God Gave His Son, and all who come to Him, those whom the Father draws will be saved, for God will have mercy on whom He will, and compassion on whom He will.

All sinners are called to repent, and to believe the good news of the risen Christ.

But only those who have a heart transplant, that is, their heart of rock-hard granite is replace with a heart of flesh; their blind hearts are opened; their callous hearts are softened. This is something that only God can do, and if this happens than that same heart will cry out to Christ for mercy, and will trust in His death and ressurection for eternal life.

The Arminian would say the latter amounts to exactly the same thing. It still gives us a God who decides NOT to save some (whose spiritual condition was pre-ordained by Him). Those who end up in Hell are there because of God’s inaction on their behalf. This is why Calvin himself called “reprobation” a “horrible doctrine,” but one he felt bound to believe in scripturally. I differ with him on this point, but not with his characterization of the doctrine itself.

Arminians, if I understand their position correctly, would particularily celebrate the verse “God is love.” They then extrapolate thier understanding about what Love looks like (including whether you permit someone you love to self-destruct). They apply His love equally to every person. Love is more or less synonomous with Mercy. Thus, it is principally His Love which is rejected by those who see Hell.

Calvinists, if I understand the position correctly, would particularily celebrate “Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty.” They would indicate that even the angels celebrate His holiness, above His Love. (not to denegrate Love, but the greater emphais would fall on His holiness).

Because we all begin in the fallen state, we all begin as sinful. Sin offends His Holiness, and thus we have emnity with Him. If He did nothing, we would all naturally slide into a much-deserved Hell.
It magnifies His Grace (to His own Glory) that He selects some who hate Him to receive eternal life.

If His wrath was naturally upon each of us while in sin, it changes the emphasis. It is not as the arminian would charge, “God throwing away some people”, as though all humanity were heaven-bound, until he “unselected” some. It is, rather, the rescue of some of the multitude marching into hell.

I agree with all of the Doctrines of Grace. However, there is one issue that I am having difficulty understanding. If God has Foreknown, predestined, chosen, from the beginning of time who would be saved, then should we not also conclude he has done the same for those who are in Hell? (An elect for Heaven and An Elect for Hell)

How do you explain this to those who believe “For God so Loved the World?”

Coram Deo,
Richard

Amen.

“You only have I known of all the families of the earth” Amos 3:2

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” Jer. 1:5

“But when it pleased God, who seperated me from my mother’s womb, AND CALLED ME THROUGH HIS GRACE”. Gal. 1:15

“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” Matt. 7:23

It’s all about His grace, from the first cry at birth, to our last breath, Jesus commands our destiny.
God knows His own for sure; He is the Eterna, Infinite, All-knowing Lord. And God doesn’t know those who are not His own.

It is an astounishing thought that Christ would give Himself for me, and that He loved me (Gal. 2:20), before the foundations of the world, and that it was very intimate, and personal knowledge.
Beyond comprehension really.

Very good post, and comments on both sides. Look forward to your next lesson and study.

There is much more to the concept of “knowing” in the NT than is presented here. The Arminian view does not impose “simple prescience” as the only connotation of foreknowledge. Indeed, it is a much richer concept than this article suggests, but there is one thing that it is not: there is not a single instance where the term as applied to INDIVIDUALS means what Calvinists want it to mean, an act of determinist selection.

An analysis of the NT texts where the words for “know” have persons as their objects, i.e., where the action of knowing is specifically directed toward persons and not facts as such, shows that in such cases these words never have the connotation of “choosing” or “imposing a distinction.” This applies to “ginosko,” “epiginosko,” and “oida.”

The first, and by far the most common, is a form of “recognition,” to know intimately a person.

A second meaning is “acknowledgment,” where “to know” means not only to have a cognitive knowledge of someone’s identity, but also to admit or acknowledge that identity. Again, this acknowledging does NOT impose a particular identity upon anyone, but simply confesses it.

The third and most intimate connotation of “to know” when a person or persons are its object is to know experientially, to experience a relationship with someone. Again, it presupposes cognition but goes beyond it.

But here’s the important thing: In each case the act of knowing does NOT create a person’s identity or his distinction from other people. It does not do what Calvinists want it to do.

The passages cited in the main article, when properly viewed, thus support the Arminian position.

Acts 2:23 does NOT refer to persons, but to an event. This citation is used by the author to show that “foreknowledge” does not mean “simple prescience” all the time, but that’s not the issue. As discussed, that point is not in dispute.

What remains in dispute, and what the verse does not touch upon, is determinism (the ultimate Calvinist belief, no matter what verbiage is used to couch it). It does not teach that God forces saving will upon any person. (A sidenote here is that sometimes a Greek grammar rule known as “Sharp’s Rule” is used incorrectly on this verse.)

Romans 8:29 actually teaches the very opposite of what Calvinists want it to mean. Again, “intimate knowledge” is not the issue. The issue is whether God imposes his will upon individuals for salvific choice. This verse does not teach that. It does not conflate “foreknew” with “predestined,” making them the same, and thus destroying the use of distinct language.

In short, no instance of “knowing” or “pre-knowing” individuals by God means an imposition of will or determination of choice. It’s simply not there. For Calvinists, of course, it MUST be there, and this is where the real imposition comes, by theologians upon the text.

I do value my Calvinist brothers and sisters on many things and we share so much in common. Thank you for being a place that takes the Bible seriously and treats it as inerrant.

Certainly God could save everybody if He so chose. And yes, there is one sense in which God does want all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).

But it is also true that ultimately he does not want all men to be saved. We know this because he does not save everyone, even though he could. If he could and he does not, that must mean that he does not want to (in some other, greater sense which trumps 1 Timothy 2:4).

In this greater sense, God does not “want” to save everybody, because there is something greater at stake than the salvation of everybody: His own glory. Somehow, in a way that we cannot necessarily understand, God’s glory is magnified in eternal heaven because there are sinners suffering for their sins in eternal hell (Romans 9:22-23).

God’s mercy to some does not call into question his justice to all. God is just because every sin will be punished, either in hell or on the cross.

There are at least two ways to “question” this. In one case, the sinner can marvel that God would save him, in light of what the sinner deserves. There is certainly nothing wrong with this kind of “questioning”. But in another case, the sinner can question God’s justice, in the sense of doubting that God really is just, and doubting that God really does have the sovereign power to do whatever he pleases (Romans 9:20).

Gary

RC Sproul once told of a debate between himself and another fellow (I don’t know who) about election. RC brought up John 6:44 as a clear statement of how God “compells” us to salvation (irresistable grace), “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…” The other guy said how the word for “draws” is used in exra-biblical material in the sense of drawing water from a well. He was making the point that one does not verbally compell water to come up. RC countered in agreement, stating that rather one pulls up the water hand over hand until it reaches the top.

The reality of all this is that there is an abundance of Scripture that teaches election where God is the initiator and executor of salvation. Yet there are also many verses that appear to contradict because they reveal some level of responsibility on the person. Calvanists don’t disregard the person’s responsibility, we merely acknowledge that the Bible teaches both (though many would argue that it emphasizes God’s work more), and we must acknowledge that no one is saved apart from His grace, and be content to say that where the line of responsibility is drawn is a mystery.

Surely the answer is not to disregard election completely (as some do), or even explain it away with a prescient view (as Nate wrote about in this article). And most definitely the answer is not to reject it based on emotional appeals of “puppets” and “unfair” and many other reasons people do. In speaking to a friend of mine over the phone she rejected it saying “it just doesn’t feel right… my spirit is telling me its not true.” The reality is that Scripture teaches it and we need to submit ourselves to Scripture even if it just doesn’t make sense.

If you haven’t read any books on the subject I would highly recommend James Boyce’s “Doctrines of Grace”. It is an excellent treatment of the subject. Of course there are other works like Martin Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” and I’m sure other contemporary works. This doctrine, while not a salvatio issue (required to be believe in order to be saved), it is an immensly practical issue. It changes how we evangelize, how we do church, and many other things.

“If I ever start believing this I’ll spend the rest of my life in misery and fear.” Why would this be?

Also, how would you interpret “For the mind of the flesh is death… because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:6-8)?

David, I’m quite certain that I will be unable to convince you via this format. But I do hope that you will at the very least recognize that there is enough Biblical evidence that warrants care study of Scripture, which includes reading works from folks on both sides of the isle. If anyone is going to dismiss the doctrine of election, they must deal with a host of Scriptures that are very explicit (as we also deal with passages that appear to contradict our view).

I’m sorry for the long post…

Have a great Lord’s day everyone!

yes. It is an option that I’ve heard some others articulate, and I am considering it for myself.

Essentially this view would forward that “election” in the Bible is referencing issues regarding sanctification. Although one is of course presupposed by the other, i.e. justification is logically prior to sanctification, and they have interpenetrating components–but when I look at passages like Eph. 2 and Rom. 9–11 I don’t see the “dogmatic” categories emphasized that Calvinists see. For example when Eph. 2 speaks of the purpose of our predestination in Christ it is referencing “holy living” which would be a feature of sanctification; i.e. post justification. Similarly with Rom. 8–11, the illustration that Israel provides isn’t Gods’ choice of them for justification, in its original context, but the fact that he chose them to be the mediate nation that would bring His Messiah and salvation to the world.

I’m not completely sold on this trajectory, the one I’ve mentioned, but I think it is an alternative that should be considered from the spectre of biblical theology vs. dogmatic.

In Christ