of Romans ix.-xi., and it is vital to realise it in considering any of the foreground statements separately. But besides this, if we are going to interpret truly any of these Pauline statements on the Divine sovereignty,we must keep to the point and the scope of the passage. As to the former, Paul’s purpose is to show that (a) the present by-passing of Israel nationally is not inconsistent with the Divine promises(see ix. 6-13); (b) because Israel’s present sin and blindness nationally is overruled in blessing to both Jews and Gentiles as indlividuals (see ix. 23-xi. 25); (c) and because “all Israel shall yet be saved” at a postponed climax, inasmuch as “the gifts and calling of God are irreversible” (see xi. 26-36).”
and again with the very next sentenced after your quotation…
“No, this passage does not comprehend the eternal aspects of human destiny: Paul has already dealt with those in chapters i-viii. It is concerned (let us emphasise it again) with the historical and dispensational.”
I have one thought more.
The immediate context is Jacob & Esau. Two individuals. God elect’s one over the other. Why? Because that’s the way He purposed it, and that’s His sovereign choice. He loved Jacob. Why? Only God knows.
Why did He choose me? Only the Lord knows that as well.
Paul is talking about indiviuals here, as he says in verse 15-16. He has mercy on WHOM He will. Not to HIM, but to God who shows mercy.
So I see where many today are going for this corporate election, and that’s alright. But I don’t see it.
And even if that were true, then it would still come down to individuals, wouldn’t it? How do you avoid God looking at each and every heart of every human He created, and God electing those to whom He wants to have mercy on.
If we back up to Romans 8:33 and then look at 9:11, do you see the correlation of Paul’s thoughts here on election?
It’s all about God’s promise, and His election.
I’m one of God’s elect. When I read Roman’s chapter 8:33-34, I am incredibly encouraged. I then read 9:11, and I see that it matters not what man does, but it’s according to God’s purpose.
This is how I see it. Hey I’m no scholar like John Calvin, or so many others.
And I can appreciate your thoughts here.
But it’s a big statement to say Calvin was wrong, and I’m right, not that Calvin was more than any other man, however, he is a proven theologian and scholar of the Holy Word, and a genuine teacher of the Lord.
We are only His elect according to His foreknowledge. The mental breakdown occurs when we try to comprehend facts like – there is no thought process with God. God has no beginning and has known everything from infinity past. We cannot comprehend this, but we can comprehend some of the effects of this. One of which is there has never been a time when God has not known our choices. Therefore His election is based upon His foreknowledge as scripture clearly states. So if you want to know how God elected you, Don, the answer is according to His foreknowledge i.e. the ability to see all past, present, and future in one glance.
The comparison of Jacob to Esau is important, because this chapter is the very foundation of the calvinist’s belief system. It is the chapter that was used to “convert” Sproul and many born again believers to calvinism. Unfortunately, they completely take out of context this comparison. The comment that “who are we to question God choosing Jacob over Esau” is used to answer the question of why has God now “changed the mode of salvation” to where Jews who now keep the law will no longer be saved by the law, but rather only Christ. That is what “seemed unfair” to Paul to the point where he states that he would bear hell if all his brethren could be saved. The Holy Spirit’s answer through Paul was as much an answer to him as it was to us.
By “mode of salvation” I, by no means, am implying that faith is not what saved Old Testament Jews. However, Christ’s payment was not made available to them until He lead captivity captive.
“The comment that “who are we to question God choosing Jacob over Esau” is used to answer the question of why has God now “changed the mode of salvation” to where Jews who now keep the law will no longer be saved by the law, but rather only Christ.”
I have to disagree here Chris.
I suppose we have come to an impasse. At least for me. Perhpas there are others who would want to pick up the spiritual baton of Calvinism.
This deep subject of the truth will forever be debated.
I appreciate the mild tone of this discussion.
May the Lord continue to illuminate our hearts, and renew our minds with His Holy Word. And may we be shaped more and more into the image of the Son of God, so that we can bear fruit for the glory of His name. Amen.
“This deep subject of the truth will forever be debated.
I appreciate the mild tone of this discussion.”
ditto
much love,
>>zack
In this section a logical non-sequitur is asserted. the idea that if we loved God because God loved us and that if despite a general love not all love God back, that then there must be a special love that God has for his elect. This does not follow necessarily. I believe that the Bible teaches that God loves all… but it’s obvious that God has a special intimate relationship with his elect… but relationship is not the same as Love. a relationship is Love on a two way street, while love in and of itself is a one way street. it is a verb where a subject enacts love on a direct object. In contrast, a relationship is a connection of love in which a subject loves a direct object, and the direct object loves the subject. as such it makes perfect sense that God loves all but that not all have a relationship with him.
In this part he also asserts particular redemption, something that must follow from Calvinism. The mistake made is that it’s based on the assumption of unconditional election or unconditional salvation to those unconditionally chosen or elected. if this is true then it must follow that Jesus death was only for those elected and chosen because there is no condition for salvation. since there is no condition, then Jesus death was a sure atonement for only those chosen. but instead we have the Bible teaching that God died for not only our sins, but the sins of the world. since Jesus died for the sins of the entire world but under the condition that the world has faith, there is no logical problem with Jesus dying for the whole world, and the whole world not being saved. It’s applied conditionally, not unconditionally as the Calvinist assumes. This is made plain in 1 Timothy 4:10: “We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.” So God is the savior of all who believe. not those who are irresistibly drawn and called before the foundation of the world… which by the way is not found in any salvific context, it comes from Eph 1:4-5 which refers to good works prepared before the foundations of the world for his sons adopted as he intended to do before the foundation of the world. We never have a specific choosing of who will be believers before the foundation of the world, anywhere in scripture.
He goes on to assign causality to something which is merely related in this verse:
“Look at our verse again: “We love Him because He first loved us.” John is saying that God’s love for us is the cause—the effectual cause—of our love for Him. Once again, he is not saying merely that God’s love is a motive or an incentive for our love. Rather, John’s point is that God’s love is the actual productive cause of our love.”
This does not follow. God’s love is not effectual. It is a drawing of the father that enables us to come to Christ. and Christ promises that we who come to Him will be raised up in the last day. Calvinism reads far into this verse what isn’t there. the rest of scripture shows us how to interpret that verse. especially it’s context. I agree with his next arguement:
“That speaks of God’s regenerating work, whereby He resurrects us to a state of vibrant spiritual life, enlightens our minds to understand His truth, and makes the glories of His love so attractive to us that we find them absolutely irresistible.”
the problem with what you believe about this however is that this is before faith, when scripturally it is faith that results in this spiritual regeneration. The new birth is given to those who believe. this is so clear in John 3 that I can’t believe I have to remind anyone of it. Nowhere do we have an irresistible grace being taught by scripture. this doctrine of “irresistible grace” is only a logical construct that must exist if a salvific unconditional election exists.
You conclude with the doctrine of perseverence… however if you examine the calvinistic doctrine of “perseverence of the saints” it’s not an eternal security at all. salvation to you is so totally of God that he has decided if you’re elect or not… and if you’re not but became a christian and then fell away before your death, then you weren’t really elect. But this makes God the person who kicked you out for no other reason but that he hadn’t chosen you, even if you had a relationship with God before your apostasy. God is to blame for apostasy, not the Christian who erred. this is entirely foreign to the attitude of scripture. The scriptures instead tell us that Jesus will “by no means cast us out”. This is irrefutable proof that so long as we persevere in faith, that we shall never be cast out of God’s hands and we shall never be plucked from the former.
In conclusion, Calvinism has yet to provide any real scriptural exegesis for any substantial biblical proof of these perverse fatalistic doctrines. Calvinism is indeed a christian form of fatalism.