God’s Absolute Sovereignty
September 28th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
No doctrine is more despised by the natural mind than the truth that God is absolutely sovereign. Human pride loathes the suggestion that God orders everything, controls everything, rules over everything. The carnal mind, burning with enmity against God, abhors the biblical teaching that nothing comes to pass except according to His eternal decrees. Most of all, the flesh hates the notion that salvation is entirely God’s work. If God chose who would be saved, and if His choice was settled before the foundation of the world, then believers deserve no credit for their salvation.
But that is, after all, precisely what Scripture teaches. Even faith is God’s gracious gift to His elect. Jesus said, “No one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father” (John 6:65). “Nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matt. 11:27). Therefore no one who is saved has anything to boast about (cf Eph. 2:8, 9). “Salvation is from the Lord” (Jonah 2:9).
The doctrine of divine election is explicitly taught throughout Scripture. For example, in the New Testament epistles alone, we learn that all believers are “chosen of God” (Titus 1:1). We were “predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11, emphasis added). “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world . . . He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will” (vv. 4, 5). We “are called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son . . . and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified” (Rom. 8:28–30).
When Peter wrote that we are “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Peter 1:1, 2), he was not using the word “foreknowledge” to mean that God was aware beforehand who would believe and therefore chose them because of their foreseen faith. Rather, Peter meant that God determined before time began to know and love and save them; and He chose them without regard to anything good or bad they might do. We’ll return to this point again, but for now, note that those verses explicitly state that God’s sovereign choice is made “according to the kind intention of His will” and “according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will”—that is, not for any reason external to Himself. Certainly He did not choose certain sinners to be saved because of something praiseworthy in them, or because He foresaw that they would choose Him. He chose them solely because it pleased Him to do so. God declares “the end from the beginning . . . saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure’” (Isa. 46:10). He is not subject to others’ decisions. His purposes for choosing some and rejecting others are hidden in the secret counsels of His own will.
Moreover, everything that exists in the universe exists because God allowed it, decreed it, and called it into existence. “Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases” (Ps. 115:3). “Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps” (Ps. 135:6). He “works all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11). “From Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Rom. 11:36). “For us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him” (1 Cor. 8:6).
What about sin? God is not the author of sin, but He certainly allowed it; it is integral to His eternal decree. God has a purpose for allowing it. He cannot be blamed for evil or tainted by its existence (1 Sam. 2:2: “There is no one holy like the Lord”). But He certainly wasn’t caught off-guard or standing helpless to stop it when sin entered the universe. We do not know His purposes for allowing sin. If nothing else, He permitted it in order to destroy evil forever. And God sometimes uses evil to accomplish good (Gen. 45:7, 8; 50:20; Rom. 8:28). How can these things be? Scripture does not answer all the questions for us. But we know from His Word that God is utterly sovereign, He is perfectly holy, and He is absolutely just.
Admittedly, those truths are hard for the human mind to embrace, but Scripture is unequivocal. God controls all things, right down to choosing who will be saved. Paul states the doctrine in inescapable terms in the ninth chapter of Romans, by showing that God chose Jacob and rejected his twin brother Esau “though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls” (v. 11). A few verses later, Paul adds this: “He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (vv. 15, 16).
Paul anticipated the argument against divine sovereignty: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’” (v. 19). In other words, doesn’t God’s sovereignty cancel out human responsibility? But rather than offering a philosophical answer or a deep metaphysical argument, Paul simply reprimanded the skeptic: “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?” (vv. 20, 21).
Scripture affirms both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. We must accept both sides of the truth, though we may not understand how they correspond to one another. People are responsible for what they do with the gospel—or with whatever light they have (Rom. 2:19, 20), so that punishment is just if they reject the light. And those who reject do so voluntarily. Jesus lamented, “You are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life” (John 5:40). He told unbelievers, “Unless you believe that I am [God], you shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). In John chapter 6, our Lord combined both divine sovereignty and human responsibility when He said, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (v. 37); “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life” (v. 40); “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (v. 44); “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life” (v. 47); and, “No one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father” (v. 65). How both of those two realities can be true simultaneously cannot be understood by the human mind—only by God.
Above all, we must not conclude that God is unjust because He chooses to bestow grace on some but not to everyone. God is never to be measured by what seems fair to human judgment. Are we so foolish as to assume that we who are fallen, sinful creatures have a higher standard of what is right than an unfallen and infinitely, eternally holy God? What kind of pride is that? In Psalm 50:21 God says, “You thought that I was just like you.” But God is not like us, nor can He be held to human standards. “‘My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isa. 55:8, 9).
We step out of bounds when we conclude that anything God does isn’t fair. In Romans 11:33 the apostle writes, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?” (Rom. 11:33, 34).
(Today’s post was adapted from John’s book Ashamed of the Gospel published by Crossway Books.)
Absoluteley beautiful! If we could get our minds around this and understand the we are NOT God we will be better able to understand the love of God.
I use to debate this subject with my freewill father (who was a pastor who did teach me to learn and teach good theology). What I never could understand is how he could insist that we had a free will to choose God but then expect our eternal security to the responsibility of God. Thank God he saves and holds us as His own. I suspect my dad now has his theology straight in heaven and someday I’m sure my Lord will show me the deficiency in my views. Oh to be able to see clearly without the cloud of our sinfulness.
Awesome.
Pastor Patrick (of Lighthouse Bible Church) recently wrote on God’s sovereignty, too:
http://pastorpatrick.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/because-he-said-so/
http://pastorpatrick.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/speaking-of-sovereignty/
I was a staunch defender of human freewill when I was in high school. I chose Jesus and there wasn’t anyone who was going to convince me otherwise. If a pastor spoke on the issue of God’s sovereignty in evangelism and salvation, I would typically walk out.
…And then I decided to walk through Ephesians 1 in my devotions. It was like God hit me with a ton of bricks!
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace
8 which He lavished on us…
When I read that passage, I thought to myself, “Well, what am I going to do with this?” I couldn’t explain it away because it says what it says. Praise God for the truth of His Word and for helping me understand more fully the glorious doctrine of His sovereignty. I now understand that without it, there is no hope for me.
Those of us who really beleive what God says in scripture, rejoice in the fact of our Lord choosing us for his own purpose. Those that have that human pride in their heart, will not receive even the plain word of scripture.
You all keep up the good fundamental articiles. The seeker sensitive and emergent church and so called pastors will continue to stray from the plain sense.
Jeff
I have been a free willer my entire life. But the past 6 months I have begun to struggle with the Doctrines of Grace.
After tedious study I now lean towards believing in election but have lingering doubts.
MacArthur makes some excellent points here. But touches on a point that I cannot reconcile in my mind; the mix between divine sovereignty and human resposibility. How do they play out? If he wants to convince those of us who are searching for the Truth that pivotal question must be answered.
Secondly, MacArthur also makes the point that those who reject do so voluntarily. How voluntarily do they make that decision? Their decision is based on the Grace revealed to them. The question can also be asked, how voluntary is the decision of the elect to believe when Irresistable Grace has been revealed to them?
I thank God for John MacArthur but these are points that I continue to struggle with.
You’re not kidding that people hate this!
I love it. God is on His throne, He’s in the place that He rightfully deserves and Glory to Him!
Our society is so permeated with the “freewill” thing that people don’t even realize what they’re saying…show them all of the many verses that clearly state God’s choice, and election and they go into shock…like they’ve never seen them before!
Personally this was the most liberating thing I’ve ever learned about God…it’s cleared so much up about the scriptures for me…
PS: Contrary to modern thought: this concept doesn’t kill a person’s desire to evangelize…I preach and evangelize heavily and realize that God will save whom He chooses…no problem with that.
In fact, I’d be paralyzed if I thought that men’s salvation depended on my ability to “convince someone” that Christianity is a better deal than their current gig…
Predestined? Without a choice? Irresistible Grace? Then why did Jesus cry over the city of Jerusalem? Matt 23:37 & Luke 13:34. Why does God desire that all should be saved? 2 Peter 3:9
Saved by Faith. Hebrews 11. When presented with the truth these men chose to follow Him. So did I and so did you. We were made to be with Him. Praise Him for His love.
Quote: When presented with the truth these men chose to follow Him. Unquote
So – may we also say the reverse of this: when men have not been presented with the truth, no choice exists?
I was raised to believe that, as God’s Word is spoken to mankind, the Holy Spirit uses that Word to draw men to God – through Jesus. They may yield to God’s claim on their life, or they may reject that claim (the “lucky Jesus” part). Unresolved for me was/is, how is the salvation issue resolved for folks who have never heard God’s Word.
I am newly-introduced to the Calvinst theology (always knew he existed; just didn’t know the details of the theology attached to his name). God chooses whomever He will, irrespective of whether God’s Word has been preached to them and they have been confronted with God’s claim on their lives by the Holy Spirit. This logic resolves for me the salvation issue for folks who have never heard God’s Word. It tells me that in heaven we should expect to see many muslims and communists and buddhists and unreached people from the far corners of the world – all who never heard God’s Word taught and who never even knew about God’s claim on their lives – simply because God reached out and pulled them to Himself.
The only question I am left with is this: when God seized them and pulled them to Himself, were/are these folks allowed to continue living as they did before God seized them? Or must there be a change in the way they live their daily lives, think their daily thoughts, perform their daily actions? If there must be a change, where will the knowledge for what that change should be come from? The knowledge for such change, if needed, cannot come from God’s Word, remember, because none of these folks has/had access to it.
I could elaborate on this conundrum, but it boils down to this: in the Calvinist viewpoint, can/does God claim for Himself anyone who has never been presented with His Holy Word? Or do Calvinists believe that God will cause each one of His elect to hear His Holy Word before He claims them as His? If you answer that God will cause each of His elect to hear His Holy Word before they are “saved”, then it seems that some internal, human cognition is required before salvation takes hold. Otherwise, why the need to present God’s Holy Word first.
On the other hand, if Calvinists claim that God calls muslims and communists and buddhists and others to Himself and “saves” them without them ever having heard anything from God’s Holy Word … ??
This isn’t intended to be a “gottcha” thing here. It is just something that seems to be a contradiction in what I know so far of the Calvinist position – that is, man’s cognition plays absolutely no role in His salvation (assuming he is one of the elect). Or am I misunderstanding something here?
Quote: … It is just something that seems to be a contradiction in what I know so far of the Calvinist position Unquote
In re-reading, I realize that my last paragraph needs to be more clear. Hopefully the following clarifies what I mean by “contradiction”.
The Calvinist position seems to me that man has no choice in the matter of his salvation; he cannot and does not reject or accept God’s claim on his life. Neither does he need to understand that claim. He simply follows, unthinkingly, where he is irresistably drawn. If he is an “elect”, God will get him regardless of his understanding of God’s claim on his life (Saul/Paul seems a good case in point). If this viewpoint is correct, then we should expect to see in heaven people who never even knew the Bible existed, much less read it.
And, of course, why would you need the Bible if you play no role in your own salvation? If my salvation truely is not because of anything I “do”, then I can be “saved” without my reading the Bible or otherwise hearing God’s Word (listening is something I “do” as much as is reading something I “do”). Is it true that Calvinists actually believe that God’s Word is not a necessary component of salvation? They must, if they insist that I don’t have to do anything to be saved. That would, of necessity, include insisting that I don’t have to read the Bible or listen to God’s word in order to be saved, because reading and listening is something I “do” and salvation is unconnected to anything I do.
If human cognition is irrelevant to salvation, then there is no
need to understand the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is irrelevant to salvation. That, to me, creates a contradiction. I don’t think any Calvinist would claim that the Bible is irrelevant to a person’s salvation – yet they claim that cognition is irrelevant. But, without cognition, the Bible is of no value.
My viewpoint: By a person reading the Bible or otherwise hearing the Word of God, the Holy Spirit can use the Word of God to draw that person to God, through Jesus. The drawing-to-God by the Holy Spirit is an indespensible part of this process, but the person retains the ability and responsibility to either accept the Holy Spirit’s call to repentance or to grieve the Holy Spirt and reject His call to repentence.
Calvinist viewpoint? God will save His elect, irrespective of
their thoughts on the matter and irrespective of whether they have read the Bible or otherwise heard His Word (since they don’t have to “do” anything to be saved). He will then point them to the Bible and say – since you are now mine (you are saved now), this is what I expect of you.
Fair comparison? Or not?
I wonder what Jesus meant when he instructed us, his disciples, to pray “Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” Was it a joke? Why pray the Lord’s Prayer if God’s will is being done on earth? (One could ask a Calvinist, why pray anything at all, but I’ve heard all the those answers, and they are, frankly, boring.) But I have never heard a cogent explanation for what Jesus could have meant when he instructed us to pray for the will of God to be put into force here. Clearly, God’s will is done in heaven, but not on earth, or Jesus’ words have no meaning at all. Help me out, someone.
~ A former TULIP.
I have a friend who is a missionary in Budapest working within the former soviet block. He well points out that the problem with accepting God’s sovereignty is an American problem. In the former soviet countries where people have learn to live under the dictates of a sovereign leader the concept of God’s sovereignty is not difficult for them to grasp. They are more then will to accept God’s sovereign decisions in the course of their life. It is only in America that we struggle with the concept because of our demands for freedom and individualism that declares us to be the sovereigns of our own lives. We are not willing to be slaves to anyone else no less God himself. We struggle with His lordship and our servitude.
Ken,
What you say may be true. But I assure you that my objections to the Reformed view of God’s sovereignty have nothing to do with a personal struggle against lordship. I declare God’s lordship in my life. And fleshing that out is neither easier nor more difficult that it was in my “Calvinist days”.
With that in mind, why do you suppose that the American concept of freedom vs. sovereignty is inferior to the view of those who are products of totalitarian regimes? I understand your point. But it seems you could work it both ways. Folks coming out of totalitarian dictatorships can more easily adapt to Calvinistic concepts of sovereignty. Well, that doesn’t surprise me. Why do you automatically assume that it is our view of reality that is skewed, not theirs?
“Above all, we must not conclude that God is unjust because He chooses to bestow grace on some but not to everyone.”
The TULIP is such a fine way to explain this. And the totally depraved means we are dead in our sins. We can look like we’re alive, but we’re dead. The only way to become undead is God’s mercy of quickening our dead spirits.
Unconditional election comes right behind this because it’s God who choses, and then quickens.
Irresistable grace has God’s way of saving us from our sins, this world, and the devil.
Limited Atonement says God loved us before the world began, and He was determined to save His people, and not only that but to seek each one of His lost sheep out, and then give His Son as a sacificial Lamb for our sins. He loved us with such a great love, that nothing would be able to stop Him from saving us.
Persevering is God’s grace as well. We are His beloved children, and He will help us grow in the knowledge and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Very good post. Thanks.
“Help me out, someone.”
Then God is depending on our prayers?
I don’t think so.
Jesus knew His Father’s will without any uncertainty. And yet in His anguish He prayed, “Father if there be any other way, nevertheless Your will be done, not mine!”
This is how we are to pray. I pray with anguish for God to have mercy on my family, but His will be done.
Donsands writes, “Then God is depending on our prayers? I don’t think so.”
And why not? Is it not possible that God exercises restraint until his interventions are requested? If he left planet earth in the charge of his created image-bearers, and gave us responsibility for it, why wouldn’t he wait on us? Why is it distasteful for you to imagine that the ball might actually be in our court … that our attentiveness to prayer, or lack thereof, might actually mean something?
No, obviously God is not “depending” on our prayers as though he were incapable of acting apart from our permission. But maybe he has chosen to ascribe significance to us beyond being mere stage actors in a script written long ago. Humility that says “what we do doesn’t really matter” is not humility at all if the statement is untrue. It is abdication!
“Moreover, everything that exists in the universe exists because God allowed it, decreed it, and called it into existence.” “What about sin? God is not the author of sin, but He certainly allowed it.” How does God allow something that he does not decree and call into existence? How does it get into existence if not by God? Is there some entity outside of God, equal or greater than God that has authored sin, that is, decreed it and called it into existence? God certainly does not acknowledge such an entity in his Word. Would not sin fall into ‘everything that exist’? And therefore, is God not, indeed, the author of sin because he decreed it and called it into existence? Can one truly believe in the sovereignty of God if they try and distance God from sin? Where does God say in his Word that he never created sin and it came into existence and exist totally outside of his domain? I have never come across that in the Bible.
“He cannot be blamed for evil or tainted by its existence”. God does not accept blame for evil but he certainly takes credit for it. “I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7) Why do we go to such lengths to defend God when he does not even attempt to explain or defend himself? Why can’t we just accept God as he declares himself to be and not try to form or shape him into what we think he should be? These are just some things to think about. I find that those who declare the sovereignty of God more often believe in a partial sovereignty than a total sovereignty.
Cliff,
Did you read my whole comment? I surely pray. Sometimes with all my heart, and with great anguish. And God has answered my prayers.
I surely love to go to His throne for grace and mercy.
And let me say, that I have great peace in knowing that god is absolutely sovereign over every word I utter, and over every sparrow that falls from a nest.
If God puts the ball in my court, and is depending on me, then He’s in big trouble with this sinful man. But He doesn’t, and I praise Him for that.
It’s His Holy Sprirt that works in me to will and to do for His good pleasure, and I labor for my Savior with all my might, yet not me, but the grace of God in me.
Blessings to you.
Some of the comments made here are very disturbing.
Loddie, are you actually saying that God created sin? This cannot be possible because the very definition of sin makes it painfully obvious that God is not the author of it. Sin is defined as, “the act of violating God’s law.” God could not have created this.
Richard, you said earlier, “God chooses whomever He will, irrespective of whether God’s Word has been preached to them and they have been confronted with God’s claim on their lives by the Holy Spirit. This logic resolves for me the salvation issue for folks who have never heard God’s Word. It tells me that in heaven we should expect to see many muslims and communists and buddhists and unreached people from the far corners of the world – all who never heard God’s Word taught and who never even knew about God’s claim on their lives – simply because God reached out and pulled them to Himself.”
This viewpoint is NOT correct for we will NOT see muslims, communists, or buddhists in heaven; we will only see christians. Salvation can be defined as, “God bringing a sinner to a point of repentance through a knowledge of Himself.” None who do not have a knowledge of God can be christians, for a “christian” is defined as “one who follows Christ.” To say that one can follow Christ “be a christian” and not even know Him is a clear contradiction.
I find it so sad that John MacArthur thinks he knows how GOD thinks by his pride.Telling others how GODS IS SOVERIGN from his finite mind and how he rapes the scripture being taught of man to think a certian way which is only found in religious controling people. Predestined has nothing to do about salvation it is about being conformed into HIS image Romans 8:29.Predestined is not for men to make a assumpstion as how GOD does things it is a GOAL of the FATHER,SON AND HOLY SPIRIT as we submit to THEM”TODAY”.My prayer is the same for John that MY LORD JESUS CHRIST will have MERCY on him and others that misrepresent the FATHER,SON AND HOLY SPIRIT wishing none to perish 2Peter3:9!!! WITH LOVE BECAUSE OF JESUS CHRIST Jerry
Cliff,
My point was not to suggest that the American concept of freedom is inferior to the concept of sovereign rule. I just believe that the culture in which we live does influence how we view God’s role in our lives and our salvation. I believe that as Americans we should have a greater appreciation for the freedoms we have in Christ but it also can tend to make our exercise freedom as license. Similarly, those raised in dictatorships may struggle with understanding God as a benevolent sovereign. While we tend to see and understand the responsibility of man more clearly, those raise under sovereign dictators can more clearly understand God sovereignty. Reread what John MacArthur said about the difficulty of the human mind comprehending the mind of God. Human responsibility and God sovereignty are both clearly taught in scripture and we must accept both. Our upbringing will be a clear factor in which aspect we will struggle the most. Seeking to know Him as our Lord is the greatest adventure in life.
Richard,
I think your view point and what you define as the Calvinist viewpoint merge in a clear understanding of the doctrines of grace (as clear a I can see it as the pot and not the potter). God uses the drawing of the Holy Spirit utilizing the witness of believes and the revelation of God (both general revelation in his creation and special revelation in the Scripture) to awake my dead soul (total depravity or as John MacArthur more appropriately calls it, “absolute inability” to respond) to my need for a savior and to enable me to respond. The effect of these instruments in the hand of the Holy Spirit is so compelling that we cannot resist it (irresistible grace). It is not irrespective of our thought or responsibility. However, the awakening and response when we are influenced by the Holy Spirit are so compelling that we cannot make any other choice. As a result, I have responded but the response is as that of a dead man.
Consider Lazarus when Jesus raised him from the dead. He had absolutely no ability to come to life. But when Jesus commanded him to come forth he could do nothing else but come to life.
Similarly, Saul on the road to Damascus with all his knowledge of the scripture was not about to respond to it alone. But when he encounters Christ he does not sit down a debate (which he was good at), he falls on his face and responds to Christ as Lord.
It is a great privilege to be used by God as He through is Spirit awakens men to their need for the savior.
Jerry,
You said a few things in your post that I would like to address.
1. “Telling others how GODS IS SOVERIGN from his finite mind and how he rapes the scripture being taught of man to think a certian way which is only found in religious controling people.”
I assume from this statement that you do not believe that God is sovereign. It is true that MacArthur as well as anyone else has a finite mind, but God has revealed in His scriptures everything that His children need to know about life and godliness, and He has revealed several things about Himself (His sovereignty for example). If you do not believe that God is sovereign then you cannot trust Him and therefore you cannot be a Christian. Saying that God is sovereign means that God is in absolute control of everything, including human salvation. If you do not believe that God is in control of everything than how can you claim to trust Him?
2. “Predestined has nothing to do about salvation it is about being conformed into HIS image Romans 8:29.”
Being conformed to His image is the process of sanctification which comes after salvation. This verse is literaly saying that God predestined Who would be sanctified. Since sanctification comes after salvation, it is safe to say that God predestined who would be saved.
3. “Predestined is not for men to make a assumpstion as how GOD does things it is a GOAL of the FATHER,SON AND HOLY SPIRIT as we submit to THEM”TODAY”.”
Again, God has revealed many things about Himself in scripture. If He didn’t reveal anything about Himself then there would be no bible at all because all of scripture is about God and His attributes and His caracter. We do not have to make “assumptions” about God because He has graciously revealed Himself in scipture.
In Christ,
Daniel Chaney
Jerry,
Daniel makes an excellent point. God sovereign work in our salvation is continued in our sanctification. The evidence of my salvation is not a point when I made a decision but the change we see in our life. A change that must happen because it is the result of the Holy Spirit living and working within us to conform us to the image of Christ. Again it is not my work but my response to the Spirit’s work within me. It is likewise irresistible and therefore evidence that He is at work. 1 John is written to that point. The evidence of my salvation is the transformation that will happen if I have been chosen and draw irresistible to and by Him.
To say it another way, His Spirit works to draw me irresistibly to Himself and His Spirit living in me works to transform me into His image irresistibly. All along the way I make decisions (my responsibility) that are the irresistible response to His working in my life, exercising His sovereignty over His elect.
Daniel asks “If you do not believe that God is in control of everything than how can you claim to trust Him?” There is a difference between the belief that God is “sovereign” (I think all Christian’s agree that he is, in the ultimate sense) and the assertion that he is “in control of everything”, by which I presume you mean, in “direct control”. I have employees in my business. In terms of their employment, and my ultimate will, I am their sovereign boss. But I allow them a good deal of latitude in how they perform their duties. Sometimes they surprise me.
Can you conceive of a sovereign God who might establish laws of nature and then set his Creation free, leaving his hands off except when he is invited to directly intervene? Does your concept of God permit the possibility an omnipotent, omniscient Being who is capable of designing such a universe, in which randomness reigns supreme until he is called upon by people of faith, or by his own covenantal promises, to act in unmediated providence? Is it, in your mind, possible for God to create beings who actually have the gift of self-determination, genuine free will, who would interact with the natural laws of the universe. Isn’t it, at the very least, more interesting to conceive of a God who chooses to be in dynamic relationship with his creation, allowing it to self-determine within the limits of his ultimate sovereignty? I do find this concept all through the pages of the Bible, but I also find it for more engaging, captivating, interesting. I find the brand of static, predictable Calvinism you profess to be contrary to much of Scripture, but also just plain boring.
Do I trust God? Can I with this view? Absolutely. But I am promised his providence and protection only when I pray (I could site verses, but they would fill pages! and you know them!) In your view, I can only trust him if I believe he directly controls everything. In my view, I can trust him not because he controls everything, but because, and only when, I put my life in his hands by an act of my will (see Psalm 91, for example) and he steps into his own creation to intervene on my behalf. If I don’t pray, if I don’t dwell under his protective covering, I am subject to the whims of randomness, and I’d better watch out! In my view, prayer is tantamount to trust. In your view, trust has nothing to do with prayer. Your “trust” is based upon your belief that he providentially controls everything, so whether you pray or not, whether you heed Psalm 91 or not, you’ve still got trust because your trust is founded in his perfect control of everything instead of his promises to those who exercise active trust (vis-a-vis Psalm 91). Or do I misread you?
Cliff,
You said, “Can you conceive of a sovereign God who might establish laws of nature and then set his Creation free, leaving his hands off except when he is invited to directly intervene?”
No I cannot because God has promised to never leave me nor forsake me. He has also told me that He
You also said, “In your view, I can only trust him if I believe he directly controls everything. In my view, I can trust him not because he controls everything, but because, and only when, I put my life in his hands by an act of my will (see Psalm 91, for example) and he steps into his own creation to intervene on my behalf.”
If God is not in direct control of something, then someone or something else is.If God does not directly control everything then could you tell me who or what is?
My second paragraph will be completed later.
Daniel,
Of course, I agree with you that God does not leave me, or forsake me, even when I might choose to forsake him. Nevertheless, my forsaking of him has very real consequences. When Israel or Judah forsook God, his promised protection of their borders was lifted. Did he leave them? No. Did he stop providing their national security? Yes. This is because many of the promises of God are conditional. The same is true for the Christian. If you want, I’ll provide you with a list of Scriptures. But again, I think you know them. Our obedience, or lack of it, and our attentiveness to prayer, or lack of it has consequences; it impacts the promises of God for our care and protection. Not in the ultimate sense (“no man can pluck you out of my hands”), but in the immediate sense. We open ourselves up to dangers, both physical and spiritual, when we refuse to abide in the shelter of the most high. It is out choice. Psalm 91 spells it out in clear English. (Well, okay, in clear Hebrew.)
You ask “If God is not in direct control of something, then someone or something else is.If God does not directly control everything then could you tell me who or what is?” Well, for one thing, Satan is called the ruler of darkness, the prince of the power of the air, the ruler of this world, and the prince of this world. Do those terms mean anything? What strange statements Jesus makes about the prince of this world if he (Jesus) himself is in back of Satan working him like a puppet. But still, Satan does not control everything. I simply believe in a God who is witty enough to create a self-sustaining universe that rolls along obeying the laws of physics which he wrote, the laws of biology which he wrote, and into which he has placed intelligent beings with independent wills, and that this capable God need not “directly control” everything for it all to work. Imagine that you own a large factory. Imagine that you automate it, with computers that govern all the processes, and robots with artificial intelligence that actually makes choices to control production in your factory. You can walk walk away, and the factory will operate. Or you can sit and watch it all. You might answer “Yes, but I preprogramed all those robots and computers, so I still control it all.” Agreed, but not “directly”. You control it by secondary causes. But now imagine that instead of “artificial intelligence”, you are able to create beings with genuine intelligence, in your own image, and you set them free to make choices that are not pre-programmed. Suppose it best fits your purposes not to control them. Is that possible? Or is God incapable of such a feat? If you can wrap your mind around the possibility that he actually could pull it off, you’re getting close to what God has done with his Creation.
Cliff,
Sorry about that second paragraph. I was interrupted by another activity and couldn’t finish it then.
You mentioned something in your first paragraph about God not forsaking us even though we forsake Him. Do you believe in the doctrine of the perseverence of the saints? If not, that is where we need to start or this conversation is futile. If one forsakes God it is either because they are not saved in the first place, or they are out of fellowship with God. Once God saves someone He WILL complete what He has begun. A true Christian DOES NOT utterly forsake God. If he does, then it is evidence that he was not a true Christian in the first place, not that he has lost his salvation.
The act of salvation is one of quikening one who is DEAD in sin. One who is DEAD does not get to give an opinion about whether or not he wants to be quickened “made alive”
“We open ourselves up to dangers, both physical and spiritual, when we refuse to abide in the shelter of the most high.”
This situation of being out of fellowship with God is the Christian’s most miserable condition. A true Christian will never be utterly separated from God.
Truly God could have created a self-sustaining universe, but He didn’t. He is constantly in control of everything that takes place.
Daniel,
You write,Truly God could have created a self-sustaining universe, but He didn’t. He is constantly in control of everything that takes place.
I know that this is your opinion, you don’t need to repeat it. I have given you my opinion, together with rational arguments and Scriptures. You reply by just restating your opinion? You don’t have any counter logic or arguments those I have given you? You don’t have any answer for the Scriptures I cited? You have no Scriptures to back up your contention?
I can only assume that you are ceding the debate to me. Thank you.
Daniel, I never suggested that a Christian can lose his salvation. I don’t know where you got that idea.
Spiritually dead? When I became a Christian, I was awake, alive, conscious, and I made a conscious choice. My spirit said yes to God’s Spirit. I repented, which means that I changed my mind. Dead people don’t change their minds! I’m sure your experience was similar to mine. So Paul’s statement (“We were all dead in our trespasses and sins”) is an analogy that must not be pushed too far. Yes, the Holy Spirit is very, very convincing. But the Lazarus analogy, cited earlier by Ken, does not hold. Lazarus literally did not choose to come alive. His will had no say in the matter. He was literally unconscious, literally dead one moment, and alive the next, quite surprised no doubt. He did not say yes. There was no “answer of a good conscience” (I Peter 3:21), he did not confess with his mouth and believe in his heart (Romans 10:9) he wasn’t called upon to repent, or change his mind (Acts 2:38). A dead person cannot change his mind. But salvation requires us to change our mind. I could go on with Scriptures that speak of our part in receiving grace. Lazarus had no experience that is in anyway analogous to the N.T. concept of receiving salvation. The concept of “death” in the N.T. is often used figuratively (e.g. see Hebrews 11:19). When Paul talks of putting to death the deeds of the body, he certainly doesn’t intend us to take him literally. And when he says we were spiritually dead in our previous life, he his making a statement that can have more than one meaning. I simply do not think that the rest of Scripture fits will with the meaning you assign death in Ephesians 2:1.
(Now please, Daniel, I actually know what Calvinists think about all of this —I was a five-point Calvinist in my college days—so please don’t just keep parroting Calvinistic doctrine. I’m trying to get you to use your mind and reason these things through!)
Cliff,
Several passages in the new testament seem to affirm quite clearly that God ordained beforehand those who would be saved. For example, when Paul and Barnabas began to preach to the gentiles at Antioch in Pisida, Luke writes, “And when the gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48) How many believed? As many as were ordained unto eternal life!
In Romans 8:28-30, we read: “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew he also predistined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom He predistined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.” Where in this chain of events is the part where man can thwart God’s will and refuse His calling?
In the following chapter, when talking about God’s chosing Jacob and not Esau, Paul says it was not because of anything that Jacob or Esau had done, but simply in order that God’s prpose of election might continue. “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, she was told, ‘the elder will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.’” Neither Jacob nor Esau had a choice in the matter.
Regarding the fact that some of the people of Israel were saved, but others were not, Paul says, “Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.” (Romans 11:7)
Paul talks explicitly about God’s choice of believers before the foundation of the world in the beginning of Ephesians. “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy ahd blameless before him. He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace.” If God did this before the foundation of the earth then He didn’t ask us whether or not we wanted it.
Paul also writes to the Thessalonians, “For we know brethren beloved by God, that he has chosen you; for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with conviction.” Here Paul says that the fact that the Thessalonians BELIEVED the gospel when he preached it (for our gospel came to you…in power…and with full conviction) is the reason he knows that God chose them. Paul knew this fact already.
In 2 Timothy Paul denies that God saved us because of our works but rather points to God’s own purpose and his unmerited grace in eternity past. He says God is the one “who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago.”
These verses all explicitly tell us that God chose us. We did not chose Him. A slave cannot chose his own master. God purchased our salvation even when we were in sin.
Thanks for the discussion
In Christ
Daniel Chaney
Daniel,
Two trains passing in the dark. That’s what I feel like. I could respond to all your N.T. statements that seem, on the face, to imply undontional election. (Maybe you’re not aware of it, but there are other ways of understanding each of those verses.) But I will not respond to that line until you respond to the verses and arguments I presented. Here are seven specific lines of reasoning I have offered, for which I am still awaiting your reply:
1. God can be sovereign in the the ultimate sense, but not directly control everything. (04 Oct 2007 9:31am) AGREE or DISAGREE. Why?
2. The sovereignty of God does not preclude him from granting to his created beings the gift of self-determination. (04 Oct 2007 9:31am) AGREE or DISAGREE. Why?
3. The Biblical concept trust in God is not based on his control of everything, but upon our prayers, our obedience, etc. (04 Oct 2007 9:31am) AGREE or DISAGREE. Why?
4. If we forsake God (and I am not referring to lose of salvation, I’m referring to disobedience, stepping out of his will), the consequence is that we forfeit his providential protection. I cited the experience of the two Kingdoms in the O.T. (04 Oct 2007 12:68 pm) AGREE or DISAGREE. Why? or DISAGREE. Why?
5. Satan is viewed in the N.T. as wielding significant control over the affairs of the earth. How can this be reconciled with your view that God controls everything? (I’m waiting to hear to say that you believe God controls Satan. Please, just say it if you believe it.) (04 Oct 2007 12:68 pm) RESPOND please.
6. I illustrated (with the factory robots and artificial intelligence) how God could create a self-sustaining universe. You did respond to this argument (thank you!) by agreeing with me. So this point we agree upon! Progress! (04 Oct 2007 12:68 pm) (You did go on to give your opinion flatly, “… but he didn’t.” However you gave me no logic or Scripture for that contention. Do you have any? Of course, I think he did, and I’ve been giving you all kinds of reasons why.)
7. I suggested through many Scriptures and through logic that Calvinists tend to press to far Paul’s analogy of being “spiritually dead” prior to salvation. Lazarus, I suggested, had no response that is analogous to what a person experiences when he says “yes” to the wooing of the Spirit. (04 Oct 2007 5:04 pm) You have not yet responded. Does that mean you agree with my analysis? RESPOND please.
Now you want to change the subject by introducing a series of verses that seem to teach unconditional election. This is not how debate works. You deal first with the questions and issues already on the table. You don’t skirt them by changing the subject. I could cite 40 or 50 verses that seem to teach free will (and you know this). These verses (both yours and mine) would in themselves resolve nothing. Go back to the seven points listed above, deal with them. Then we can move on to N.T. soteriology if you still want to.
Cliff,
I don’t think that I have done anything to change the subject from the topic of the sovereignty of God at all. As far as my answering your verses, mabye it was just me but I didn’t see any.
Your first question was: “God can be sovereign in the the ultimate sense, but not directly control everything. (04 Oct 2007 9:31am) AGREE or DISAGREE. Why?”
I believe that God can do ablolutely anything He wants to, whether that is creating a self-sustaining universe, or being a personal and intimate God directly involved in the affairs of His creation. This is a question of God’s providence. By your statements I can conclude that you are a deist. My belief of God’s providence is as follows: God is sontinualy involved with all created things in such a way that (1) He keeps them existing and maintaining the properties with which he created them. (2) He cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do. (3) He directs them to fulfill his puposes. These points are boiled down to (1) Preservation, (2) Concurrence, and (3) Government.
(1) Preservation: Hebrews 1:3 tells us that Christ is “upholding the universe by His word of power.” The greek word translated “upholding” is “phero” (carry, bear). This word is commonly used in the New Testament for carrying something from one place to another, such as bringing a paralyzed man on a bed to Jesus (Luke 5:18) or bringing a cloak and books to Paul (2 Timothy 4:13). It does not mean simply “sustain” but has the sense of active purposeful control over the thing being carried. In Hebrew 1:3, the use of the present participle indicates that Jesus is “continually carrying along all things” in the universe by the word of His power.
Similarly in Colossians 1:17, Paul says of Christ that “in Him all things hold together.” the phrase “all things” refers to every created thing in the universe (see verse 16), and the verse affirms that Christ keeps all things existing-in him they continue to exist or, “endure.”
Acts 17:28 says, “In him we live and move and HAVE OUR BEING.” And by Exra, “You are the Lord, you alone; you have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; AND YOU PRESERVE ALL OF THEM; and the host of heaven worships you.” (Nehimiah 9:6)
If God were to sit back and let the earth go it would instenly cease to exist. Job 34:14-15, Psalm 104:29
(2) Concurrence: In Ephesians 1:11 Paul says that God “accomplishes all things according to the counsel of His will.” The word translated “accomplishes” (energeo) indicates that God “works” or “brings about” ALL THINGS according to His will.
All through scripture we can see that God is personnally involved in people’s lives. Matthew 6:11, Phillipians 4:19, Psalm 139:16, Job 14:5, Galatians 1:15.
In Jerimiah 10:23 we read, “A man’s steps are ordered by the Lord.” In Proverbs 20:24 we read, “A man’s mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.”
(3) Government: for the sake of room, I will just state th verses for this section. Ps. 103:19, Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 15:27, Eph. 1:11
In Christ
Daniel Chaney
Cliff,
Your second question was, “The sovereignty of God does not preclude him from granting to his created beings the gift of self-determination. (04 Oct 2007 9:31am) AGREE or DISAGREE. Why?
In the sense that our actions do have consequences and in the sense that humans do have a responsibility, I agree with you. In a sense we do determine what we will do, but we do not leave God hanging on a thread saying, “What if they don’t chose me? What if they decide to serve satan? What if, what if, what if???” God doesn’t rely on us to make ultimate decisions, because if He did, then we would seriously be in trouble. God knows everything from eternity past to eternity future, because he ordained it. We sometimes forget that God works through human actions in his providential magement of the world. God never has to go to plan B because we chose the wrong action. Nothing we can do will upset God’s will. I think the underlying presuposition that many who reject this doctrine have, is the idea that a choice ordained by God cannot be a real choice. But this idea is based on man’s reasoning, not God’s.
Cliff,
Your third question was, “The Biblical concept ‘trust in God’ is not based on his control of everything, but upon our prayers, our obedience, etc. (04 Oct 2007 9:31am) AGREE or DISAGREE. Why?”
I disagree with this point. For one, if God was not in control of everything, then who would I trust for the things that He wasn’t in control of. I trust God because He is faithful, merciful, loving, just, powerful, and wise. He is perfect. God promises that He will never leave me nor forsake me, that is why I can trust Him. I can know that He desires to bring about His best for me (Rom. 8:28, Jer. 29:11), and that He is able to bring it to pass (Dan 3:17, Phil. 3:21, 2 Tim 1:12, Heb 7:25). I can trust God as these men did because I know that God will do the work that He has promised to do in me, and complete it at the day of Christ (Phil. 1:6).
Cliff,
I think your fourth point is the only one we agree on.
“If we forsake God (and I am not referring to lose of salvation, I’m referring to disobedience, stepping out of his will), the consequence is that we forfeit his providential protection. I cited the experience of the two Kingdoms in the O.T.”
A Christian can be out of fellowship with God by falling into sin, Not habitual sin mind you, but during this time we are open to the attacks of the devil. Like stepping out from under a parent’s authority, a Christian out of fellowship with God is in a miserable and dangerous position. But God is faithful to forgive. Praise Him for His love!!
Cliff,
The answer to your fifth question I believe is found in the beginning of the book of Job. Verses 7-12 of chapter 1 very interestingly tell us that God allowed satan to do what he did to Job to show Job’s faithfulness to God. God didn’t need to know because He already knew that Job would remain faithful. If God wanted to defeat satan now, He could vey easily do it. We know that He will someday do this so we know that He is capable (Rev. 20:2). Therefore the only reason that satan is still even around, is because God wills it. Later in Job 2:2-6 God gave satan permission to go a little further in his tormenting. It is almost funny to see satan coming back to God here asking Him if he can go a little further. Satan, as well as his demons, knows that he can do nothing outside of God’s allowing (Matt.8:30-32).
Cliff,
As to your sixth question, my answers to your previous questions is my response to this one.
As to your seventh, “I suggested through many Scriptures and through logic that Calvinists tend to press to far Paul’s analogy of being “spiritually dead” prior to salvation. Lazarus, I suggested, had no response that is analogous to what a person experiences when he says “yes” to the wooing of the Spirit. (04 Oct 2007 5:04 pm) You have not yet responded. Does that mean you agree with my analysis? RESPOND please.”
You are correct to say that Lazarus’s response is not analogous to your view of salvation, but it is analogous to Paul’s. In Paul’s salvation, He was DEAD in trespasses and sins. He was persecuting Christians for their faith. God quickened him “made him alive.” He was insensible to his state like a dead man. He was spiritually dead until Christ showed him his miserable condition and brought him to a point of repentence. I don’t know how much more specificly Paul could have described the state of an unregenerate sinner then with the words he used. “DEAD”!how much more clear can it get? God “QUICKENED” us “MADE US ALIVE”! How can you say that coming to life is our response? No Lazarus did not repent of his sins when he was raised from the dead, but that is not the point, the point is that he was indeed dead, without the option of refusing an omnipotent God who called him to life.
I am not denying that you are saved, for I believe by what I have read in your posts that you are truly a child of God. You have a godly desire to study God’s word and have dilligently done so. As Christian brothers let us seek to sharpen one another with the word. I encourage you to continue to seek God, and if you do, God has promised to show Himself to you and sanctify you through His son Jesus Christ. May we seek to glorify Him in all that we do and say!
In Christ
Daniel Chaney
Daniel,
Thank you for your detailed responses. Most of them beg further discussion and exploration. I know that your position seems to you to be airtight and logical. I understand that in part because, for a number of years in my early adulthood, I too subscribed to Calvinism. As a logical person, I found my Calvinistic beleifs to follow a very logical progression, and it gave me simple answers to all the difficult questions. It made God responsible for everything, and lifted almost all responsibility off of my shoulders. I also felt like I was part of the elite. Those of us inside the TULIP camp understood the deep mysteries of election. But, Daniel, I have now been studying and teaching the Scriptures for 40 years, and I have found the tenets of Calvinism to be inconsistent with so many Scriptures that I have been forced to reexamine those Scriptures that I thought supported my views. I have come to see that they can be, and they must be, understood differently.
While I would love to continue in a point-by-point discussion with you, other responsibilities and priorities will not allow that. But I will say the same thing to you that you said to me in the same spirit of generosity: “I believe by what I have read in your posts that you are truly a child of God. You have a godly desire to study God’s word and have diligently done so. As Christian brothers let us seek to sharpen one another with the word. I encourage you to continue to seek God, and if you do, God has promised to show Himself to you and sanctify you through His son Jesus Christ. May we seek to glorify Him in all that we do and say!”
~ Cliff
How do you Calvanists get around Genesis 20 but look hard at V’s 3-7. I’ll type out just verse 6 ; Then GOD said to him in the dream, Yes I know that in the inegrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against ME; therfore I did not let you touch her. LOVE BECAUSE OF JESUS CHRIST MY LORD Jerry
Jerry,
I don’t see anything in this verse that a calvinist would need to “get around.” Notice that God said, “and I also kept you from sinning angainst me; therfore I did not let you touch her.”
From Loddie’s post on 10-01-07: “How does it [sin] get into existence if not by God? Is there some entity outside of God, equal or greater than God that has authored sin, that is, decreed it and called it into existence?”
Loddie, God created the condition for sin to exist, but is not the author of sin. Sin is generally defined as disobedience to God. God cannot disobey Himself and so therefore cannot be the author (creator) of sin. To answer your question: “what entity outside of God (no need to be equal to or greater than God to disobey Him) authored sin, called it into existance?” Well, who was the first to disobey God that wasn’t God? God created the possibility for sin by creating a circumstance where Adam and Eve could choose to obey or disobey Him. Adam and Eve chose to disobey God. If sin is defined as disobedience to God, then we see that Adam and Eve were the authors (creators) of sin. God created the possibility for sin; Adam and Eve created the actual sin.
I have been following the exchange between Daniel and Cliff above. I have always been uneasy about the claim that God micromanages everything (Daniel’s position) rather than being in ultimate control but letting things move along according to the rules He has created (Cliff’s position) – but I have not been able to articulate why until now. For Daniel’s position to mean anything at all it must mean that God is in absolute control of everything. It appears that Daniel has claimed just that:
“I disagree with this point. For one, if God was not in
control of everything, then who would I trust for the
things that He wasn’t in control of. (Daniel)”
While reviewing Loddie’s post on 10-01-07 and generating my response above, it occured to me why Daniel’s position bothers me: If God is in absolute control of everything, if He micromanages our every move, that means He micromanages the every move of the unsaved. “In control of everything” means just that – in control of the unsaved as well as the saved. If being in control of everything means that God causes me to praise Him then it must also mean that God causes the unsaved to sin. If sin is defined as disobeying God, that means that God causes the unsaved to disobey Him. Is that really what the Calvinists believe? Furthermore, John MacArthur – at the top of this blog – claims that “He [God] cannot be blamed for evil”. If God controls everything in a micromanaging sort of way, as Daniel insists, then God can be blamed for evil because He causes the sinner to do evil just as He causes me to praise Him. On the other hand, if God truely cannot be held accountable (blamed) for evil, that suggest that Cliff’s position is in evidence here. That is, the sinner is disobeying God as an exercise of will, not as the result of being micromanaged by God.
The Calvinists no doubt have an answer for this apparent contradition. But, being new to the debate, I don’t know what that answer is.
Richard,
Thanks for raising the question, “If God controls everything in a micromanaging sort of way, as Daniel insists, then God can be blamed for evil because He causes the sinner to do evil just as He causes me to praise Him. On the other hand, if God truely cannot be held accountable (blamed) for evil, that suggest that Cliff’s position is in evidence here. That is, the sinner is disobeying God as an exercise of will, not as the result of being micromanaged by God.”
This is the most common objection to election, saying hat it means that God is unfair. Paul deals with your objection in Romans 9. After saying that God “has mercy upon whomever he wills, and hardens the heart of whomever he wills” (Romans 9:18), Paul then raises this precise objection: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’” (Romans 9:19). Here is the heart of this unfairness objection against the doctrine of election. If each person’s ultimate destiny is determined by God, not by the person himself (that is, even when people make willing choices that determine whether they will be saved or not, if God is actually behind those choices somehow causing them to occur), then how can this be fair? Paul’s response is not one that appeals to our pride, nor does he attempt to give a philosophical explanation of why this is just. He simply calls on God’s rights as the omnipotent creator: “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
Mr Chaney You use the scripture as a cult does that is why I said John McArthur rapes the scripture you both force yourselfs on it. You cannot hold Calvinism in the WORD of GOD unless you think that way. Look read Romans 10 AFTER all of your ammo of fruitlessness which is written before cp.10 it does not fit. FOR ALL WHO ARE BEING LED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD,THESE ARE SONS OF GOD Romans 8:14. BEING led not PREDESTINED!!! That means today having hope not salvation later HIS salvation is for today we serve a LIVING GOD and I will not say you are made to go to HELL because you DO NOT KNOW GOD BUT YOU KNOW ABOUT HIM. You have a zeal for GOD, but not in accordance with knowledge and you do not subject yourself to GODS righteousness which is HIS ALONE not your imagination how GOD applies it to the WHOLE WORLD, NOT limited by you or John. That is why I hope HE has mercy on you both for you misrepesent HIM. Not to send you to HELL for HE IS A MERCIFUL GOD also to Calvinists.ALL MY LOVE BECAUSE OF MY LORD JESUS CHRIST Jerry
Daniel, I was not objecting to election, nor was I saying that God is unfair. I was taking issue with the contention that God cannot be blamed for evil. Yes He can. Your post supports my point. And earlier in this blog Loddie quoted God in the Old Testament: “I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)
However, causing evil (being blamed for evil) is a different issue from micromanaging someone and being responsible for their choices to disobey God. If we accept that God cannot disobey Himself, why do we so readily accept that God can or will cause His creation to disobey Him? Under the heading of “God can do anything He wants to” I can accept that He can cause one of His creation to disobey Him. But that is so close to God actually disobeying Himself, which we claim He cannot do. I’ve yet to see a really good intellectual discussion for what makes the difference between those two actions on God’s part.
This posting is in response to Mark who commented on 9-29-07 about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. My comments to Mark are contained in Point 4 below, but you must read through Points 1-3 before Point 4 will make any sense.
Point 1: We cannot truely trust God unless we believe that He knows everything.
The very foundation of our faith is the belief that God will make good on His promises to us that are laid out in the Bible. How can we be certain that God will make good on His promises to us if there are things which He does not know? For that thing which God does not know might contain the mechanism that could keep God from fulfilling His promises to us. In the belief that ‘God knows everything’ lies our only hope that there is not some secret thing, unknown to God, that will ultimately derail God’s plans for us.
Point 2: If God knows everything, then God knows exactly who will be ushered into heaven or banished to hell at the end of our time. And God knew this before He made this present creation.
Imagine a large hall filled with everyone who was ever born, from Adam to the last person ever born on this earth (say, 300 Billion). Further imagine that, say, 25% of them have on white robes (the “few” who found the narrow path) and 75% of them have on black robes (the “many” who found the wide path). For the purposes of these Points 1 & 2 (God knows everything), it matters not whether the division between white robes and black robes is a result of predestination or free will. All that matters is that God knows who all is in this large hall, and He knows exactly who has on white robes and who has on black robes – and God knew this before He even created this world.
Put another way: Regardless of whether Calvinism or Arminianism is correct, the 25% in white robes were visible to God and known by Him before He created this present world. They were visible to the Holy Spirit before He was sent to this earth to begin His work in New Testament times. And they were visible to Jesus and known by Him before He was born as a babe. In either scenario (Calvinism or Arminianism), Jesus would have known exactly who He was dying for – before He died – and the Holy Spirit would have known exactly who would respond to His call to repentence, regardless of whether predestination or free will was at work.
The only way you can argue that this scenario is not correct is to argue that God does not know everything. If that is your position, I refer you back to Point 1.
Point 3: Everything said by anyone in the Bible must be interpreted through the truth of Points 1 & 2 above. Every point in every Doctrine and Theology must be consistent with the truth of Points 1 & 2 above.
Question for consideration: If you were God, dictating your word to man, what words would you use to describe the truth of Point 2 above to a population that might have trouble understanding the concept? What words would you use to describe a group of people who haven’t even been born yet, but yet you know they will go to heaven simply because you know everything? Even if God worked through free will rather than predestination, He would still need a set of words to describe people whom He knew were going to perform a particular set of actions, even tho they weren’t even born yet. God would perhaps want to discuss this group of people, not because He had predestined them, but simply because He knew that this is how they would behave. What word(s) would you use to identify this group of people? In this light, it makes sense to me that there would be different interpretations of what God means when talking about the elect.
Point 4: Consider that Jesus wept over Jerusalem. As one of the Godhead, before taking on the form of man, Jesus would have already known who the white robes and who the black robes were in Jerusalem’s total population to the end of the age, and would have known that this grouping of folks would not change (to continue my mind picture developed at Point 2). But would Jesus the man have known this? Could the earthly Jesus have been considered truely human if He had brought to earth with Him the knowledge of everything that He possessed as part of the Godhead?
Thinking this through carefully points up a number of situations that could have been true for Jesus on earth: A) He was as unenlightened on the truth of Point 2 as we are, or; B) He understood the truth of Point 2, that God’s knows everything, and understood that He didn’t because His knowledge of everything was part of what He gave up to become man, or; C) He retained His knowledge of everything while He was here on earth.
If Point 1 above is correct, then Jesus as part of the Godhead knew everyone who was going to be redeemed through His death, regardless of whether predestination or free will is in effect. The question is, did Jesus the man on the cross, the one actually being dacrificed for our sins, know the same thing? The fact that Jesus wept over Jerusalem makes me think that Jesus on the cross did not know all that Jesus as part of the Godhead knew / knows.
If I am correct, this means that Jesus the man might say some things differently than Jesus of the Godhead would say them, simply because His understanding as a man was less than it was / is as part of the Godhead. Jesus the man would weep over Jerusalem while Jesus of the Godhead probably would not, since He already knew the outcome.
Jerry,
You said, “You have a zeal for GOD, but not in accordance with knowledge and you do not subject yourself to GODS righteousness which is HIS ALONE not your imagination how GOD applies it to the WHOLE WORLD, NOT limited by you or John.”
If God applies His righteousness to the whole world, could you explain to me why the whole world is not saved? Do you believe that the whole world will be saved? I believe (as well as Armenians) that God desires something else more than He desires to save everyone. I believe that this thing that He desires is His own glory. Aremenians do not deny that not everyone will be saved, so they as well have to admit that God desires something else more than He desires to save everyone. Armenians believe that this thing that God desires is man’s free will. Which do you think has more scriptural backing?
You also quoted Romans 8:14 which says, “FOR ALL WHO ARE BEING LED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD,THESE ARE SONS OF GOD.” and then went on to say, “BEING led not PREDESTINED.”
The writer here was saying that a true Christian is one who is being led by the Holy Spirit. Predestination is not denyed here, it is just not brought up. He was talking about the evidence of salvation here, not the cause of it.
As to your accusations against me personally, I am constently seeking to learn more about God and His word. As one who desires to learn more about God’s word, could you tell me how I have used the scriptures as a cult does? If I have misrepresented God in any way, I would desire that those who are more learned than I am would show me in love where I have errored. I do have more than my share of flaws, but I do seek to be sanctified and become more like Christ every day.
Richard,
I believe what John said in His original post about God being blamed for sin. “What about sin? God is not the author of sin, but He certainly allowed it; it is integral to His eternal decree. God has a purpose for allowing it. He cannot be blamed for evil or tainted by its existence (1 Sam. 2:2: “There is no one holy like the Lord”). But He certainly wasn’t caught off-guard or standing helpless to stop it when sin entered the universe. We do not know His purposes for allowing sin. If nothing else, He permitted it in order to destroy evil forever. And God sometimes uses evil to accomplish good (Gen. 45:7, 8; 50:20; Rom. 8:28). How can these things be? Scripture does not answer all the questions for us. But we know from His Word that God is utterly sovereign, He is perfectly holy, and He is absolutely just.”
In Christ,
Daniel Chaney
Mr Chaney I am not personally attacking you I am personally concerned for you just like when JESUS CHRIST was on earth HE never talked about predestenation HE said if you ABIDE and HE WHO OVER COMES will be SAVED NOT PREDESTINED. HE said if your righteousness does not surpasses that of the Scibes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the Kingdom of heaven Mat. 5:20 and they thought they to were the chosen ones but there heart was far from HIM look at Acts 3:14 and Mat.3:8-9 I say to you, that GOD is able from these stones to raise up childern to Abraham,verse 8 is the fruit form the heart. Than look at Proverbs 3:5-7 but the whole chapter is good but it says in v5 TRUST the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your understanding and that is what I am saying when you and John force yourselfs on the scriptures. You are chosing when it is GODS will that none should perish. In closing PLEASE read 2 Timothy 24-26 than look real hard at verse 26 and in verse 24 is why I shouldn’t be here JESUS CHRIST never tried to prove HIMSELF HE revealed the FATHER Hebrews 1:3 to do HIS works or HIS will just as we should instead of our pety little doctrines of men which divided or hinder us useless in the MASTERS HANDS. ALL MY LOVE BECAUSE OF MY LORD JESUS CHRIST Jerry
Jerry,
Thank you for your concern for my spiritual welfare. This should always be our desire in discussing and debating doctrine.
You made the statement: “You are chosing when it is GODS will that none should perish.” Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that by this you mean to say that you believe that it is God’s will that none should perish. If it is true that you believe this, can you tell me whether or not you believe that all people WILL be saved?
Your brother in Christ,
Daniel Chaney
Brother Chaney ” I would say what JESUS told Peter when he asked HIM about John in John Ch. 21:21-22 Peter therefore seeing him said to JESUS, LORD and what about this man? JESUS said to him, If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? YOU FOLLOW ME!” We need to follow JESUS CHRIST and not worrie about the others and let our LIGHT SHINE before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and GLORIFY your FATHER who is in heaven Matt. 5:16. WE need to do the FATHERS will just like JESUS CHRSIT did and even more since HE is interceding at the right hand of our FATHER. Also to be made in HIS image as in Col. 3:10-11. ALL MY LOVE BECAUSE OF JESUS CHRIST MY LORD Jerry
The article and subsequent discussion here is quite telling. As a skeptic, I read such things as demonstrating the utter incoherentness of any systematic (not to mention dogmatic) theology extracted from the bible. It seems incredible that God is able to transmit his thoughts (which are claimed to be “above” our own) such that they are both “the word of God” and open to such disparate interpretations. Consistency would seem at a minimum to require God to supply the appropriate interpretation of his words, even if one can get over the fact that they are obscure enough in the first place to need such augmentation. The extraordinary and breathtaking disputes over the meaning of nearly every theologically pregnant passage of scripture is sufficient evidence that clarity is not among God’s attributes. Simply put, he is not a “great communicator,” if judged by the product of his endeavors: the Old and New Testaments.
And beyond the fact that scripture is subject to so many varying understandings, is the assertion by people like MacArthur that, “God is never to be measured by what seems fair to human judgment.” This bold claim at once dismisses any rational discourse in theology. If one cannot use his or her presumably God-given reason to make sense of God’s word, then I’m afraid Christian apologetics is a hopelessly futile discipline, and the many Christian apologists are merely chasing the wind. Make no mistake about MacArthur’s statement: claims about God—even in his revealed word—are not subject to any kind of creaturely analysis. His case in point is the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. We are commanded to simply “accept both sides of the truth,” and are not allowed an attempt to resolve the obvious discord between the two. By necessity this abdication of reason must extend to every controversial point in scripture because it is never clear where to draw the line. And once reason is banished as a tool of understanding, then theology ceases to be a discipline of human inquiry, if it ever was one.
MacArthur tells us that, “God is not like us, nor can he be held to human standards.” If true, then it is impossible to tell whether he is “good” in the sense that we mean good. For all we know, he may be a Cosmic Sadist, as C. S. Lewis might say, if we were not permitted some comparison of our own sense of right and wrong with his. To press the point, human parents would not be morally justified in raising one of their children to be Charles Manson and another to be Mother Theresa, simply to satisfy their own inscrutable plan. Of such parents we would rightly demand an explanation for such behavior, and we would certainly subject that explanation to our shared moral understanding and analysis. And it is only reasonable to expect that God in some way has informed our collective moral understanding sufficiently so as to allow for some kind of comparison between his acts and ours. If God loves us, it must be in some way related to how we love others, and not so distant as to not even merit a comparison. The profound and prominent assertion in scripture that “God is love” has no meaning for us, if his love is not congruent with our own conception and experience.
Finally, if, as MacArthur states, “we must not conclude that God is unjust because He chooses to bestow grace on some but not to everyone,” then at the very least we must conclude that our conception of “justice” is not only flawed, it is hopelessly flawed. What each of us feels deep in our marrow-saturated bones is leading us astray, if we cannot judge as unfair a situation in which, before we were born, God condemned us to hell and perpetual torment.
Randy,
You said, “The extraordinary and breathtaking disputes over the meaning of nearly every theologically pregnant passage of scripture are sufficient evidence that clarity is not among God’s attributes. Simply put, he is not a “great communicator,” if judged by the product of his endeavors: the Old and New Testaments.”
If God has not revealed himself to us in a way that we can understand, then how can we know him? Do you even claim to know God?
You also said, “What each of us feels deep in our marrow-saturated bones is leading us astray, if we cannot judge as unfair a situation in which, before we were born, God condemned us to hell and perpetual torment.”
Paul deals with your precise objection in Romans 9. After saying that God “has mercy upon whomever he wills, and hardens the heart of whomever he wills” (Romans 9:18), Paul then raises this precise objection: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’” (Romans 9:19). Here is the heart of your unfairness objection against the doctrine of election. If each person’s ultimate destiny is determined by God, not by the person himself, then how can this be fair? Paul’s response is not one that appeals to our pride, nor does he attempt to give a philosophical explanation of why this is just. He simply calls on God’s rights as the omnipotent creator: “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
Don’t you believe that God has a right to send His creation wherever He wants to?
Brother Jerry,
What do you think of Phillipians 2:13? Also what do you think about the part of the verses you quoted that says, “If I want him to remain until I come”?
In Christ,
Daniel Chaney
Daniel,
Your reply is well within the accepted orthodoxy of your theology, but it is not within the accepted orthodoxy of common sense. You can quote Paul, who in fact does not further our understanding of the dilemma because he simply evades it, but in so doing you are simply adding to the problem. The point is that for you and other Calvinists rational discourse and inquiry is not an option in exploring the obvious problem generated from your theology. There simply is no way to see the statement “God is Love” as meaningful, as long as a significant number of us are going to burn in hell for no other reason but that God wills it.
You asked whether I believe that God has a right to send His creation wherever He wants to. Well, of course he has the “right” to do anything he wants, but he cannot (or, rather, his defenders cannot) claim that in so doing he is acting on any high moral principle, at least in the way we commonly regard morality. If he acts in a way that obviously contradicts our common understanding of morality, then the fault is either with our understanding of morality or with the act itself. Possibly, God’s defenders are misrepresenting him, which is quite likely, but I understand that possibility is not an option for you. So, you are left with the problem of how to understand such a counter-intuitive notion. It is not enough to say “Who art thou that repliest against God?” There are a few places in scripture where people actually do “reply” against God, and sometimes they do so successfully.
And what of the invitation to “come let us reason together”? If one desires to be a fideist, then so be it. Fideism is an acceptable, albeit non-rational, position. But I have a problem with those–like some Christian apologists–who wish to have it both ways. They speak in the language of reason, but then retreat to “faith” when the hard questions arise.
Finally, you asked: “If God has not revealed himself to us in a way that we can understand, then how can we know him? Do you even claim to know God?” You misunderstand my point about revelation. I’m not the one who claims that the bible is the authoritative “word of God.” But anyone who so claims must be prepared to answer the question: If God has revealed himself in scripture, why is it so fraught with misunderstandings and misinterpretations? You might say it is because of our depravity. But wouldn’t God have taken that into account when he inspired the writers? And, if the effort is directed toward those who couldn’t possibly make coherent sense of it, why did he undertake it? Further, it seems to me that along with the direct revelation he could of supplied a sort of “divine commentary” on it. That might help to clear up a few things. You have to admit that the presentation of God in scripture is not in any obvious way “systematic.” We supply any organization, which seems odd to me.
I also find it odd that someone can claim to “know” God, but cannot claim to understand something as simple as, “Why does God create some people as “vessels of wrath”? It would be a little like someone asking a wife if her husband was a child torturer, and she replied, “Listen, I know my husband, and if he tortured those children, he must have had a good reason.” I do not claim to know God with any degree of certainty. Please explain to me how you can so claim, but cannot claim to know his real nature?
Randy,
You have admitted that you do not claim to know God so the debate is over. 1Co 2:14 says, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” God’s love is shown in the fact that He does indeed save some, which is more than what we deserve. God has revealed all that His children need to know for life and godliness in His unchanging, infallible, and clear scripture. Anyone whose mind has been illumined by the Holy Spirit will understand the scripture. If the scriptures are not clear, then God is not knowable. If this is the case then there is no such thing as sanctification because sanctification is the process of becoming more like Christ. I pray that God will show Himself to you because He is knowable.
Daniel,
The debate is, indeed, over. When you make a statement like this, “Anyone whose mind has been illumined by the Holy Spirit will understand the scripture,” then you are in effect saying, “If you don’t understand the scripture, then you’re not enlightened by the Holy Spirit.” It neatly precludes any debate. That broad condemnatory statement includes everyone this side of you and John McArthur, because as you can tell from many of the above comments, not everyone agrees with Calvinism, and even among Calvinists there is disagreement about the meaning of scripture. Your post is quite indicative of why you are so susceptible to Calvinist doctrine: like the Pharisees, you are quick to dispose of any criticism that doesn’t conform to your theological paradigm. Jesus harshly criticized those Pharisees because they mishandled scripture in such a way that made it nearly impossible for anyone to be saved—but them. And unlike them, in your gut you must know that your own doctrine may condemn even you. For you can never be certain that you are among those fortunate enough to have membership in God’s elect. So, ironically, you are in no better position than I. Sadly, despite your alleged “illumination,” your knowledge of the scripture can offer you no real comfort. And, equally sadly, you can offer none to the rest of us.
Randy,
My statement of the scriptures being illumined by the Holy Spirit was not in reference to Calvinism, it was in reference to being able to know God at all. The whole of scripture is about God and His character, so if it isn’t clear, then what hope is there for becoming like Christ? I am not saying that “If you don’t understand ALL of scripture then you are not enlightened by the Holy Spirit.” But if you don’t even believe that a Christian can know God, then that is more than just not knowing scripture, that is denying its purpose.
To end my participation in this discussion, whether a Calvinist or not, no one who does not believe that the scriptures are the authoritative word of God to give His children an understanding of Him and a roadmap for their lives, can be a Christian. God has given His children the ability to know Him through His word. My prayer for you, Randy, is Ephesians 1:17-18, “That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.
In Christ,
Daniel Chaney
Can anyone truly explain the trinity? Absolutely not but it is a fact and any explanation used fails to explain the fact and usually leads to basphemy.
Our salvation is equally a mystery. God elects us yet we choose Him This is a fact and it can not be expalined. Anyone that tries to will fail and usually lead to blasphemy. that is why its caled faith