Considering Election (Not Politics)
February 29th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. To begin with, let’s look at the biblical evidence.
The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin — spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever “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 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total hopelessness: spiritual death.
The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him.”
This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God’s work. In Acts 13:48 we read, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”
Acts 16 tells us that Lydia was saved when, “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.”
Romans 8:29-30 states, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”
Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.”
Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God “has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.”
Occasionally someone will suggest that God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” and Romans 8:29 says, “whom He foreknew, He also predestined.” And if divine foreknowledge simply means God’s knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these arguments may appear to have some weight behind them.
But that is not the biblical meaning of “foreknowledge.” When the Bible speaks of God’s foreknowledge, it refers to God’s establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word “know,” in both the Old and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was “foreknown before the foundation of the world.” Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving relationship with Him. The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God “foreknew” (Romans 8:29). That means He knew them — He loved them — before the foundation of the world.
If God’s choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God’s choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost — because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.
The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call “whosoever will” to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved. First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all should be saved. Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, “the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37).
In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God’s attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God’s sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice.
Dear Roy,
Pondering this doctrine is always very humbling to me. Clearly, the scriptures teach we were chosen by God, and thank You, Lord, for using Nathan in this enlightening series! We are chosen to belong to God, to be slaves for God, to be sons of God, to be joint heirs with Chrit as our Brother and to reign with Him. I cannot begin to understand all that, but the fact is God said it. All creation can be studied, and it all says God can be understood by man. The facts support the faith. Just as the child of the surgeon who invents surgical procedures and who has written volumes from his accomplishments…the child understands what his daddy says to him. The child does not know all his daddy knows. That is obvious to the child. But the child needs to study all his father’s writings and watch him closely if he is going to be like his dad! We don’t choose our parents. I am sorry you have suffered a great loss of yours. How humblling to know God has chosen us to be His children! Let’s get to know Him together through His word, Brother!
I don’t know who said it, but there is some truth in it: Look at others – be distressed. Look at self – be depressed. Look at Christ – you’ll be blessed. Jesus told the two Emmaus road travelers (a husband and wife couple?) all of the scriptures spoke of Him! That is a fascinating statement that fuels my studies! I want to know Him to be like Him, for I shall see Him as He is, not as man has invented. Roy, keep your heart for Jesus, as it is a beautiful thing! Learn of Him, from Him, in His word, Brother! Thank You, Lord, for Your word and these faithful teachers at this site!
Dear SFPulpit Staff,
How does prayer work with election and human responsibility for the lost?
I was taught growing up as a Christian that we need to pray for our lost love ones that God would save them. That our prayers would change God’s mind to consider – let’s say my dad – from his current state of depravity to be regenerated. Also, suspecting that God would consider him so that he can be in heaven with me. Is that a right prayer? Is this implying open theism without realizing it?
Instead, can we pray, “God, it is a mystery to me of whom is saved and whom you elected and foreknown before the world existed. Presently, my dad is lost. Can you reveal to me, in my time, his election through regeneration and the call of God?
Is this a more proper way of praying for the lost? Upholding election and foreknowledge and diminishing open theism in our prayers?
Paul
Paul,
I hope you find this article helpful.
Here is a quote by Charles Spurgeon on election.
“But there are some who say, “It is hard for God to choose some and leave others.” Now, I will ask you one question. Is there any one of you here this morning who wishes to be holy, who wishes to be regenerate, to leave their life of sin and walk in holiness? “Yes, there is,” says some one, “I do.” Then God has elected you. But another says, “No: I don’t want to be holy; I don’t want to give up my lusts and my vices.” Why should you grumble, then, that God has not elected you to it? For if you were elected you would not like it, according to your own confession. If God, this morning, had chosen you to holiness, you say you would not care for it. Do you not acknowledge that you prefer drunkenness to sobriety, dishonesty to honesty? You love this world’s pleasure better than religion; then why should you grumble that God has not chosen you to religion? If you love religion, He has chosen you to it. If you desire it, He has chosen you to it. If you do not, what right have you to say that God ought to have given you what you do not wish for?
Supposing I had in my hand something which you do not value, and I said I shall give it to such-and-such a person: you would have no right to grumble that I did not give it to you. You could not be so foolish as to grumble that the other has got what you did not care about. According to your own confession, many of you do not want religion, do not want a new heart and a right spirit, do not want the forgiveness of sins, do not want to be holy, you do not want to be elected to these things: then why should you grumble? You count these things as worthless, and why should you complain of God who has given them to those whom He has chosen?” – Charles Spurgeon.
Many will say that Romans 8:29 “Whom he foreknew” means that God did not predestined who would be saved, He just knew who would be saved. However, notice that the verse says “whom he foreknew” not “those whose faith He foreknew.” It is talking of God’s knowledge of PEOPLE not His knowledge of their faith. Secondly, since no one can do something outside of God’s eternal plan, nor His infinite knowledge, foreknowledge has the same effect as predestination. Only those whom God knew would be saved will be saved, and those whom God knew would not be saved cannot be saved. So stressing the fact that this verse speaks of foreknowledge rather than election (even though that is debatable) does not accomplish what those who do this would desire it to accomplish.
Hi Paul,
Matt Waymeyer did a four-part series here on Pulpit on the topic of, “If God Is Sovereign, Why Pray?”
You can read it at the following links:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Is not the answer to John 6 : 44 , John 7 : 17 , If a man chooses to do God’s will , he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. Faith we know comes by hearing the word of God. Rom 10 : 17. A person is drawn to God via the teaching , preaching , the reading of the word. There is choice.
Election is corporate because Paul writes to the chosen and predestined in Epehsus who are …” the saints in Ephesus , the faithful in Christ Jesus . ” Those who decided to be in Christ and as a result they are included in the elect, the chosen , the predestined.
Election is both corporate and individual. Paul’s testimony was one of individual election [Galatians 1:15].
Paul recognized that the effectiveness of preaching the
gospel is based on God’s election of individuals according
to 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5.
Dr. MacArthur sets forth the biblical balance between God’s election of individuals to salvation and man’s
responsibity to repent and believe the gospel.
Until God changes the heart of man [Ezekiel 36:26], he will have no desire to choose Christ. “For with the heart
man believes unto righteousness …,” Romans 10:10. Our
choice is determined by the spiritual condition of the
heart.
Ray B.,
Ephesians 1:4 says we were chosen before the foundation of the world. That is a result of God’s choice, not the saint’s. V6 speaks of it being all by His will. Check it out. God bless.
I said v6, but it is verse 5. Anyhow, all three verses clearly show that it is God who does it all:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
It is amazing how many people I have talked to who do not accept election have testimonies that scream election.
“It never made sense before. I had heard it all a million times. Then in an instant everything was different. I realized I was a sinner. It all made sense. Then I CHOSE Jesus as my saviour.”
They never stop and wonder what made everything different in the first place.
Ray,
You said, “Election is corporate because Paul writes to the chosen and predestined in Epehsus who are …” the saints in Ephesus , the faithful in Christ Jesus . ” Those who decided to be in Christ and as a result they are included in the elect, the chosen , the predestined.”
I think you got it backwards. They are not the predestined because they became the “saints in Ephesus.” They became the “saints in Ephesus” because they were predestined. The predestinating obviously came first, hence the prefix “PRE-”. As a matter of fact, it was done before the foundation of the world. They became predestined when God chose them, not when they chose God.
In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way.
One benefit–probably the only benefit–of being saved late in life after decades of consciously rejecting Christ, was that I ‘knew’ election was true before I ever heard the term.
Sure , those who have chosen to believe in Jesus were chosen before the foundation of the world. God planned a plan. He planned that those who would believe , repent , confess and then would obey the gospel by being immersed for the forgiveness of their sins are the elect , the chosen , the predestined. Praise God for such a wonderful plan of salvation for whosoever will believe and obey will be saved. Praise Him for allowing those who will believe what is taught to respond and receive His grace .
That God has chosen to save us from the foundation of the world cannot be denied. That it is unconditional cannot be proved. Rather it is conditional on us believing the gospel and, as Bro. Ray B. said, repenting and being baptized into Christ. We are saved by unmerited grace, through faith (which we have to have in and of ourselves) – Matthew 9:2, Ephesians 2:8-9.
Election is corporate (all who believe and repent), I believe, while salvation is individual. No one can believe for another; one’s own salvation that results from faith in God’s grace does not justify their family. If salvation is by unconditional lot, then how can one know they are truly elect? We know we are elect when the Spirit witnesses to us by the way we choose and desire to live. The true elect not only choose to love and serve God, they recognize they are able to do things not of themselves, but by the power of God in us (Ephesians 3:20) do progressively better than they were ever able to before – 2 Peter 1:8-11
NWProdigal,
“We are saved by unmerited grace, through faith (which we have to have in and of ourselves) – Matthew 9:2, Ephesians 2:8-9.”
Where do we get our faith?
Luke 17:5 The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
Romans 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
Hebrews 12:2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
James 2:5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?
We are told to have fatih, and we must have faith. It is part of our responsibility. Yet, we are not told to try and muster up the faith ourselves. We cannot not increase our faith in God by our own will. Our faith comes from God. It is from the Lord.
In Christ with love,
Ray B.,
You clearly miss the whole point of election. It is all of grace! How many times does Ephesians 1 emphasize HIM? Not “us” but “He hath chosen…” “to Himself…” “His will…” “His grace…” “He hath made us accepted…” “riches of His grace…”, etc.
Romans 11:5-6 says, “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (KJV). Rom 11:6, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” (NASB).
Let’s see, is it grace plus works? What’s it say? IT IS NO MORE OF WORKS. All GRACE. This means God does the saving apart from our own works – including apart from our baptism.
Ray,
You said, “Sure , those who have chosen to believe in Jesus were chosen before the foundation of the world.”
So then, they believe because they were chosen (my sheep hear my voice). They are not chosen because they believe. That would be like saying, “ye are my sheep because ye hear my voice.” This is not how it goes. Those who are already chosen will most certainly hear His voice.
NWProdigal,
You said, “We are saved by unmerited grace, through faith (which we have to have in and of ourselves) – Matthew 9:2, Ephesians 2:8-9.”
If grace is unmerited, then it is not the result of something we “have in and of ourselves.” If grace came through something we muster up in and of ourselves, then it is not unmeritted. You defeated your own argument with your own argument. If grace is unmeritted, and grace comes through faith, then faith has to be unmeritted.
Doesn’t the idea that a person could choose God imply they know Him to choose Him.
A sarcastic analogy I often use has to do with comparing being born to being spiritually born-again (John 3:3, John 3:7, 1 Peter 1:23). If this analogy is off basis a critique of this analogy would be appreciated.
10 years before I was born I decided that I wanted to be born. Knowing who a couple of good people were I chose my mother and father. I decided that I wanted to be born in the summer as opposed to the winter because I knew I wouldn’t like the cold weather.
You get the idea…
One must never compromise human responsibility nor God’s sovereignty.
To quote Spurgeon, “Why would you want to try to reconcile friends?”
Just because we cannot, doesn’t mean we’re off the hook. We cannot because we will not.
But praise be to God who made us alive in Christ so that we could/would.
John 1:12-13
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Pretty clear.
Its also clear that the Fall of man was a complete Fall. A dead man can not reach out and grab a life preserver. We are spiritually dead at birth.
(Rom 12:3) For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt (Grk: apportion, bestow, share) to every (Grk: each one, every) man the measure (Grk: portion) of faith (Grk: moral conviction of the truthfulness of God).
This verse tells us that God has given to each and every man an amount of faith.
Mat 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
This verse tells us that, even the smallest measure of faith is sufficient. We must use the amount of faith that God has given us.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
This verse tells us that the exercise faith is not of ourselves and is not to be considered to be “works”.
God has placed in each of our hearts a measure of faith. Even the smallest amount of faith is enough. When God calls us and we exercise faith to respond to the call, He justifies us and gives the Holy Spirit to live within us. It is in error to categorize the response to the call, as works or as man taking any credit for his justification. It is God’s grace that gave us the faith to be saved. It is God’s plan that provided the way of salvation. It was God’s eternal plan that Jesus be our substitute and pay the penalty that we could never pay.
(Rom 8:7) 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, (Rom 8:8) and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (NASB)
The carnal mind “cannot please God”. It is not the carnal mind that is the seat of the measure of faith. The faith resides in the heart of man and when the Spirit draws that man, any response comes from the heart.
(Rom 10:8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
“Works” is man’s attempt to please God or earn salvation and springs forth from the mind of man. This attempt always fails. “Faith” is a gift given to man and placed in the heart of man, by God.
Quote from John MacArthur, top of this topic:
“The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process.”
Immediately my mind asks, what brings salvation? Subjecting oneself to the law? Living a sinless life? Repentance? Simply believing on the Lord Jesus Christ? God flat out forgiving you without you doing anything at all? The summary of Election presented above begs for a deeper discussion of the question “what must I do to be saved”? (Consider: sin doesn’t keep us from God; refusing to repent does.)
However, of all that comes to mind to say in response to the words quoted above, it boils down to this for me: if I have no ability to make the first move toward getting saved, how then can I be held responsible for not getting saved? The standard response to my question is: “God does what He wants; who are we to question what God does? He can hold anyone accountable that He wants to, and for whatever reason.” I agree with that statement/question. But let us then be consistent. Some people are saved because God elected them to that. They had nothing to do with it. And we refuse to accept that their actions had anything to do with their salvation. Yet others are lost forever because God did not elect them to salvation, for His own reasons, and we blame them for it. We insist that their actions condem them. That is inconsistant. Comments about Election would make much more sense to me if we would stop blaming the lost people for being lost. They are lost because God elected them to that, according to the definition of Election. You yourself admit that they are powerless to choose salvation. It is not reasonable to then blame them for not choosing salvation. They cannot choose something they are powerless to choose. The non-elect are not lost because they persist in sin. They are lost because they are not Elect. Recall that personal works have no bearing on whether one is Elect. The reverse of that has to be that personal works have no bearing on whether one is non-elect. If works do not determine who gets picked, then works do not determine who does not get picked. You muddy the waters when you insist that the lost are responsible for the position they find themselves in, rather than just letting it go with “God didn’t choose them, for His own reasons, so they are lost forever.”
What role does a man play in accepting Jesus as Lord? None. He is dead in trespasses and sin. He was born that way. Because he is dead, he has no ability to choose. We insist that unregenrate man has no ability to choose to accept God. How then can we logically insist that unregenerate man does have the ability to choose to reject God.
Some like to nail this subject by asking and answering “What role did Lazarus play in his being resurrected from the dead? None. He was dead.” You are basically asking, “Did Lazarus have the ability to choose to come to life?” The obvious answer is “no”. But I am taking your example further and asking, “Did Lazarus have the ability to choose to stay dead?” The obvious answer, again, is “no”. He was dead. He had no ability to choose, period.
So it is with unregenerate man. He cannot choose to accept God, because he is dead – he cannot choose. How then does it make sense to insist that a dead man, one who cannot choose, can and does choose to reject God? That is like insisting that Lazarus had the ability to choose to stay dead.
Or am I missing something here?
John, The Apostle Paul answers that one in 1 Timothy:
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/02/selection.html
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Rom . 10 17 .Each individual can choose to listen and obey or not . It is still “whosoever will.” Free choice. Those who choose are the corporate elect. God planned before the creation of the world that those who freely obey are the elect.
The comments from those of you who deny the biblical doctrine of unconditional election demonstrate that you have not taken the time to study this issue to any depth.
Some of you demonstrate that your biblical interpretation is pretty twisted. It makes me wonder what you do with other difficult biblical issues.
It is a fact that most believers start out denying unconditional election. I know I did. The reason men deny this doctrine is not becasue it isn’t plain in Scripture. It certainly is! They deny it because they don’t want to give up the notion of personal autonomy. Sinners like to believe they have the final say over their life.
But the more I studied the Scriptures, the more convinced I became that I was wrong. Even Jonathan Edwards admits that he started out denying election early in his Christian life. But over time, as he studied the issue he was forced to change his mind. In fact, he came to love the doctrine of God’s sovereignty.
Now, if a man tells me that he has carefully read the writings of great Bible teachers and theologians like Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Warfield, Sproul, and yes, MacArthur, and that he has honestly grappled with the best arguments in favor of unconditional election, and still feels that the Bible does not teach this doctrine, then there’s nothing left to discuss, is there?
Very few of you have asked genuine questions as if you’re seeking an answer to help you decide this issue. Most of what I see is the same old rhetoric sufficiently answered by some pretty great theologians and teachers, including John MacArthur.
With frustration,
Steve Lamm
Ray,
You are building your theology around an interpretation of certain verses that do not explicitly teach what you say they teach. To borrow from R.C. Sproul: A prime example of this is John 3:16 “whosoever believeth in Him.” What is the explicit meaning of this verse? The explicit meaning is that no one ever came to God and was turned away. If A) someone comes to God, then B) they will not perish but have everlasting life. This is the explicit meaning. Perhaps the implicit meaning is that anyone can come to God, but we must look at another verse that explicitly denies the implicit meaning of John 3:16 before we build our theology on implicit meaning. John 6:44 “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him…” What is the explicit meaning of this verse? The explicit meaning is that NO MAN can (not may) come to Christ unless it is given to him by the Father. The verse does not say no man MAY come, it says no man CAN come. This word CAN means that man is UNABLE to come to the Father unless God chooses him.
This explicit meaning denies the possible implicit meaning of John 3:16, therefore we cannot interpret that verse to mean that anyone CAN come to God. It is the same with other such verses: “whosoever WILL may come” The explicit meaning is that whosoever has the desire to come MAY come. This verse, however, says nothing about where the desire came from, so based on the explicit meaning of John 6:44 we cannot interpret “whosoever will” to mean that the desire came from within ourselves.
“Can those who reject this doctrine so brashly claim that their desire to follow Christ was something within them that God did not give? Was it some empowerment or some compulsion, created by themselves, to cling to that which their very fallen nature loathed and despised? If that is the case then they truly have reason to boast because they had the intelligence, the fortitude, the confidence, their own created desire to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and to be saved. And even more outrageous: none of those things came from GOD!” – Charles Spurgeon
Daniel ,
To use your word explicit…go on ahead into verse 45…They will be taught of God…Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. vs. 51..If a man eats of this bread , he will live forever. John 7 : 17 …If a man chooses to do God’s will , he will find out if my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. More of the explicit teaching about free choice, whosoever will.
Ray, you are espousing salvation by merit — you, for some meritorious reason, chose to believe while someone else hearing the same message did not. Where did you get this ability, since Scripture clearly teaches that the unsaved person is hostile to God and unable even to recognize the things of God?
Ray,
Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see any explicit teaching about free will in these verses. Vs. 45 says that “Every man that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” The explicit teaching here is that every one who the Father draws will be taught of God, and every one who hath heard and learned of the Father will come to Christ. Who is it that gives this knowledge of the Father, Ray? It is God Himself that gives this knowledge. This knowledge of the Father is not aquirable by fallen man.
Vs. 51 says, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
The explicit teaching of this verse is that if someone eats of the bread of life, he will life forever. Perhaps the implicit teaching is that anyone could eat thereof, but that is not the explicit meaning of this verse.
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
The explicit meaning of this verse is that if someone comes to Christ, that person was already given to Christ by the Father, and Christ will not cast out anyone who comes to Him. This verse clearly does not teach that anyone can come to Christ because it says that only those who are given to Christ by the Father will come to Him. Notice that the giving to Christ came before the act of coming to Christ.
You quoted John 7:17. Here is that verse with a little of the context of that verse:
Joh 7:14 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.
Joh 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
Joh 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
Again, the explicit teaching of this verse is that if someone does God’s will, he will know of this doctrine. This verse says NOTHING about who will do or can do God’s will. You are building a theology around IMplicit meaning that is denied by EXplicit meaning of other verses. That is neither safe nor wise.
Ray,
I once proposed on this board that Calvinists believe God wants people to go to hell. This was denied. However, this is clearly the teaching (of Calvinism, not Scripture). God is commanding men to do something they cannot. This makes God insincere and Jesus a very bad storyteller, e.g. the parable of the feast where the invited declined of their own (beware, obscenity coming!)free will.
Daniel ,
All the verses you have given all speak to free will.
Ray,
They all speak to it IMplicitly, but that interpretation is denied elsewhere EXplicitly.
David M,
Let me ask some questions and give the answers to them, so that you will see that if you interpret Calvinistic teaching to mean that God wants people to go to hell, then you will have to interpret your own beliefs to mean that as well.
1) Does God always get what He wants? Yes.
2) Are all men saved? No.
Based on these two questions alone, the answer would be the same for Calvinists and for you: God wants people to go to hell. However, you do not believe this, and neither do I. God is not willing that any should perish. I believe in the doctrine of man’s inabiliy, but I also believe in man’s responsibility. This may seem like a contradiction, but both are taught in scripture, and both work together. We are not off the hook simply because we were not the elect. You see, we do not know who is the elect, therefore it is our responsibility to obey Christ. This is our perspective. From God’s perspective, we are simple vessels that He fits for honor or dishonor, whatever He pleases. Calvinism does not deny man’s responsibility, because to do this would be to deny the teaching of scripture. Calvinism simply accepts the fact that there is nothing in the natural man that is able or willing to follow Christ. Keep asking questions if this is confusion (it is somewhat confusing, but upon looking deeper, the apparent contradiction is resolved).
Such dissimulation is attributed to God in this system that Bill Clinton would blush at. Choose doesn’t mean you choose, it means He chooses…get it? Me neither. He wants to save men but..well He really want even more to damn them. He blames men for their condemnation (even John Mac says, they have nobody else to blame’) but they are only doing what He decreed they do in the first place. When faced with seemingly contradictory passages, they opt for the interpretation that render God a capricious, deceitful tyrant. Ahh, just venting.
Daniel ,
Thaya all teach specifically free will.
Meant, they all teach.
I never said God always get what he wants. He has set up a system (sovereignly, of course) whereby men may rebel. If He did not, then He would be the author of sin and therefore, not only a sinner, but the ONLY sinner.
Ray,
You said, “They all teach specifically free will.”
You can state this, but without biblical support it is worthless.
David M,
Answer this question: Is God able to save anyone He wants to save? Just a simple yes or no would be sufficient.
Ray, David,
I would like to know how you can do or did do what the Bible says you cannot do and did not do. Is it in error?
Daniel ,
I already have in earlier comments about John 6 and 7.
Dennis ,
God gives us the ablity . Paul said that God ” commands all people everywhere to repent. ” Acts 17 : 30 . Notice two words: all and everywhere. Just one of many passages. He does not command us to do what we cannot do. Not everyone will repent, believe ,confess and obey the gospel in baptism , but some have and will. It is a choice. Free will.
David,
I normally argue this theologically. I believe among this group that should be a well established argument. Therefore I will look at this discussion philosophically.
Why does God chose to create people he knows will ultimately reject him? God knows what people will chose in the future. So why not look into the future and only choose to create those he knows will freely accept him? Using your logic it is not fair that God creates people he knows will ultimately reject him and go to Hell. God is not forced to create anyone. God could foresee what everyone will freely decide and only create those who freely choose him. This would not violate anyone’s ‘freewill’. This would be true unless God did not know what people will choose. That would be open theism. I think we all agree God knows the future.
Also, God cannot role dice. There is no chance with God. He knows every outcome to the nth degree of every action he makes. Nothing is in reality random. Things appear random to us only because we cannot factor in all the variables. God is not under the constraint of finite knowledge.
God chose to create a universe that He knew would have people spending an eternity in Hell. He freely chose to do this knowing the outcome. He was under no obligation to do this. If nothing else God could have chosen not to create the universe. You cannot deny that God, from the beginning, freely had a plan containing a hell with people in it.
Richard P.
Thank you for putting it so well. I see that no one has challenged your argument so far. I do not think they can. There is a lot circular arguments going on in the posting. It is worse than a dog chasing his tail.
…”God chose to create a universe that He knew would have people spending an eternity in Hell. He freely chose to do this knowing the outcome. He was under no obligation to do this. If nothing else God could have chosen not to create the universe. You cannot deny that God, from the beginning, freely had a plan containing a hell with people in it. “…
No, certainly He did this and it is a hard truth. However, it does not rob Him of a moral government. He is at least punishing rebellious sinners. How can He exhort, please command, etc. men to do what they cannot. To use a cheesy analogy, say there was a fish creator who sat on a bridge over a river containing the fish he created. “I command thee, all fish, to fly up to me”! he says. They fish a) cannot understand him and b) couldn’t do it if they did. “inability” as they say. The fish maker magically permits one fish to undertand his language and also gives him wings. Furthermore, he bends the fish’s will to do so. When the ‘obedient’ fish arrives, he lavishes praise and blessing on him (the fish can now live in air) for …what, exactly? As for the ‘unable’ fish, he seizes that one, gnashing his teeth in fury and throws the dumb beast into a pan to fry for all eternity. The fish maker is, of course, fair in doing this because the ‘bad ‘ fish didn’t obey and, what’s more, it swam, ate and did all the things it was naturally inclined and conditioned to do by the fish maker. The chosen fish says “what a gracious fish maker I have, for he chose me for no reason at all and condemned the other for no reason at all. How he must love me!
Richard P., David M., and Bill,
God did not start the world by giving a command man could not keep. Adam was the only man that had what one might call a ‘freewill’. He rejected God. Man was expected and commanded to accept/choose/follow God from the beginning. It was within man’s/Adam’s abilities to do so. Adam/man failed. Adam/man chose to disobey God. God had asked man to do what he was then able. Now all men because of Adam are born sinful/dead and doomed to hell. They now do not have the ability to choose God. If that was the end of the story God would be just in letting everyone go to hell. Man had made his choice. God then provided a way for salvation, Jesus. Man left to himself would continue in his current, self inflicted, dead state even with Jesus’ death on the cross. The command to follow God, now by accepting Jesus, is not a new command. It is the same command from the beginning- follow God. Man now without God’s help does not have the ability to choose. This is man’s fault not God’s. He then chooses some through election to have the ability to accept him. Does this mean that in doing so he leaves other to go to hell? Yes! Could he save everyone? Yes! But it is still man who put himself there in the first place. It is man that bears the responsibility. The question is not why does God let some go to hell? (that is what they deserve). It is why save any? (that is not what they deserve).
Deuteronomy 24:16
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.
I know that speaks of physical death, but the prinicple is there..
Romans 1 seems to indicate that man KNOWS what he is doing and has no excuse. I suppose God graciously dragged some, kicking and screaming, to heaven against their will. It seemed good in His sight to condemn the rest to eternal conscious torment, naturally. All the proffered offers to those who reject (e.g. Cain) are therefore bogus. He keeps giving the same commands He gave Adam…why is that?
I agree with the earlier poster that one can’t push the ‘dead-men-can’t-respond’ analogy too far.
A little off-topic, but they are related questions to some comments posted above.
(1) Winston wrote about Adam. Was Adam a “literalist”? What I mean is that Adam saw/knew that Eve ate the forbidden fruit. He also saw/knew that she was still physically alive. So might not he have said to himself, “Eve’s not dead. She ate the fruit. I guess it’s safe to eat some too.”
My wonderment: Because Adam appeared to be a “literalist” in how he interpreted God’s warning….
(a) Would it have been better if Adam took God’s warning figuratively? And by doing so, he might have declined to partake of the eating of the forbidden fruit with Eve.
(b) Speculatively, because all we have is the Genesis record, and asking for God’s mercy and forgiveness in advance, could the Lord have been more explicit with Adam so that Adam would understand that physical death would not be instantaneous if they partook of the forbidden fruit, but more slowly?
(2) Arminians and others reject Unconditional Election. Based on my understanding of Dr. Mac’s previous series on Essential Doctrines, I believe that Unconditional Election is not an essential doctrine. Not salvific, let’s say.
Next, Calvinists regard Arminians as fellow heirs to the Kingdom. Or at least most Calvinists do.
So here’s what cracks me up. Arminians are saved through Unconditional Election even though they don’t believe in Unconditional Election!!! Isn’t that funny?
In my recall of C.S. Lewis, Arminian deniers of Unconditional election are carried screaming and kicking into the Heavenly Kingdom! That is funny to me.
Pax all.
BUt what of vwerse like this..?
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.
I think the ‘blinding comes BECAUSE of the hardness
‘and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, BECAUSE they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And FOR THIS REASON God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,that they all may be condemned WHO DID NOT BELIEVE THE TRUTH but had pleasure in unrighteousness’
Your free-will is a slave to your sin-nature. The pharisees in John 9 thought they could see, but Jesus condemned them for that, and He said He came to give sight to the blind. Are you blind? Where will you go to for sight? I hope you don’t answer, “My freewill.”
Deut 5:9 You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Deut 23:3 No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the LORD forever,
We can compare verses about whether descendents suffer consequences for their ancestor actions, but there are verses to support both. We know that mankind suffers the consequences for Adam’s sin. We are born with a sin nature. Using your logic how is that fair? Why are we not born without a sin nature? It would not be near as hard to follow God if we started out perfect. God could have had a lot more Christians if this pesky sin nature wasn’t hindering us. There is only one command. The command all others rest on. Love the God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Just because man made himself unable to accomplish this did not make the requirement go away. Why do you accept that God would punish all of mankind with a sin nature because of Adam, but cannot accept that all are spiritually dead? Either way more people go to Hell than would have otherwise. I stand by my earlier statement.
Next
“I think the ‘blinding’ comes BECAUSE of the hardness”
How does this contradict my view? Man also is saved by faith, which is a result of God’s work (I explained about faith in a previous post). Man has to have faith. He has to believe. Where do these things originate is the question? Where does the hardness come from?
Romans 9:17-18 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
It is just like the ‘whosoever will’ argument. Of course whosoever will come to God will be accepted. But whosever can’t will without God. It always originates with God.
Mostly the arguments appear to come down to – its not fair. Back to one of my previous questions. Assuming I am wrong. God still created people that he knew absolutely would never accept him and were going to hell. Why did God create people he knew would freely reject him?
Penn’s point hits the spot that this discussion will always come back to: Man is born with a sinful nature (Eph 2:3, Rom 5:12-21, 1Cor 15:22), hostile to God (Rom 5:1, 6, 8, 10), and unwilling to come to God. That is man’s nature. Only Adam, Eve, and Jesus were born without a sinful nature. For the rest of us, unless God regenerates us, births us again, giving us a new nature, we’ll always act in accordance with our sinful nature.
“You do not believe because you are not my sheep.” That is, the reason you don’t believe me and receive salvation is because only my sheep — my elect — do that. The reason unbelievers reject Christ is because they’re doing what’s natural for them; they’re acting according to their nature. So they are indeed held responsible for their rejection because they willingly reject Him. But they willingly reject Him because they do not have a nature that is capable of doing otherwise.
Let a little Spurgeon take you home…
“There is no attribute of God more comforting to His children than the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty hath ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of His own hands—the throne of God, and His right to sit upon that throne.
On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on His throne. They will allow Him to be in His workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow Him to be in His almonry to dispense His alms and bestow His bounties. They will allow Him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends His throne, His creatures then gnash their teeth, and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and His right to do as He wills with His own, to dispose of His creatures as He thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on His throne is not the God they love. They love Him anywhere better than they do when He sits with His scepter in His hands and His crown upon His head. But it is God upon the throne we love to preach. It is the God upon the throne whom we trust.”
-Spurgeon, delivered May 4, 1856 in a sermon titled “Divine Sovereignty”
Truth Unites… and Divides,
I do not believe Adam misunderstood God. You give Adam 2 options to understand what God said – literally in a physical death or figuratively in a spiritual death. There is a third option. He understood it literally to mean a spiritual death. We are viewing this from our perspective knowing death. Adam had never seen death. Either spiritual or physical death was a foreign concept all the way around. Genesis 2:17 states that the day he eats the fruit he will die. Did he physically die that day? No. Did he spiritually die that day? Yes. God was not referring to a physical death. The spiritual death was a direct result of sinning against God. The physical death is an indirect result of the consequences just as every other aspect of the curse.
It is obvious from some comments above (e.g., Choose doesn’t mean you choose, it means He chooses…get it? Me neither) that some don’t understand the idea of free will vs. election is a matter of perspectives. Let’s see if I can clear it up a bit. 1) Free will- this is the perspective of man. In my mind, I choose certain things that affect my future either positively or negatively. I cannot physically see the Holy Spirit working in my desires, causing me to choose Christ. This is my perspective. 2) Unconditional election- this is God’s perspective. In God’s eyes, we are but vessels (inanimate objects) fitted for honor or dishonor, whatever God chooses. We were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and that choosing was not based on anything that we have done or will do. This election was based entirely and exclusively on God’s decision to show mercy on some and not others. This is God’s perspective as defined in Romans 9:10-about 22.
God’s unconditional election is repeatedly shown in scripture, and is therefore unarguably true. Man’s responsibility is also repeatedly shown in scripture and is unarguably true. These, however, are not contradictory because they each, simply put, tell it from a different perspective.
Thanks Winston for the explanation.
Can someone recast the Unconditional Election doctrine into David M’s fish-maker metaphor?
I usually try to avoid this but…
The fish were created with wings. They fly to the creator and commune with him all the time. Then one day the fish rip their wings off. Now the creator is still standing there wanting them to come to him, but they can’t. They ripped off their wings. He then chooses some and gives them wings to fly up and meet him. The others he leaves.
Perhaps the biggest argument against the doctrine of election is that it is unfair because God chooses some but not others. These people say that God would not just look over a group of people people and say, “not that one, not that one, oh, I’ll take that one.” Read Romans 9:11-16.
:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
God choose Jacob and rejected Esau even before they were born and had done neither good nor evil, THAT THE PURPOSE OF GOD ACCORDING TO ELECTION MIGHT STAND. This choosing is not of him that willeth (free will) but of God who has mercy on whom He will have mercy.
The truth is, if God wanted to save everyone, He would. He is not bound by the decisions of man, for who is man that God is even mindful of him? Therefore, since God could save everyone, He obviously chose not to save everyone, since not everyone is saved.
And the unfair part isn’t that He didn’t love Esau, it’s that He loved Jacob! If we wanna talk about fairness and justice and judging aright, Jacob didn’t deserve God’s love at all, but He got it. The thing to be talking about with election is not that God didn’t choose everybody; the wonder is that He chose anybody!
Ray B. wrote:
“God gives us the ablity.”
I just wanted to point out that Ray B. has finally admitted that it is God who gives us the ability to repent
. Praise be to God.
The Election / Free Will debate will continue until Christ returns as we can see from this article.
A good book that tries to evaulate the tension between these teachings is, “The Reign of the Servant Kings” by Dr. Joseph Dillow. He does a good job looking at the history of this debate going back to the Council of Dort.
He will disagree with some of the premises of this article. However, I believe he comes up with some new views that are thought provoking.
(Nathan…I thought I had posted this once but maybe I messed something up. However, if I did and it got deleted I would be curious as to why. Was it the tone of the post or the author I recommended. Please email me if you have time. Thanks.)
God has always given us the ability to obey His commands.
He has given us a mind and ears and has given us the word , teachers , all good gifts come from Him , he gives us life , breath , everything necessary to either obey or reject His word. God is “not wanting anyone to perish , but everyone to come to repentance .” 2 Peter 3 : 9. Notice again “anyone” and “everyone” .
I’m a Reform guy, redeemed and an ongoing-sanctification sinner. So I kinda, sorta understand where Arminians come from on the Unconditional Election issue.
Let me ask this: When you Arminians claim that it’s “unfair” of God to choose some and not choose others, are you comforted (in the least) by the response, “We should be immensely thankful that God saves any of us at all”?
I was just curious. Suppose you don’t find that comforting. But you do find that biblical evidence and logic/reasoning clearly supports Election. Then what would you find comforting so that you could reconcile election and your deeply embedded idea/conception of “fairness”?
Truth ,
For me it is not an issue of fair or unfair , it is the issue that election is corporate and that those who are the elect are those who have chosen to believe , to obey the gospel to be saved. It is just a difference in what I believe the scripture teaches about the elect , the predestined and the chosen. They have also been given the freedom of choice. Not just arbitrarily elected, not just a limited atonement , but Jesus died for the whole world. Some have responded , some have not. Praise God for His plan of salvation where he has given everyone the ability to either choose Him or not !
Here’s my question to TULIP folks, including to myself:
What’s the impact if a fellow heir gets the doctrine of election wrong? Besides the fact that they’re mistaken, that is.
What is the impact to themselves, as individuals, and what is the impact to the Body of Christ corporately, should they teach a doctrine that is contrary to the doctrine of Unconditional Election?
And as I mentioned previously, if Dr. Mac does not believe that this doctrine is “essential”, but just because something is not “essential” does not mean it’s not important. In fact, the doctrine of election is important. But I would like to inquire: How important is it?
Thanks in advance for any responses.
If TYULIP is true, it doers kind of seem it best NOT to stress it while evangelizing (at least until the person is saved) because it kiknd of gives the4 sinner an “out” from making a decision…if he thinks God decides anyway, why not harden his heart, as scripture wqarns not to do. It seems to discourage and not much else..Eiother to despair (“I’m probably not the elect” or apathy “If I am, God will get me anyway”… We know in the real world people do not repent immediately but ponder for a while in some cases.
If TYULIP is true, it doers kind of seem it best NOT to stress it while evangelizing (at least until the person is saved) because it kiknd of gives the4 sinner an “out” from making a decision…if he thinks God decides anyway, why not harden his heart, as scripture wqarns not to do. It seems to discourage and not much else..Eiother to despair (“I’m probably not the elect” or apathy “If I am, God will get me anyway”… We know in the real world people do not repent immediately but ponder for a while in some cases.
If TYULIP is true, it doers kind of seem it best NOT to stress it while evangelizing (at least until the person is saved) because it kiknd of gives the4 sinner an “out” from making a decision…if he thinks God decides anyway, why not harden his heart, as scripture wqarns not to do. It seems to discourage and not much else..Eiother to despair (“I’m probably not the elect” or apathy “If I am, God will get me anyway”… We know in the real world people do not repent immediately but ponder for a while in some cases.
What is the impact to themselves, as individuals, and what is the impact to the Body of Christ corporately, should they teach a doctrine that is contrary to the doctrine of Unconditional Election?
I’m sure people could write a book full of answers. I’ll take a stab at some.
I think a grave impact is that they dishonor the grace and sufficiency of Christ and His atoning work. Denying that we are so sinful that we are incapable of exercising faith apart from regeneration is to make our sin not as bad as it actually is. To the degree that we view our sin as being not as bad at it actually is, to that degree we reduce the sufficiency and the grandiosity of the grace of Christ. To not understand how bad we really are is to not understand how great Christ really is.
Another huge problem is that they fail to see Christ in all His glory. There is so much glory that God’s sovereignty in election brings Him that is just dashed by any notion of human capability apart from Him. When Moses asks God to show him His glory in Exodus 33, God’s says, “Alright, I’m gonna cause all my goodness to pass in front of you. You won’t see my face, but here’s what you’ve got: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” The answer to “Show me your glory” was “I choose whomever I please.” I also think of the Spurgeon quote that I cited above. “There is no attribute of God more comforting to His children than the doctrine of divine sovereignty.” To not know the sovereignty of His grace is to miss out on so much of who He is.
Another impact, this one corporate, is that you facilitate error in the church. People who reject the sovereignty of God in election teach other people to do the same. That necessarily obscures the face of Christ for entire churches. People cannot enjoy Christ in His fullness because they are not sure what He actually looks like.
It also places an undue pressure on both the witness and the sinner in evangelism. We get it into our heads that if we can make the right arguments or present things in the right way, we’ll get people saved. Similarly, if we don’t do everything right that person might go to hell because we screwed up. If one person accepts it it’s because “they got it” and if another rejects it it’s because they just aren’t smart enough to get it. And all of this, by the way, robs Christ of His glory and His sufficiency in saving His elect.
I’ll close with probably the biggest impact. Rejection of the sovereignty of God in salvation necessarily leads to (if one is logically consistent) all kinds of heresy. What I’m saying is that if someone applies that theology consistently, the logical conclusions bring us to doctrines such as Open Theism, in which God is not only not in control of anything, but He has no idea what’s even gonna happen. It also leads to a denial of the doctrine of Original Sin — that men were born condemned by their sin in Adam (Rom 5:12-21, 1Cor 15:22, Eph 2:3), and so are guilty before God even before they are born (Ps 51:5, Rom 9:11-16). The denial of this doctrine has been historically condemned as heresy, as Pelagianism, since the late 4th and early 5th centuries, AD.
There are more, but I’m tired of typing.
A bit of an aside, but..It’s funny how we go around teaching the L in tulip (limited atonement) when the scriptures say no such thing. Quite the opposite, in fact. It’s a reasonable inference, to be sure, but is it stated…NO. The Darwin Fish crowd really has a point on that one.
“…shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” — Acts 20:28
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” — John 1:10-11
“Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, ‘It is finished!’” — John 19:30
He purchased the Church, not every single person in the world. He laid His life down for the sheep, not the goats. The atonement is finished and actual, not initiated and potential.
L: 3
David: 0
David,
Scripture never mentions the Trinity, but I beleive we all beleive in the Trinity.
David,
Did Winston’s clarification of your fish-maker story help you?
It helped me. Thanks Winston.
P.S. Thanks Mike for your answer about the importance of the Doctrine of Election. I agree with you here:
“Rejection of the sovereignty of God in salvation necessarily leads to (if one is logically consistent) all kinds of heresy.”
Going back to an earlier comment I made. (Most)Calvinists agree that Arminians are fellow heirs. Denial of Unconditional Election would and does lead into other kinds of heresy.
Conclusion: There will be some heretics in Heaven! Agree or disagree?
Limited atonement is wrong in light of John 3 : 16 , and I John 2 : 2 . Also , why would we need to bother about world-wide evangelism ? Jesus gave the command to go into all the world. I know some would say but we do not know who is the elect. But if people are incapable of listening and obeying then why even try? Actually how can you be for sure that if you are preaching and teaching that you are one of the elect ? However , when you consider that the elect are those who obey , then you realize the whole world needs to hear and are very capable , but will be given a choice.
TUAD,
We have to be careful about our definition of heresy. By definition, heresy is something that separates. The very meaning of the word means “sect” or “faction.” That is, a heretic is separated from God based on not believing in Him. They say they believe in Him, but they’re really speaking about a different “him.” There will be no heretics, properly defined, in heaven. Saying that Unconditional Election can lead to heresy isn’t the same thing as saying it is heresy.
Ray,
The point isn’t to preach only the elect. Because we don’t know who they are we preach to everybody.
But if people are incapable of listening and obeying then why even try?
People are incapable of obeying, but we try because we know that by the message of the Gospel preach, they become capable when regenerated by God (Isaiah 55:10-11, 1 Peter 1:23-25). Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ. So we preach the Word of Christ which is the power of God for salvation to all who believe (Rom 1:16).
Actually how can you be for sure that if you are preaching and teaching that you are one of the elect?
Because the Holy Spirit testifies with our conscience that we are children of God (Rom 8:16). Quite simply, we know the God revealed in Scripture. His sheep know His voice (John 10).
However, when you consider that the elect are those who obey…
You’re right that the elect are those obey, but they don’t become the elect by virtue of their obedience. Who’s electing who here?
…then you realize the whole world needs to hear…
We already realize that without subscribing to errant theology.
…and are very capable…
This is incorrect. Dead sinners are incapable. They are only capable if regenerated.
…but will be given a choice.
No one denies that they have a choice. At all. Sinners willfully reject God. They make their choice. My point is that they never don’t make that choice unless they’re given a new nature that is capable of making a choice for God.
Saying that Unconditional Election can lead to heresy isn’t the same thing as saying it is heresy.
No doubt Mike, no doubt.
Actually, what you probably meant to say was, “Saying that DENIAL of Unconditional Election can lead to heresy isn’t the same thing as saying that the DENIAL is heresy.”
I get that. So….
(A) It’s not salvific-impacting if one denies Unconditional Election, and possibly teaches against Unconditional Election too. Right?
(B) Therefore, Denial of Unconditional Election is NOT a heresy.
(C) If I’ve captured this correctly, it’s either Unconditional Election or Conditional Election. If it’s conditional election, then man played some role in his election. Let’s call that role, “works”. So faith + “works” is not a heresy. As such, Arminians are fellow heirs and not heretics. They just have some aberrant doctrine that they hold onto and teach. Have I understood you correctly Mike?
Since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God , Rom. 10 ;17 then that states all are capable of either having faith or not. Since all are commnaded to repent , Luke 13 : 3 , Acts 17 : 30 then all must be capable. All will not beleive and all will not repent. It is free choice.
Limited atonement is wrong in light of John 3:16, and I John 2:2.
John 3:16 says “whosoever will”. How does this negate limited atonement? How does this disagree with election? We believe that “whosoever will” also. As I stated before, the “whosoever” cannot and will not “will” without God giving them life. It says “whosoever will” not “everyone may”. It is like saying “whosoever will jump to the moon”. The “whosoever will” has no bearing on whether someone is capable.
1 John 2:2 This has been explained many times by many people. The phrase “whole world” means every nation or peoples. Scripture clearly can be shown to use the term this way. I will concede that it possibly can be read using your interpretation. I believe that this verse does not prove either view, and needs to be interpreted using other scripture. This is what both of us are doing.
As to why spread the gospel? Jesus commanded it. It is God’s chosen method of salvation. He has allowed us to participate in his plan. He could have let the rocks spread the gospel if he chose. Also I have the confidence now of knowing that the gospel I spread will bear fruit. I can preach to the most hardened heart and know beyond a doubt that they can be reached.
I enjoy your questions and hope that my answers are not received in anything but love. I do have a question for David and Ray. Have you studied this in depth? Have you studied the Calvinist side to really understand their position? It seems that some of the arguments against election are elementary. I say this not to offend. I just think if you haven’t, then you can get better answers than here. There are many books and articles that can give you a more thorough and complete answer than we can in snippets in a blog.
Those who view God as God, sovereign, will see that God can make decisions as He sees just to Himself, and not necessary His creation.
Ray,
You said, “Since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God , Rom. 10 ;17 then that states all are capable of either having faith or not.”
This is not true. Faith comes by hearing, but it is not a necessary result, nor does the faith come from within man himself. All are capable of hearing, but not all are capable of faith.
Give me YOUR definition of election. You are denying this doctrine based on your view of election, so it would help me in discussing this with you if I knew what you believed about what election is in the first place.
Ray,
I wanted to piggy-back on what Daniel Chaney said to you. You said, “Since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God , Rom. 10 ;17 then that states all are capable of either having faith or not. Since all are commnaded to repent , Luke 13 : 3 , Acts 17 : 30 then all must be capable. All will not beleive and all will not repent. It is free choice.”
I would agree that the outward call of the gospel is a choice and a command from every single individual to repent and believe. However, we must remember that those who are dead in sin are now willing or able to use there “free-will” and choose to believe the gospel.
Let me put it this way. Is it pleasing to God for a non-believer to repent and put saving faith in Christ? The answer is obviously yes. But, when we look at Romans 8:8 Paul says, “those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” He also said in 3:10 that, “no one seeks God”
This is why God must call us effectually (John 6:44).
Ray,
I wanted to piggy-back on what Daniel Chaney said to you. You said, “Since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God , Rom. 10 ;17 then that states all are capable of either having faith or not. Since all are commnaded to repent , Luke 13 : 3 , Acts 17 : 30 then all must be capable. All will not beleive and all will not repent. It is free choice.”
I would agree that the outward call of the gospel is a choice and a command from every single individual to repent and believe. However, we must remember that those who are dead in sin are now willing or able to use there “free-will” and choose to believe the gospel.
Let me put it this way. Is it pleasing to God for a non-believer to repent and put saving faith in Christ? The answer is obviously yes. But, when we look at Romans 8:8 Paul says, “those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” He also said in 3:10 that, “no one seeks God”
This is why God must call us effectually (John 6:44).
TUAD,
I did mean “Denying…” Thanks for catching that.
If I’ve captured this correctly, it’s either Unconditional Election or Conditional Election. If it’s conditional election, then man played some role in his election. Let’s call that role, “works”. So faith + “works” is not a heresy. As such, Arminians are fellow heirs and not heretics. They just have some aberrant doctrine that they hold onto and teach. Have I understood you correctly Mike?
I have to confess that I don’t have this all worked out. I’d like to hear Phil Johnson or John MacArthur or especially John Piper talk about why not just the lack of acceptance of the doctrines of grace, but their DENIAL, isn’t heresy.
But one thing that we have to be careful of is equating classical Arminianism with Pelagianism and/or Semi-Pelagianism. The way you wrote what you did above makes it very difficult for me to say that it’s not heresy. Faith + works is the very “different gospel” that Paul condemns in Galatians 1.
Classical Arminians say that salvation is by grace alone, but I think they’re inconsistent in how they define that. They believe in original sin, that we’re born with the inherited sin of Adam, and are guilty before God for it even in the womb. What they do to ameliorate original sin is captured in their doctrine prevenient grace. That is, there is a universal act of God’s grace that brings man to a point where he’s capable of accepting or rejecting. When that happened, I don’t know. It’s definitely not taught in Scripture. I believe it’s a made up moment based on faulty interpretations and extrapolations of texts. For example, someone sees a command to believe in Scripture and decides that that necessarily requires that people are capable of believing in and of themselves. This is entirely a priori, without justification from any biblical passage.
As aberrant and dreadfully erroneous as that is, I don’t know that I can call that “faith + works.” So I’m not sure I can say that all Arminians are heretics.
The reality is that we’ve all got some bad points in our theology. We don’t know where they are, because if we did we’d fix em. But they’re there. Our understanding is imperfect. But it’s important to remember that in the same way election isn’t conditional upon my mustered-up choice, it isn’t conditional upon my understanding either. That is in no way an absolution to be diligent laborers in the Word of God. We do have to believe the true Gospel (Gal 1:6-10), and we do have to believe in the Christ who is and not the one of our imagination.
So that’s where the line gets drawn. Am I certain that Arminianism is a different gospel? By no means. Do I think it’s possible that it’s a different gospel? Sure do. Best bet? Get on your knees and pray for the grace to surrender your own conceptions of God, pray for the truth to be revealed, and accept the doctrines of grace as revealed in Scripture.
Sorry I don’t have a better answer.
Here is the concept of free will, as defined by the doctrines of grace: Jer 13:23 “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” Man’s will is free, in so much as he is free to choose inside his nature. Man has a sin nature, and therefore is free to choose accordingly. To use the fish example, a fish is free to choose to swim, but not to fly. The fish maker can give the fish wings, and then that fish can fly, but not before.
Some here have said to this: “well then if someone is not saved, then it is not their fault, they were not the elect.” It is true, they were not the elect, but this does not disolve their responsibility. If they would have accepted Christ, they would have been the elect. This is not to say that this makes them the elect, but from our perspective, whether one accepts Christ or not shows whether he was elected or not. He may not have been elected, but he did not know that and still did not make any effort. No one who desires Christ has not been elected to that, so someone who rejects Christ has no reason to complain that he was not elected, because if he had accepted Christ, he would have been elected before the foundation of the world. This sounds confusing because I am changing back and forth between man’s perspective and God’s perspective, so understand that. Here is what Charles Spurgeon said about this.
“But there are some who say, “It is hard for God to choose some and leave others.” Now, I will ask you one question. Is there any one of you here this morning who wishes to be holy, who wishes to be regenerate, to leave their life of sin and walk in holiness? “Yes, there is,” says some one, “I do.” Then God has elected you. But another says, “No: I don’t want to be holy; I don’t want to give up my lusts and my vices.” Why should you grumble, then, that God has not elected you to it? For if you were elected you would not like it, according to your own confession. If God, this morning, had chosen you to holiness, you say you would not care for it. Do you not acknowledge that you prefer drunkenness to sobriety, dishonesty to honesty? You love this world’s pleasure better than religion; then why should you grumble that God has not chosen you to religion? If you love religion, He has chosen you to it. If you desire it, He has chosen you to it. If you do not, what right have you to say that God ought to have given you what you do not wish for?
Supposing I had in my hand something which you do not value, and I said I shall give it to such-and-such a person: you would have no right to grumble that I did not give it to you. You could not be so foolish as to grumble that the other has got what you did not care about. According to your own confession, many of you do not want religion, do not want a new heart and a right spirit, do not want the forgiveness of sins, do not want to be holy, you do not want to be elected to these things: then why should you grumble? You count these things as worthless, and why should you complain of God who has given them to those whom He has chosen?” – Charles Spurgeon
Daniel Chaney, you said: If they would have accepted Christ, they would have been the elect.
Elsewhere on this board it is said that God elected his own from before the foundation of the world, and irregardless of whether they would have accepted or rejected Christ. That position is what I was referring to in my post above on March 1: if the Elect are chosen without considering whether they would have accepted Christ or not, then those not chosen can not be said to have been left behind because they would have rejected Christ. People’s potential acceptance or rejection of Christ has no bearing on whether God picked them as an Elect in eternity past. What you have said seems to be a direct contradiction of this.
I have no interest in convincing anyone that the Reformed position is wrong. I am simply trying to understand the logic behind the Reformed position. Hence my questions. I come not to condem but to be enlightened.
What would you call one who believes that no man comes to Jesus except that he is called by the Father/Holy Spirit, yet believes that one so called can resist the calling?
—–
I believe that the most important prose in the Bible is the question “what must I do to be saved?” I believe everything in the Bible is connected in some way to answering that question and to explaining why that question is important. The man who was perhaps the most important writer of the New Testament was asked that question. Therefore, I believe that the answer he either gave or allowed to be given by his partner carries some theological weight.
Q: What must I do to be saved? A: Believe
An unregenerate asked a regenerate. The regenerate told the unregenrate: “believe”. What must I do in order that I might obtain salvation? A: Believe. What comes first? Belief? Why believe? In order that the unregenerate might gain salvation. That is how I interpret that verse. How do the Reformed interpret it?
Pastor MacArthur states at the top of this topic that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. Asking “what must I do to be saved” seems to me to be the first move in the salvation process. But wait. There was a mighty move of God just prior to the jailer asking this question – so it does make sense to claim that God moved first, and the jailer asked his question in response. But wait again, someone above claimed that the unregenerate, dead in their trespasses and sin, cannot recognize any work of God because they are spiritually dead. So why did the unregenerate ask “what must I do to be saved”? Did he recognize a move of God in his unregenerate state or not? And what exactly did the most important theologian in the New Testament mean when he told the regenerate to believe first, and then salvation would follow?
Again, I’m not being cheeky here. I am genuinely confused about how the Reformed interpret this transaction in the Bible and would like to be clued in.
Said transaction would be the conversation between Paul and Silas and the jailer. Forgot to make that explicit in the above post.
The reality is that we’ve all got some bad points in our theology.
Thanks for the honest answer Mike! And your statement above is what I meant to convey. The vast majority of the Elect will have bad points in their theology, and it is by God’s wonderful grace and tender mercies, that we are forgiven and washed by the blood of Jesus to be adopted heirs into the Kingdom.
So Arminians et al have some bad points in their theology just like we all do. That doesn’t mean that we don’t try to lovingly correct those mistaken beliefs. Since most Calvinists won’t term Arminians heretics, then aberrant teaching is about the severest anyone will go.
And a mild aberrant belief and aberrant teaching is not enough to deny someone Heaven. Although it could, and often does, cause serious damage to the Body of Christ through its impact on related doctrines.
Adam and Eve personally walked and talked with God – and they sinned anyway!! Why?? You really want me to believe they were not created with a sin nature and I was? Adam and Eve sinned – before the fall even. I sin. Why is it important to claim that my nature is different from theirs when the end result is the same – we both sin(ned)?
Richard,
My comment was a bit confusing, I know. As I said, I was changing back and forth between God’s perspective and man’s perspective. From God’s perspective, He knows who will be saved because He has already chosen them. From our perspective, we cannot know who will be saved, and therefore, to us, our decision is what determines our election. I hope that clarifies my position.
You said, “Pastor MacArthur states at the top of this topic that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. Asking “what must I do to be saved” seems to me to be the first move in the salvation process. But wait. There was a mighty move of God just prior to the jailer asking this question – so it does make sense to claim that God moved first, and the jailer asked his question in response. But wait again, someone above claimed that the unregenerate, dead in their trespasses and sin, cannot recognize any work of God because they are spiritually dead. So why did the unregenerate ask “what must I do to be saved”? Did he recognize a move of God in his unregenerate state or not? And what exactly did the most important theologian in the New Testament mean when he told the regenerate to believe first, and then salvation would follow?
We can reasonably assume that the jailor had been made spiritually alive (quickened) because he asked this question. Had he remained spiritually dead, he could not have asked this question with sincerity. God did move first, but not just in the mighty earthquake just prior to this question. God’s first move toward the jailor’s salvation was not in the heart of the jail, but in the heart of the jailor. It is true, the unregenerate cannot recognize any work of God, so the “unregenerate” did not ask “what must I do to be saved”? The regenerate asked this question. The quickening came first.
Richard,
Are you saying you believe that Adam and Eve were created with a sin nature?
Truth Unites…
yes, thank God for that. The Bible doesn’t say “If any man believes he responded to God’s offer of salvation, let him be anthema.”
Winston, Yes, that’s it…reformed thinkers believe God ordained man’s fall..therefore Adam had free will AND a sin nature,or at least the capacity, whereas Christ did not.
But what about those who seem to be ‘nudged’ but turn away( apparently, anyway)? Such as the rich young man and Agrippa? Was God toying with them? (I always considered that they might turn later. How many of us, being ‘nudged’ resisted for some time?
Truth Unites…
yes, thank God for that. The Bible doesn’t say “If any man believes he responded to God’s offer of salvation, let him be anthema.”
You’re welcome David M. But even so, I do strongly believe that Christians have an obligation to obtain and teach biblically correct Doctrine.
Just as Dr. Mac posted a series on “Essential” doctrines, the logical inference is that there is a corresponding taxonomy for aberrant doctrine. Some aberrant doctrines won’t prevent someone from enjoying eternity in heaven (maybe less crowns though), but others might. Calvinists graciously believe that Arminians are fellow heirs to the Kingdom of God.
And we who are neither Calvinists nor Arminians acknowledge the same. And, just to state it once again, we in-betweeners
a) Don’t think we ’saved’ ourselves.
b) Acknowledge God’s sovereingty
c)Don’t see things with Spurgeon’s appalingly prideful view as evidenced in the following quote:
What will he care for the pitiful chirpings of some tiny sparrows when he knows that he is an eagle of the royal race? Will he care when the beggar makes fun of him, when the royal blood of heaven runs in his veins? Will he fear if all the world stands against him? If all the earth is at war, he dwells in perfect peace, for he is in the secret place of the tabernacle of the Most High, in the great pavilion of the Almighty. “I am God’s,” says he, “I am distinct from other men. They are of an inferior race. Am I not noble? Am I not one of the aristocrats of heaven? Is not my name written in God’s book?” Does he care for the world? No: like the lion that doesn’t care for the barking of the dog, he smiles at all his enemies; and when they come too near him, he moves and cuts them to pieces.
I’m too humble to be that kind of Calivnist.
If each indidvisul is totally incapable of responding to the Gosepel then why were they cut to the heart and said what shall we do ? And if they were totally incapable or so totally dead they had no ability to do anything then why did they ask ? And why did Peter tell them to repent and be baptized if they were not capable ? Why would Peter plead with them , ” Save yourselves from his corrupt generation ” ?
Ray,
Because Christ was working in them. That is why they asked in the first place. Peter told them to do what they were able to do only because the Holy Spirit enabled them. A fish cannot fly, but a fish with wings can. These men could not repent, but these men empowered by the Holy Spirit could.
David,
I think you misunderstand Spurgeon’s meaning. He is not meaning to say that we should look down on others because we are the elect and they are not (for as he has said before, we were not chosen based on anything in ourselves). He is saying that since we are the elect, we should not worry about what men say about us or do to us because we are secure in Christ.
You said, “I’m too humble to be that kind of Calivnist.”
I find it ironic that you say you are too humble to hold to the Calvinistic view that man is completely dead in sin’s and unable to contribute a jot to his salvation. What could be a more humble view of salvation than this? You say you are too humble, yet you hold that man is able, in and of himself, to conjure up faith in God. Which do you think is the more humble view of salvation?
David M. wrote, “Yes, that’s it…reformed thinkers believe God ordained man’s fall. Therefore Adam had free will AND a sin nature, or at least the capacity, whereas Christ did not.”
This is not reformed theology as I have studied it. Someone correct me if I am wrong (I have been before). Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature. This does not mean that they were created without the capacity for sin. Even some angels had the capacity for sin yet not a sin nature. Once Adam and Eve sinned they then died spiritually and their nature was then corrupted to one of sin. Jesus was born without a sin nature, but that is not why he did not sin. He did not sin because he was perfect God. Because Adam and Eve were not born with a sin nature they had what most would probably call a freewill. A person cannot have freewill and a sin nature. Having a sin nature means having a nature bent towards sin.
Ray,
They responded because God had given them life. They were not dead when they responded. Peter told them to repent because the ones who had been given life would hear and understand. That is why we always preach to everyone because we do not know who is elect or not. Telling people what they need to do to follow God says nothing about the persons ability to do it.
It seems that there might be a misunderstanding of the elect having spiritual life. They are not born with spiritual life. They must be born again. That is when the Spirit comes and gives them life. A person is not born again when repents. He repents because he has been born again. A person also does not always immediately repent after he is born again. It is what starts the road to repentance. This would be the ‘nudge’ as someone called it.
For people who believe that freewill is essential. In heaven how does God make sure that we don’t sin anymore? Will we still have the freewill to sin if we chose? How can God enjoy praises from people who are forced to follow him? Wouldn’t this make us robots? What about the angels who did not follow Satan? Can they still sin? Do they have a freewill? Maybe they had a freewill and after that one choice God locked each angel to the side they chose?
Ray,
I’d say all your questions have been answered satisfactorily except, “Why did Peter say ‘Save yourselves…’”. I’ve spoken to you about this before. The rendering “Save yourselves” is an abolutely terrible translation from the Greek. There is no contention in any manuscript that this is the first aorist passive of the verb sozo, to save. The proper translation is, “Be (ye) saved.”
Ray,
I agree with Mike. Peter did not and could not have said “save yourselves.” Even you agree that salvation is of God, not of works, so this argument is just as much against your view as it is against mine. Peter could not have said “save yourselves” and you know it.
Here are the conclusions some seem to be bringing us to in this blog.
1. Everyone is totally incapable of doing anything for salvation. No , not works of merit , just anything like believe, repent, etc. without some kind of a supernatural , irrisistible grace intervention only in the lives of only those some say are the chosen. All the others are lost no matter what. There is nothing the non- elect can do. They are just bound for hell because of an arbitrary decsion.
2. Scripture does tell us that God commands all people everywhere to repent. Therefore God will intervene to make sure everyone will obey Him and repent , since no one can repent without supernatural , miraculous intervention. Everyone will just repent no matter what they do.
3. Therefore everyone eventually , somehow will be saved. So , then universalism is the answer. Strange how this has all turned from only some being saved to all. Election , then must mean all will be the chosen.
Peter did say , you must do somethisng however you want to translate Acts 2 : 40 . He was pleading with them. But that is ok because some of you have made it clear that no matter what we are all going to be saved. No one can do anything without direct miraculous intervention and God is not willing for anyone to be lost , so you are so right, all will be saved since no one has any ability except what God gives us supernaturally.
2. Scripture does tell us that God commands all people everywhere to repent. Therefore God will intervene to make sure everyone will obey Him and repent , since no one can repent without supernatural , miraculous intervention. Everyone will just repent no matter what they do.
Whoa. Strawman alert.
Because God commands everyone to repent, and since no one can repent without His regenerating grace, that means that God will regenerate everyone?
Ray, no one said this, and you know no one did. Why are you just trying to caricature truth? If you want to show our positions to be unbiblical or invalid, then deal with what we’re actually saying. Don’t tell us we’re saying something and then show how ridiculous that thing is.
The proper conclusion, picking up right after the 1st sentence of #2, is: Therefore, it is God and God alone who is the agent of salvation and therefore is alone worthy of glory in the work of redemption. All of His elect will be saved because He will cause them to be born again, and He will lose none that the Father has given to Him because He himself effectually calls the elect and only the elect unto salvation.
Peter did say, you must do something.
That’s right. But he understood that before I could do something, God had to do something. God having to do something first does not negate the fact that I do in fact have to do something.
Jesus elucidates that in John 3, when Jesus tells Nicodemus what he’s gotta do to be saved. Jesus tells him that he’s got to be born again. He doesn’t give him a 4-step program. He doesn’t give him a 40-day devotional. He says, You’ve got to be born again. Nicodemus understands that this is impossible with men, and asks, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he go back into the womb…?” And Jesus says, don’t marvel about this being born again stuff. As to how it happens, the Spirit of God is like the wind. The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. In the same way, the Spirit regenerates whom God wishes and you see/hear the effects of Him, but you don’t know why it comes to one and not the other.
Peter, knowing that the born-again will respond in faith, calls for faith, because it’s something that we do once born again. And he even says, “Be saved.” That’s a passive sentence. Next time a family member is drowning, yell out to them, “Be saved,” and see how well they fare without the intervention of a deliverer. “Be saved” means “Believe in the One who can save you.” Peter says this knowing that only the elect who are being called of God will respond in faith.
Mike ,
God did through the preaching of thwe word. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. So Peter has preached and he is still pleading with the people to obey. But no where does the text say that God miraculously intervened in that those who obyed could not help themselves but to obey. It simply says that those who accepted his message were baptized. They heard the message.The power is in the gospel , they heard it , obeyed it , were added to the church. They are the elect. All who obey are the elect. God purposed before the fondation of the world that those who would obey would be the elect. If not, then that is why I am saying that the only possible conclusion to what some are saying is the effectual call , is that God who does not want anyone to perish and who commnads all to repent , then must intercede in a supernatural way, and if so then all will be saved. Rom. 5 : 18 . My real point is that so many times I have been told that I am not being logical. Well , all I ma saying is that what I am reading in these posts brings us to the logical conclusions I have just said. Not that I agree to them , but that seems to be the logical conclusions. I keep reading that no one has the ability to beleive without a divine supernatural intervention but all have responsibility. So it only seems reasonable that God will supply both for all since he wants all to be saved. Logical conclusions .
I keep reading that no one has the ability to beleive without a divine supernatural intervention but all have responsibility. So it only seems reasonable that God will supply both for all since he wants all to be saved. Logical conclusions .
That is not a logical conclusion.
That does not “only seem reasonable.”
That is a jump you’ve made that doesn’t follow biblically or rationally from any statement any of us have made.
Ray, I don’t want to be overly severe and over rhetorical, but I think this applies without being either. I know you’ll say I’m “personally attacking” you, but I beg you to hear that I’m not. But the answer that rings in my head as I read your response is: “You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” I believe that this is that severe.
Romans 10:17 means that people who otherwise cannot believe will believe because of the regenerating power of the gospel. If it’s up to them to believe or refuse, where’s the power of the gospel? If your gospel is so powerful, why did only 3,000 people accept it? Why didn’t everyone? I mean, it’s the same gospel, right? They didn’t change it, did they? So why doesn’t everyone believe it, if it’s up to them?
The answer is that it’s not up to them. They’re dead, and will never be anything but dead unless they’re reborn. They’re reborn by the word (1 Peter 2:23-25): we were begotten again by an imperishable seed, the word that was preached to us.
It is not true that “the only possible conclusion to an effectual call” is universalism. You say it is because God wants all to be saved. This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the volitional and decretive aspects of God’s will. I ask you to read this before responding further on this topic.
But carrying it further, let’s suppose you’re right for a second. That means that God wants all to be saved, but He’s incapable of bringing that to pass. The God who says, “I will accomplish all my good pleasure,” and “No purpose of Mine is thwarted,” and “Who can ever say to God, ‘What have you done?’” is incapable of doing what He wants. He’s no longer God. And let me tell you something, before you object to these logical conclusions: that’s exactly what the Open Theists have acknowledged. People have said this very thing to them, and they go, “Huh. You know, you’re right! You know what that means? It means God doesn’t really know how to get what He wants.” That is completely consistent with Arminian theology. Arminians don’t all confess to that belief, which is good, but they’re being inconsistent.
So again, please read Piper’s article and understand 1 Timothy 2:4 aright.
Mike ,
I have only said that when I read what you and others say that take your position, these are the logical conlusions.
Not everyone will accept the message. Some did not accept Jesus and they saw His miracles. But that is my point, they could have but chose not to believe. It has always been a free choice. I do not believe in universalism but if you put everyone commanded to repent , God wants all to be saved , and no one has any ability but only what God gives ,then the only conclusion is everyone will be saved , if I follow your reasoning. Not a jump or a stretch but just following your line of reasoning. And I do not have to read Piper but it is true God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. No quarrel with what God wants. It is what He wants and He either gives free choice and each person can freely love Him by obedeince or else intervenes to make sure all obey since no one can , because no one has any ablility without direct, superantural intervention , completely sopernaturally controlling an ididviduals mind and heart, and then saving all . Only conclusions to be made if no one ever has any ability to believe , love , obey, mourn over sin , repent , etc.
Winston ,
If we do not have free will then we are just robots. On Pentecost they were told after they heard the gospel to repent and to be baptized. Some made that choice. Others did not , free will.
Ray,
Oh no, you used the “R” word! These guys’ll have you for lunch now. Any reference to robots or puppets is fatal! I agree with you, though. The suggestion seems to be that God has some sort of limbic lag going back to Eden wherein He continues to command repentance and obedience to those who CANNOT obey. Those whom he intends to make obey, He calls by the “foolishness of preaching”. Certainly hHe makes the first move but I believe the scripture indicates man can accept or not. The parable in Luke 14 is senseless otherwise.
Ray and David,
In reference to being robots. Will we be robots in heaven? Why will we never sin? What about the angels? This is what I was asking.
Ray,
We do have to acknowledge more than one will of God. It can be seen in creation itself. Does God desire a creation that rebels? No! (That is will number 1) Did he chose and plan to create a creation that rebels? Yes! (That is will number 2) Does he will that any should perish? No! (Will number 1) Does he chose that some should? Yes! (Will number 2) He could have created people with ‘freewill’ while at the same time giving them the strength to never sin. He is God after all. Again I go back to heaven. Why will we not sin in heaven? Does he take away our freewill? Could he have not skipped the whole fall/sin part and gone straight to heaven? Maybe he could have looked into the future and seen who would choose him and chose those for heaven. Why did God chose to create people he knew absolutley would never chose him. Whether by freewill or not God created people he knew were destined to go nowhere but hell. Saying anything less is to deny God’s knowledge.
I have already stated this earlier with no response.
Ray,
It has become clear to me that you know nothing of election. You said, “They are the elect. All who obey are the elect. God purposed before the fondation of the world that those who would obey would be the elect.” NO NO NO!! God purposed before the foundation of the world that the elect would obey! Election is done BEFORE salvation. We are not the elect because we are saved, we are saved because we are the elect. When Romans 8:29-30 speaks of predestination, do you know what that means? It means that God destined us to be conformed to the image of His Son. This happened before the foundation of the world. How then can you say that if we obey then we are the elect. You say that if A we obey, then B we are the elect. The Bible says that if A we are the elect, then B we will obey. Romans 9 explains election quite clearly, but it seems as if you are refusing to believe it.
You also said, “If we do not have free will then we are just robots.”
Not so. We are completely free to do what our nature is inclined to do–sin. Jer 13:23 “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.”
I heaven we will be free from the earthly confines of our tabernacle. In our flesh nothing good dwells.
it seems the reaction would be more “whew! That was close”. I can’;t conceive of the Moabites in that scenario adoring David and praising his grace at not killing them all.
As for the gushing gratitude displayed by unconditional election believers, I don’t get it. If we were merely chosen lottery-style (as in the Moabites in 2 Samuel
Perhaps the biggest reason that the Arminian denies the doctrines of election and reprobation is because they insist that God would not create men for the express purpose of sending them to hell. However, in denying this, it should be noted that the Arminian belief holds to this very belief, although not openly. The Arminian tries to avoid these doctrines by stressing God’s foreknowledge above His predestination. However, they must admit these doctrines on the basis that God did indeed create men for hell, because He did indeed create them, and they will indeed go to hell. They also admit, by stressing foreknowledge, that God created them with the knowledge that they would go to hell. The effect of foreknowledge is the same as the effect of predestination. God could have only created those who would go to heaven, but He didn’t. Why didn’t He? God could have predestined all men to heaven, but He didn’t. Why didn’t He? The answer to these questions are one and the same: God desires His own glory more than He desires to save everyone. It is useless for the Arminian to debate election on the basis of foreknowledge rather than predestination, because the effect of each is the same. So ultimately, Arminians believes the same as Calvinists, they just don’t want to admit it. Either that, or they just don’t see it, and if this is the case, they need to.
David,
Why don’t you get it? If election is unconditional, then God’s grace is the only reason we are saved. The truth is that if God gave out justice, every single person would go to hell. The “gushing gratitude” comes as a response to the fact that WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS Christ died for us. There is no greater love than that God chose me based on nothing in myself. In fact, in my flesh I despised God. The fact that He chose me anyway demands my “gushing gratitude.”
David,
I can see how you would not understand this “gushing gratitude” based on your view of man’s contribution to salvation.
David,
I can see how you would not understand this “gushing gratitude” based on your view of man’s contribution to salvation.
David,
I can see how you would not understand this “gushing gratitude” based on your view of man’s contribution to salvation.
I don’t see how creating those you know will go to hell is the same as creating them for that purpose. There is a VAST difference. The difference being the “Romans 1 factor…”
..who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” As John MacArthur says, They have no one to blame but themselves.
Allowing people to choose rejection is hard, certainly, but not unjust.
As for my view of man’s contribution to salvation…it is hardly a meritorious act worthy of praise. Mere acknowledgment that God is holy, I am not and I am, furthermore, powerless to do anything to save myself. I allow myself to be plucked from the jaws of hell. That’s cause for pride? Then all the drunks at AA ought to be puffed up as well.
p.s. Side note: I’ve been reading the MacArthur Study Bible since it came out 13-14 years ago and all JM’s books as well and listening to Grace to You all the time. I even support the ministry and recommend it to others regularly as an antidote against error. I consider J Mac the best Bible teacher on Earth but He still hasn’t convinced me that God would rather damn people than save them. I’m with Wesley on this one. Think of it. Real people with real feelings, consciously tormented for ever and ever because one bozo disobeyed God ages ago. God could change it with a mere wink of His eye, but He won’t. He doesn’t care to.
These conversations are so discouraging. Those last words by David are just entirely disheartening.
It’s truly a shame that nobody wants to interact with what is actually being said. Every time a point is made, it is ignored and something else is brought up.
What are we doing here? Really, I mean what are we hoping to do? I’m hoping to proclaim the truth about God’s sovereignty so that those who call themselves God’s people might see Him in all of His glory and enjoy Him to that much greater of a degree.
But all we hear is sarcasm, and contention, and strawmen, and evasiveness, and rhetoric. For Daniel, Winston, and myself to exhaust such effort and care in responding to exactly what you guys are saying, and for you to completely disregard what we’re saying and move on to another topic is just shameful.
If we’re not going to interact honestly… if we’re not here to learn from each other… then let’s just stop. I believe that we’ve defended truth. I don’t believe that anyone reading this thread has any lack of biblical and reasonable argument for the truth of the doctrines of Grace. So I don’t believe that it’s profitable to continue proclaiming to people who have heard it from us before and who have no intention of actually hearing us. It only encourages hubris. I believe this is the wisdom communicated in passages like Matthew 7:6 and Proverbs 26:4.
So this is a plea for honest interaction, dealing with the texts, and dealing with what each other actually says. And if that’s not going to happen, it’s a plea to stop whatever it is that’s going on.
This has been a very good discussion. Different views have been given. Surely , we are all mature enough to listen to each other . You do not have to agree and you can choose to not go on with the discussion but hopefully this is a blog where truth can be discussed.
Those who are call the predestined in Romans 8 are those who are in Christ . Rom. 8 : 1. They are the believers who chose to beleive in Jesus . After you obey then you are included in the elect. All planned before the
world was created.
agreed
Ray,
Your last comment proves your lack of understanding concerning election and predestination. You said, “After you obey then you are included in the elect.” NO RAY! Election happened FIRST. This is obvious in scripture. You have given absolutely no scriptural support to say that obedience comes first. The very term “elect” proclaims the fact that there was an election. You said, “Those who are call the predestined in Romans 8 are those who are in Christ .” Absolutely! But do you know why they are in Christ? BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ELECT. The Bible is clear on the fact that election happened before the foundation of the world, you just don’t want to believe it, and are unable to disprove it.
David,
You said, “I don’t see how creating those you know will go to hell is the same as creating them for that purpose.”
If God created someone knowing that person would go to hell, then that person would have been destined for hell, right? If that person was destined for hell, and God controls our destiny, then God was the one that destined that person for hell, right? The question, then, is this: does God control our destiny?
You would not argue that God is able to save anyone He wants to save, since salvation is all of God and none of man. Since God could save anyone, and we know that not everyone will be saved, this means that God chose not to save everyone. For whatever reason, God chose not to save everyone. I argue that this choice was based on God’s free will, and you argue that this choice was based on man’s free will.
I still submit that God SOVEREIGNLY created man and ALLOWED him to choose. God, knowing who would choose (and there’s no denying he knows what men WILL do, e.g. Peter’s denial, etc)called those persons.
However, as I’ve said, I’ve been in study for many years and haven’t changed my mind. So let’s not have strife among bretheren. Sorry, guys, just sharing my views.
Love to all the saints.
Daniel ,
I have preoven it by the scripturees and comments earlier. In Eph. he writes to those who are in Christ and tells them they are elect. The same in Romans. I do not have the order wrong and yes I do believe in election and have stated what I believe the scriptures teach. I have nothing to disprove, only have stated that those who are told they are the elect before the foundation of the world are those who have obeyed the gospel and therefore are in Christ. Paul is making corporate statements about election in Eph.1 and Romans 8 .
David,
I’d like to present to you how your understanding of “foreseen faith” doesn’t make sense logically. It is a very taxing enterprise because of the depth and attention it requires. Are you willing to hear it, or does your last paragraph indicate you won’t change your view.
Ray,
The point that I think Daniel is trying to make is that your position makes God’s election dependent on man. If this is the case, please provide some comsistant comments on Romans 9. Paul makes it clear that “It does now depend on the man who will, or the man who runs, but on the God who has mercy.” You see, we all agree that the Bible makes election very clear. But the issue comes in when we ask what the condition of that election is. I don’t think that you can show us that election is based on anything other than the choice of God. Romans 3:10, 8:8, and 9 make this point very clear. If man does not seek God, cannot please God, then it is clear that election must not be based on anything that man does. I hope this helps.
Glory to God alone!!
Mike,
Thank you for you offer, I truly appreciate it. But I have heard extensive arguments (including J Mac’s recent 3 disc set about the subject). I don’t think I’ll ever change my mind about this. Thanks, though.
Ray,
You said, “In Eph. he writes to those who are in Christ and tells them they are elect.”
Exactly. If they are in Christ, that means they were the elect. But they were the elect even before they were in Christ, as is obvious in the scriptures (which you have not attempted to answer).
You said, “I have nothing to disprove, only have stated that those who are told they are the elect before the foundation of the world are those who have obeyed the gospel and therefore are in Christ.”
Exactly. Those who have obeyed the gospel are the elect, but they were the elect even before they obeyed the gospel. Those who are saved have been the elect since before the foundation of the world. They are therefore saved because they are the elect, not the other way around.
David,
Would you care to give me your interpretation of Romans 9 (especially “it is not of him that wills…but of God that shows mercy” and “He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardeneth). Also could you tell me what you think of John 6:44 “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
You said, “I still submit that God SOVEREIGNLY created man and ALLOWED him to choose.”
As I have said before, Calvinists do not deny that man chooses. I am choosing, at this very moment, to write to you. However, this does not mean that God did not predetermine that I would. Man is responsible, yet at the same time man is unable. This is a paradox, yet each is undeniable. The paradox is resolved by realizing that each one (man’s responsibility/man’s inability) is a different perspective. One is man’s and one is God’s. Both are in scripture, and therefore are both true. Since they are both in scripture, they are not in contradiction, even though it may seem that way on the surface. I, and others, have tried to show you what scripture says concerning election, and since you have not responded to these scriptures, I can only assume that you are holding to your view in spite of them.
They are the elect because they have obeyed the gospel. In Romans 6 : 17Paul states how the Christians at Rome had obeyed the teaching. Then says later that they are the predestined in Romans 8. And nothing about obedeince gets in the way of God and His work and will. It was His plan. He planned a plan before the foundation of the world that those who choose Him are the chosen. And He made it all possible through His son , the cross, the word and the gosepl for anyone who believes , obeys , repents , confesses and is baptized will be saved. Not one of those being a work of merit but simple obedince and Jesus is the source of salvation for all who obey. Heb. 5 : 8 Praise God that He has in His wisdom , goodness and perfection has made a plan where each indidivual can come to Him on His terems and be saved. Praise Him for giving us free will so we can respond to Him freely out of love , not one that is forced on us.
Ray,
I am amazed that you still don’t seem to grasp the concept of election.
You said, “They are the elect because they have obeyed the gospel.”
Which came first, the act of us accepting Christ as savior, or the act of God chosing us as His elect?
Hi, Daniel,
All believers acknowledge difficulty reconciling Un El (Unconditional Election) with FK (foreknowledge).
Some Un El folk read scripture imagining paranthetical references throughout, e.g. …’not willing that any (of the elect) should perish”.. “God so loved the world (of the elect) that He…”
Surprisingly, een John Mac,in his book, The God Who Loves,rejects the idea that the gospel offer is given only to the elect. He claims it is indiscriminately offered to all. Fine. However, what kind of offer is that? “I invite you to do that which I know full well you cannot do and if you don’t I’ll punish you eternally”
I believe in the “goodness and severity” of God, not the capriciousnes. Even Un El people appeal to logic in figuring out the disconnect. “How can God be subject to His creation? does God really respond to man, passively?” Logically that makes a great deal more sense than anything else.
..vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,? Why do we assume this mean e stacked the deck hopelessly against them from the start. Why do we assume this DOESN’T mean He foreknew and prepared them anyway (as opposed to annihilating them before they were accountable.)
God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he hardened his own heart. This seems like a tit-for-tat to me. They have pleasure in unrighteousness, He sends a strong delusion. They did not like to retain the knowledge of God, He gives them over to a reprobate mind.
I simply don’t see why all of it cannot be explained by foreknowledge. He knew Peter would deny Him, but He made Caesar hold a census. I can’t find the reference but there was time when He said if any nation came against Israel it wasn’t His doing. Man sometimes acts independently of God,
“And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart.” See, God didn’t make them do that, either.
I simply don’t see why all of it cannot be explained by foreknowledge. PLUS, it makes the gospel offer sincere (though He knows who will respond) and therefore He is punishing rebels for their own sins.
As for this
(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),”
Even then, God knew, so it wasn’t “works” (even the “work of belief.
“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”)
Strangely, the passage which gives me pause about Un El is one I don’t hear used much…
‘for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.’
However, like the Un El crowd, there are challenges and logic must be applied. God offers salvation to ALL.
So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
As far as I’m concerened, this means Man does not make the “first move”
Daniel ,
And I am amazed that you cannot understand election . I have already said that before the foundation of the world God planned a paln where those who choose Him will be included in the elect. Praise God for His wonderful plan of salvation. Praise Him that that those who choose Him are included in the elect.
David M . ,
I think you are right in that some read into some scriptures certain theological positions. The gospel is to be taught to the whole world Matt. 28 : 18 , Mark 16 : 15 and 16 . God does not want anyone to perish and wants everyone to come to repentance 2 Peter 3: 9 . Jesus atoning death was for the whole world I John 2 : 2 . And others as well . But not one of the scriptures I just mentioned say , but only for the elect or that the atonement was limited for the elect and that everyone else is bound for hell . No , not everyone will respond with belief. Some will obey who hear the gospel , some will not. But the grace of God that brings salvation has appaeared for all men. Titus 2 : 11 . The passage did not say that grace appeared just for certain individuals. All means all . Anybody means anybody. Everyone means everyone. Free choice is is for whosoever will.
I agree.
As Foster put it..(though an Arminian and I’m not)
The Calvinian doctrine of election and reprobation, in the place of making the atonement a benefit to the reprobates, makes it an infinite curse, not in its avoidable abuse, but in itself necessarily. So that here is a sovereign scheme of God, intended to be a benefit to some chosen persons, by being in its very nature an infinite curse to others. This must appear in one moment. Let it be remembered that the atonement, with respect to reprobates, does not make their salvation possible–they cannot be saved by it. Let it be further remembered that, while it does not make it possible for them to be saved, it makes their damnation a hundredfold worse than if it had never been made. It does them no real good–it brings them infinite mischief, and this entirely without respect to anything in them that was voluntary. And this their infinitely increased misery is upon a false pretense. They are called to return unto God, to repent, to believe in Christ, to a holy life–no one of which calls could they possibly obey. And yet, for not obeying, every time they refuse, their damnation is increased.
David,
You said, “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. As far as I’m concerened, this means Man does not make the “first move””
Absolutely, David. So, if man does not make the first move toward accepting Christ, then who is it that does? I think you would agree that it is the Holy Spirit. So if the Holy Spirit makes the first move, then what is the move the Holy Spirit makes (where’s the peck of pickled peppers)? I think that the move the Holy Spirit makes is that of regeneration, quickening, bringing us to a state of spiritual life in which we are drawn to God by God(John 6:44, 65). This is all that Irresistable Grace (the “I” in TULIP) is. And by your statement, it would appear that you agree with this point.
and this entirely without respect to anything in them that was voluntary.
Everything else that that guy said was spot-on, except for the above quote and the “false pretense” thing.
Foster, whoever he is, forgets that man is not only incapable, but unwilling to come to God. He refuses to acknowledge that our sinful nature makes our desires — our volition — contrary to God.
——-
I simply don’t see why all of it cannot be explained by foreknowledge.
I don’t think I’ll ever change my mind about this.
That’s why.
Ray,
You said, “I have already said that before the foundation of the world God planned a paln where those who choose Him will be included in the elect.”
What you are not understanding is that God included them in the elect before the foundation of the world. Those who accept Christ have been the elect since that time. They do not “become” the elect, because they are the elect already. This is where your understanding of election is flawed.
The Spirit makes the first move…who makes the second? Is it a one-man show? Some (most, actually) men are ‘not willing’.
BTW, I don’t think of the Bible as a “love letter” to me, I don’t think Jesus “died for the opportunity” of saving me. I fear God exceedingly. Just to clear up what might be wrong ideas about Un El rejectors.
The Foster I spoke of is Randall Foster (never heard of him, really) but he wrote a great article on this subject. You might enjoy it. (again I disagree on the Arminian points)
http://www.gospeltruth.net/foster_on_cal/otc_index.htm
My question is still unanswered. Why?
What would you call one who believes that no man comes to Jesus except that he is called by the Father/Holy Spirit, yet believes that one so called can resist the calling?
Perhaps Calvinian? Arminist? tweeners?
We are not all pure Calvinists or pure Aminians out here. Calling us Calvinists or Arminians does not help the debate. Insisting that the only positions being put forth are either calvinistic or arminian allows you to not have a serious discussion about legitimate points of concern.
Can you accept that God giving man a choice whether to accept or reject Him after he has been called by the Holy Spirit does not diminish God’s sovereignty at all?
Those who claim that one is either spiritually alive or spiritually dead are missing a big part of what the Bible discusses. Because of this, your insistance on either “there” or “not there”, alive or dead spiritually, with no shades of in-between, make me suspicious of your ability to pick up the nuances that are present in the Bible. The Bible presents evidence that folks can have a relationship with God and then fall away (Adam and Eve come first to my mind).
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:22-23) kjv
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Revelation 3:15-16) kjv
In the Bible, the issue of regenerate vs. unregenerate is a bit more complex than what the Calvin viewpoint expressed here seems to allow. I will grant you that those rejected in the above-quoted scriptures may have never been regenerate in the first place. But to insist that the unregenerate have no spiritual awareness at all, that they cannot recognize the things of God, that they cannot participate in the things of God, does not hold up under close scrutiny. HOwever – that is a subject for a different topic, not this one.
The Spirit makes the first move…who makes the second? Is it a one-man show?
Salvation is all of God. He regenerates us by the Word, so that we’re born again of the Spirit. Then, we believe. Without the regeneration, we can’t believe. With it, we can’t not believe.
Some (most, actually) men are ‘not willing’.
Actually, none are willing until they are given a new nature.
What would you call one who believes that no man comes to Jesus except that he is called by the Father/Holy Spirit, yet believes that one so called can resist the calling?
An Arminian.
There’s no such thing as “tweeners.” There’s no such thing as a 4-point Calvinist. So-called 4-point Calvinists are Arminians. I know that you don’t think that’s true, otherwise why would you ask, right? But that’s the case. The reality is that the 5 points are all interrelated and all flow from one another. The man in the example above rejects irresistible grace. It’s calling God’s grace less amazing than it actually is.
But to insist that the unregenerate have no spiritual awareness at all, that they cannot recognize the things of God, that they cannot participate in the things of God, does not hold up under close scrutiny.
Nobody’s saying that unregenerate people can’t go to church, read the Bible, and/or pray, but they cannot understand divine truth, because the natural man receiveth not the things that are of the Spirit, for they are foolishness to Him. The truth of God is only available via the illumination of the Holy Spirit, who is only given to believers, and not unbelievers.
Dead is dead is dead. When you let texts like Eph 2:1-5, Col 2:12-13, Rom 5:1-11, and others just mean what they say, all of this ceases to be complicated, and becomes gloriously simple.
Everybody,
Here is a new twist to this discussion. It may sound like it is off the topic a little, but it is necessary to discuss this.
Some here have said that man has a free will, in that he is free to choose or reject God (even though God is drawing them to Himself). If, then, if man’s will is so free before salvation, is it just as free after salvation? If the answer is yes, then the conclusion is that one can lose his salvation. If the answer is no, then this is a terribly inconsistent theology. Such people spend so much time insisting that man’s will is free to choose or reject God, but then say that after salvation, man’s will is not free to choose or reject God because God keeps his own. So they end up accepting the very thing they denied. If man’s will is free in an ultimate sense, then it must certainly remain that way. If man’s will is not free after salvation, then it must certainly have been that way before.
David,
You said, “The Spirit makes the first move…who makes the second? Is it a one-man show?”
Are you insinuating that man contributes to his salvation. If salvation is not a one-man show, then salvation is not ALL of God.
Daniel,
Being raised Southern Baptist I always had issues with the way once saved always saved was explained. This was always an issue I could not resolve with freewill. I knew nothing of soveriegnty then. Yet when people would use “nothing can separate us from the love of God” I always thought nothing can pull us apart but since I ‘grabbed’ I could let go. I cannot defend, from scripture, once saved always saved without election. I am one of the few people I know that completely accepted the sovereignty of God the first time I was introduced to it. It answered all my questions that I had.
-Why can we not reject God after choosing him if we a free?
-Why will we not sin in heaven if we are free?
-Why do angels not ‘fall away’ anymore if they are free?
-How can babies go to heaven if they have to choose? (Saying that God just lets them in is not acceptable. They are born sinners and God can’t ignore sin. Everyone must abide by the rules.)
-How is it fair that a person who has not heard the gospel goes to hell? (I know this appears to be the arguement used against election. Yet to me knowing that God decided their fate makes it fair becuase God is just. If it is up to the individual to choose how is it fair that some have more ‘help’, opportunity, or chances? How come we all don’t have a ‘Road to Damascus’?)
-Why is God with all his power not able to convince a human mind to follow him?
Man’s will isn’t free after a TRUE salvation because he is a new creation! I don’t see the problem there. A new nature is imparted to us and, sin though we may, the Spirit will call us back. You mean every sin we commit after salvation is God’s will? (Well, to a Calvinist, all sins are God’s will…I agree, though His PERMISSIVE will). I have never understood the notion that “if you save yourself (which no sane person would assert) then you must keep yourself saved”. This seems a fallacy
No such thing as a 4-point Calvinist? That would be news to “A True Church” crowd, who did a video on You Tube confronting 5-pointers the Westboro Baptist Church (y’know, the godhatesfags.com, funeral-picketing folk)on the ‘limited atonement’ thing, which, as I said before, is implied though the opposite is directly stated. How I wish John Mac would do a piece on the WBC! If he has mentioned them anywhere, please let me know. He (MacArthur)does (as did Paul) name names and recently decribed Joel Osteen as a heretic, which he surely is. (If only Osteens gospel were as toothy as he is! lol)
David,
You said, “Man’s will isn’t free after a TRUE salvation because he is a new creation!”
Doesn’t it seem odd to you that, according to your statement, to be saved means to LOSE freedom. I seem to remember a verse that said when we are saved we are FREED from the BONDAGE of sin and death. I agree that man is a new creation after salvation, but this must mean that before salvation he was an old creation.
What happens if after true salvation a man decides that he wants to reject God?
Why would he want to do that? After seeing the loathesomeness of sin and the darkness and doom of it all? And the glory and majesty of God?
1jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
I’m sure you guys see this as de facto evidence of Un El and Irresistable Grace but I don’t know why. A dog return to his vomit but a new creation is not a dog.
Rev 22:15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
Some questions , and not for the purpose of being argumentative but to clarify . Are some of you saying that the elect ,as some are defining it , from the moment of salvation , from the moment someone is saved , that no matter what an elect person does , that there is no way, an elect Christian can ever be lost at all ? Even , if the elect fall into sin that the elect can never fall so far , that they will always be brought back to salvation? What if the elect fall into a grievous sin , constantly keep sinning and then all of a sudden dies, then what happens ? Or , are you also saying that the elect would never fall that far because they are the elect and the elect do not have to worry about sin overtaking them because the elect have the supernatural intervention of God from beginning to end ? Just wondering for the purpose of understanding.
It’s the old ‘Lord’s freedman/Christ’s slave’ dichotomy, which really is the same thing.
Man’s will isn’t free after a TRUE salvation because he is a new creation! I don’t see the problem there. A new nature is imparted to us and, sin though we may, the Spirit will call us back.
This is hilarious at the same time as it is heartbreaking. It’s just the opposite!
Scripture teaches that man’s will isn’t free BEFORE salvation; it is a slave to his fallen nature, making him a slave to sin. After a person is born again, he is a new creation, and given a new nature. In that nature, the will is free to choose God vs. sin, but will always choose God because he has the eyes to see and the ears to understand things how they are in reality.
I’m sure at that you’ll misrepresent me as saying we never sin after salvation, but that would be ripping what I said from the context of justification and twisting and forcing it into the context of sanctification. Just so we’re clear, our will in that sense is free after salvation to willfully and joyfully obey in sweet submission, or to fiddle around with the muck from which we were saved. Because we still dwell in this tent, which is unredeemed flesh, we still are tempted and seduced by our own lusts to deny the gloriousness and sufficiency of Christ and return to useless pursuits.
But this does not “lose” our salvation for us. We’re kept by the righteousness of Christ, whose perfect and definite atonement freed us from the power of sin. It’s as if we were freed from prison, and, as free men, decided we’d like to live in a jail cell. That’s why there’s so much talk in the NT about remembering, considering, and reflecting on who we are in Christ, so with the freedom that we have in Him, we don’t act like we’re not.
You’re right there David. You just need to refocus the lens a bit more.
Oh… and I’m sure that there’s no such thing as a 4-point Calvinist would be a surprise to many. Doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means people are ignorant of the Scriptures.
But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
This is what I meant. We don’t disagree there
Ro 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members
That last comment was supposed to have a reference to dogs returning to their vomit but new creations aren’t dogs. Must have deleted it somehow.
David,
I asked, “What happens if after true salvation a man decides that he wants to reject God?” and you answered with, “Why would he want to do that?” Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Is it possible that after true salvation a man could decide that he wants to reject God?
David,
You show me a 4-point Calvinist, and I’ll show you how he doesn’t really believe any of the five points at all. As Mike said a long time ago, “The 5 points presuppose each other. If man is totally depraved (unable to contribute anything to salvation) election must be unconditional, grace must be irresistible, the atonement has to be limited in its extent but unlimited in application because a depraved sinner can’t “activate its potential,” and that same man can’t do anything to fall out of grace the same way he couldn’t do anything to get grace.”
By the way Mike, I saved this comment of your’s because I though it was so well put. I hope you don’t mind.
I don’t understand the hate of limited atonement. Not just here but anywhere TULIP is brought up. Regardless of TULIP I would still beleive in limited atonement. Why would Jesus die on a cross for people he knew wouldn’t accept his sacrifice? If he did die for their sins does he take back his atonement when they do not ultimately accept? Limited atonement is not a TULIP exclusive concept. Why would free will affect limited atonement when God foresees who will accept him?
As for the question can an elect loose hie salvation? That is where the P in TULIP comes in. An elect can never loose his salvation for any reason. An elect also will never fall away. They will Persevere (P in TULIP). If someone does fall away that is not proof that elect can fall away, It is just proof that he was not elect. We beleive that the God who saves us also keeps us. He will complete the good work he started in us.
Even I believe in limited atonement. Why indeed would Christ die for an unsaved person’s sins? I was merely pointing out that it is deduced by logic (what some might call a human argument) and is in NO WAY stated in scripture.
David,
I am confused. You said, “Even I believe in limited atonement.” I was under the impression that you did not believe in the doctrines of grace, but this statement would lead me to believe that you do.
Titus 2 : 11 , 2 Peter 3: 9 and IJohn 2:2 teach that Jesus died for the whole world. It was not limited. Praise the heavenly Father for such a marvelous plan of salvation where whosoever will can receive salvation ! John 3 :16
Ray,
Here is what Matthew Henry said about Titus 2:11 “to all men”
“It hath appeared to all men; not to the Jews only, as the glory of God appeared at mount Sinai to that particular people, and out of the view of all others; but gospel grace is open to all, and all are invited to come and partake of the benefit of it, Gentiles as well as Jews. The publication of it is free and general: Disciple all nations: Preach the gospel to every creature. The pale is broken down; there is no such enclosure now as formerly. The preaching of Jesus Christ, which was kept secret since the world began, now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith, Rom_16:25, Rom_16:26. The doctrine of grace and salvation by the gospel is for all ranks and conditions of men (slaves and servants, as well as masters), therefore engaging and encouraging all to receive and believe it, and walk suitably to it, adorning it in all things.”
Ray,
As far as 2 Peter 3:9 goes, this verse is talking about Christ’s second coming and says nothing about those for whom Christ died. This is shown in the following verse.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Vs. 9 is saying that Christ is not delaying His coming as some would think. This verse says that that which some would think is slackness is really longsuffering. Here is what Matthew Henry said about this verse.
” That what men count slackness is truly long-suffering, and that to us-ward; it is giving more time to his own people, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world, many of whom are not as yet converted; and those who are in a state of grace and favour with God are to advance in knowledge and holiness, and in the exercise of faith and patience, to abound in good works, doing and suffering what they are called to, that they may bring glory to God, and improve in a meetness for heaven; for God is not willing that any of these should perish, but that all of them should come to repentance. Here observe, 1. Repentance is absolutely necessary in order to salvation. Except we repent, we shall perish, Luk_13:3, Luk_13:5. 2. God has no delight in the death of sinners: as the punishment of sinners is a torment to his creatures, a merciful God does not take pleasure in it; and though the principal design of God in his long-suffering is the blessedness of those whom he has chosen to salvation, through sanctification of the spirit, and belief of the truth, yet his goodness and forbearance do in their own nature invite and call to repentance all those to whom they are exercised; and, if men continue impenitent when God gives them space to repent, he will deal more severely with them, though the great reason why he did not hasten his coming was because he had not accomplished the number of his elect. “Abuse not therefore the patience and long-suffering of God, by abandoning yourselves to a course of ungodliness; presume not to go on boldly in the way of sinners, nor to sit down securely in an unconverted impenitent state, as he who said (Mat_24:48), My Lord delayeth his coming, lest he come and surprise you;” for,”
Ray,
Here is what Matthew Henry said about 1 John 2:2 “but also for the sins of the whole world.”
“By the extent of his plea, the latitude of his propitiation. It is not confined to one nation; and not particularly to the ancient Israel of God: He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only (not only for the sins of us Jews, us that are Abraham’s seed according to the flesh), but also for those of the whole world (1Jo_2:2); not only for the past, or us present believers, but for the sins of all who shall hereafter believe on him or come to God through him. The extent and intent of the Mediator’s death reach to all tribes, nations, and countries. As he is the only, so he is the universal atonement and propitiation for all that are saved and brought home to God, and to his favour and forgiveness.”
Ray,
As for John 3:16, I have already told you that the explicit meaning of this text is that all those who believe in Christ will not perish. The explicit meaning is NOT, and I repeat NOT that just anyone is capable of coming, and this is proven by John 6:44,65. It is useless for you to continue to use this verse as proof of your view until you show me that it is realy teaching what you say it is teaching. You must first show that what I said of this verse is false (which can only be done by proving that my view of John 6:44,65 is false). This can not be done by simply saying, and I quote, “They all teach specifically free will” in response to my evidence that this verse does not explicitly teach that anyone can come.
Daniel, I certainly don’t mind. I’m flattered. All glory to God. And real thanks to Phil Johnson, whose 2003 transcript: “Why and for Whom Did Christ Die?” explained these truths to me in unparallelled clarity.
As Daniel as cited, Ray, that is the way to understand those passages; i.e., without mercilessly ripping them from their context and doing great violence to the Scriptures.
The marvelous plan — even called a mystery — was that the Jewish Messiah brought salvation even for the Gentiles. That’s why there is an emphasis on “whole world” in John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2.
As for the 2 Peter passage, I gave a detailed explanation about that on the Pyro blog a while ago. I hope you won’t mind that I repost it here.
****
[In order to understand 2 Peter 3:9 the way God intends it to be understood we must not] misunderstand the context or the recipients of this letter.
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. – 2 Pet 1:1
This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you. – 2 Pet 3:1. How did he refer to them in the first letter?
To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout … who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood. – 1 Pet 1:1-2
So we finally come to the immediate context of the passage, in which Peter refers to his recipients as these same recipients all along: the beloved:
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. — 2 Pet 3:8-9
Any honest exegesis of this passage in the context of the entirety of the 2 letters of Peter renders the “any” and “all” to refer to the elect. Peter’s saying, “God isn’t slow about returning, like these uniformitarians are saying. He’s certainly coming back. He’s just waiting to gather in the full number of the elect. He doesn’t want to come back before all of His elect are saved. He doesn’t want any of His elect to perish, but wants all of you elect to come to repentance.”
I hope this is OK to do, but as I was thanking Phil for helping me understand the doctrines of grace, I thought of something else. I found this DVD extremely helpful, clear, and accurate in its presentation of the doctrines of grace. I would recommend that any professing Calvinist watch it a few times. I would definitely recommend that any professing Arminian watch it more than a few times. Definitely worth the money, without question.
If it is the elect in 2 Peter 3 : 9 , then why call them to repentance ? Have they not already repented ? If as you say Peter writes the letter to the elect who already have faith , , they are the bloved , they are the chosen , then why is Peter concerned about their response of repentance. Surely , if they are the elect and the elect , as some of you define election ,cannot help but respond to the gospel because of supernatural intervention , then surely they had already repented. Also if the five points are correct then why be concerned about the elect perishing, they cannot perish . They have the assurance of the eternal perserverance of the saints.
John 6 : 44 , as I have already stated in earlier posts is explained sufficiently in 6 : 45 as to everyone who listens and learns comes to the Father. Nothing is said, there is no language that says special chosen ones that God has arbitrarily called. Those who listen and learn. Also in John 7 : 17 says if a man chooses to do God’s will and nothing is said about the special chosen who are set aside and chosen arbitrarily. I have given scriptural proof many times. Be careful about reading words into the text that do not exist.Also , it makes no difference as to what Matthew Henry says. It is the scriptures we need to discuss.
Ray, here it is. Here is where your misunderstanding of election makes what I’ve been saying unintelligible, and a proper understanding of 2 Peter 3 impossible for you. One does not “become” the elect in time. One is elected before time, not based on anything they had done, but because of God, who has mercy (Rom 9).
Yes, the elect consist of those who have already repented and believed in time. But the elect also consist of those who have been chosen before the foundation of the world — before time, based on nothing about themselves — who have not yet believed since time began. I was elect since before time began. I was elect when I was 11. But I wasn’t saved until I was 15.
What 2 Peter 3 is teaching is that Jesus won’t come back until the full number of the elect are brought to faith. People are complaining that Jesus isn’t coming back because everything’s happening the way it’s always happened. Peter explains that God has people He’s elected to save, and if Jesus came back now, all those people wouldn’t have believed according to their appointed time (cf. Acts 13:48). So Jesus will delay until He brings all the elect to salvation.
You’re right that we need to discuss the Scriptures, Ray. But you’re foolish if you think Matthew Henry isn’t discussing the Scriptures. All you’re doing is citing references and doing great violence to the texts. You’re not explaining them, defending them, or offering any exegetical insights. You cite the reference and give your interpretation, like we’re just supposed to take your word for it that that’s what that text means. Men like Matthew Henry make statements and then defend them with exegetical reasoning and sound biblical argument He lays it out: “Here’s how you can understand this text.” That is discussing the Scriptures.
So, with a proper understanding of election, you see that 2 Peter 3:9 means that God wants none of His elect, His sheep, those whom He has marked out for salvation, to perish before that salvation is applied through faith.
A quote:
It should be evident from these verses that the gospel is a free offer of Christ and His salvation to all who hear. Those who deny the free offer therefore alter the nature of the gospel itself. And those who deny that God’s love extends to all humanity obscure some of the most blessed truth in all Scripture about God and His lovingkindness.
Who was the wacky anti-electionist who said this? Why it was John MacArthur himself.
Elsewhere in “The God Who Loves” (misleadingly subtitled ‘He Will Do Whatever it Takes to Draw Us to Himself’) he states that God is not willing that ANY should perish. The He goes on to somehow attempt to explain that God ensured that most WOULD perish.
Ray,
In John 6, vs. 45 is explained by vs. 44. Not the other way around. Vs. 45 says nothing about who is able to come, it simply says what will happen to those that do come. Vs. 44, on the other hand, does tell us who is able to come (Only those whom God draws).
If we read these two verses together…I will just go ahead and paste them.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Here we see that only those whom the Father draws to Christ will come to Him. And THESE, and I repeat THESE will all be taught of God. Therefore, all those that hear and learn of the father come to Christ. However, vs. 44 just explained who will hear and learn of the father and therefore come to Christ, it is those whom God draws and only those whom God draws. This is the proper interpretation of these two verses, Ray.
As for Joh 7:17, it says, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.”
Again, Ray, AGAIN, this verse says absolutely NOTHING about WHO will do His will. It just says that those who do will know of the doctrine. This verse, like all the others you have listed, must be interpreted in light of verses, like John 6:44, that explicitly tell us WHO can do these things. All the verses you have given simply tell us the result of doing these things, and therefore you should not build an interpretation of WHO can do these things based on verses that do not say who can do these things.
You warned me, “Be careful about reading words into the text that do not exist.”
I will give you the same exhortation. If, or rather, since the verses you have listed do not say who can do these things, be careful, or rather, do not interpret them as doing so.
You also said, “Also , it makes no difference as to what Matthew Henry says. It is the scriptures we need to discuss.”
I totally agree with you. The fact that Matthew Henry says something does not make it so. However, since Matthew Henry is a great deal more learned in the scriptures than you or I, it would be wise to take his words into account.
Ray,
You said, “Also if the five points are correct then why be concerned about the elect perishing, they cannot perish . They have the assurance of the eternal perserverance of the saints.”
This is the difference between eternal security and assurance of salvation. The P in TULIP, the perseverance of the saints, is speaking of eternal security not assurance. One can have eternal security yet lack assurance. This is why we are exhorted in 2 Peter to “make our calling and election sure.” This is a call to gain assurance for ourselves, for there is nothing we can do to gain eternal security. We do not make our calling and election sure for God’s sake, for He already knows that our salvation is secure. We do this for our sake, we do it for our assurance of salvation. The elect do have the assurance of the eternal perserverance of the saints, but they are not always sure that they are indeed the elect. That is the key issue. No one can know who the elect are. If they did, then they would be God. Security, then, can be defined as God’s knowledge, and assurance can be defined as our knowledge.
David,
That’s so funny. Because before I found out who said I was agreeing wholeheartedly with everything it said. And none of that is out of accord with the teaching of unconditional election, irresistible grace, or the rest of the doctrines of grace. It would have never occurred to me to call that “anti-electionist.” It’s entirely in agreement with the doctrines of grace.
Daniel ,
I will repeat , it is those who listen and learn , then they are the ones who will come to the Father. Verse 45 tells us exactly who will come to the father as does John 7 : 17 .It is a free offer to those who will listen and learn about the gospel and then obey the gospel . They are the elect. And this was the plan before the foundation of the world.
No one can know who are the elect ? Now , you really confuse me. In Eph. 1 are not the faithful in Christ Jesus called the the chosen and the the predestined ? If no one can know then how can there ever be any assurance?
In the make your calling and election sure , Peter is saying if you do these things , that is the spiritual qualities he writes about , in verses 5- 7then you are not going to fall. ” If you do these things you will never fall…” If you have these qualities in your life and they are the focus of your life , the practice of your life , then sin will not get control of your life , that is what Peter is teaching in 2 Peter 1 : 5- 11.
But I am also wondering if the elect ,as you define the elect , need assurance , then why ? Do they not have the supernatural intervention of God in their life as to the knowledge that is necessary for salvation ? Do they not have the supernatural illumination of the Holy Spirit that reveals all they need as opposed to the non-elect that cannot know ?Is it not true that the elect have had the revelation of salvation revealed to them in a supertural way so that they can know for sure?
Ray,
God does not elect based on foreseen faith, or who He knows will believe in Him. He elects based on His sovereign choice alone.
For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For 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.
Ray,
You said, “Verse 45 tells us exactly who will come to the father as does John 7 : 17 .”
I just showed you how that they don’t. If you are going to assert this point without proof and against the explicit teaching of other verses, then so be it, but do not assume that a mear assertion of a point is in any way proof of that point. I have shown you how that John 6:44 and other verses completely rule out the possiblility of your verses telling us who can come, yet you continue to assert this point without dealing with what I have said. This is not how debate works. If you desire to show me the error in my beliefs, then you will have to deal with the points I have made and the scriptural interpretations I have given you.
You said, “No one can know who are the elect ? Now , you really confuse me. In Eph. 1 are not the faithful in Christ Jesus called the the chosen and the the predestined ?”
Yes they are, but that is just it, we cannot know who is the faithful until they prove to be faithful until death.
You said, “If no one can know then how can there ever be any assurance?”
I did not say that no one can know if THEY THEMSELVES are saved, I said that no one can know for sure if someone else is saved.
You said, “In the make your calling and election sure , Peter is saying if you do these things , that is the spiritual qualities he writes about , in verses 5- 7then you are not going to fall.”
Actually, when Peter says, “if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” he is saying that they will not fall into doubt of their salvation. He had just told them to make their calling and election (don’t you ever wonder why he said ELECTION?) sure, and then says that if they do these things, thereby making their calling and election SURE, they will never doubt. We just heard a message on this verse last Sunday.
You said, “But I am also wondering if the elect ,as you define the elect , need assurance , then why ? Do they not have the supernatural intervention of God in their life as to the knowledge that is necessary for salvation ? Do they not have the supernatural illumination of the Holy Spirit that reveals all they need as opposed to the non-elect that cannot know ?Is it not true that the elect have had the revelation of salvation revealed to them in a supertural way so that they can know for sure?”
Now I will go into a very brief discussion of assurance of salvation. Very basically, the Holy Spirit is our assurance of salvation. He is repeatedly refered to as the seal, or the earnest, and also the Bible says that His Spirit bears witness with our spirit. But how does He do this? How do we know if we have the Spirit? Very basically, we will know that we have the Holy Spirit if we are bearing the fruit of that Spirit. We know that the natural man cannot bear this fruit, so if a professing Christian is bearing this fruit, thereby doing the things 2 Peter says to do, then he will know that the Holy Spirit abides in him and he will therefore have assurance of his salvation.
close italics
Thanks Mike.
Daniel ,
I have on several posts given you what I believe and have used scriptural proofs. Maybe notgood enough for you but suffiicient to state what I beleive. You have not convinced me by what you have written that your interpretations are correct.We disagree. It would make no difference what I would say. You come at scripture from an Augustinian/Calvinistic perspective that I do not agree is right.
There is nothing in the passage of 2 Peter that says the Christians are being taught about doubting their salvation. The word doubt is not there. That is reading words into the passage but you must because everything you write me is through the augustinian/ calvinistic lens. Peter is assuring them that they are safe and saved, yes the eelct , if they do these things. No an iaaue of doubt but assurance they will not fall if they concentrate , on the qualities they are told they must have increase. To do so will protect them from falling.
I agree that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is in every Christian and is the earnest of our salvation. But you said , ” but they are not always sure they are the elect.” And all I asked is why not ? Do not the elect , have the supernatural illumination of the Spirit and should they not know they are the elect and therefore why would they need assurance so as not to dobubt. Why should any Christian doubt their salvation or that they are elect , unless sinS havs overtaken them to the point of the hardened heart. But your view says that no Chritian would ever get to that point. So why any doubt at all ?
sorry about misspelled words. Eyes were having problems during the day.
Ray,
You said, “I have on several posts given you what I believe and have used scriptural proofs. Maybe not good enough for you but suffiicient to state what I beleive.”
Actually, they are not even good enough to state what you believe, because I have shown you (with no argument from you) how those verses do not support your view. If you would like to SHOW me how those verses do support your view, then I would be open to discussing it with you. However, you have not been able to disprove my interpretation, so therefore, as of now, those verses do not support your view. You cannot continue to claim that they do without proof.
You said, “You have not convinced me by what you have written that your interpretations are correct.”
I have proven it, but since you deny logic and clear biblical support for my view, it comes as no surprise to me to hear you say this. You have made up your mind to believe what you believe despite clear biblical teaching, so there is nothing I can do to convince you.
You said, “You come at scripture from an Augustinian/Calvinistic perspective that I do not agree is right.”
I come to the scriptures from the perspective that the Bible and only the Bible gives to me.
You said, “There is nothing in the passage of 2 Peter that says the Christians are being taught about doubting their salvation. The word doubt is not there.”
You are correct, the word doubt is not there, but the opposite word is there: “sure”. The words “make your calling and election sure” are for the sake of the person. Just as salvation is not of works, so also perseverance is not of works. Peter could not be telling them to do these so that they will not lose their salvation, so he must be telling them these things to help them to be SURE of their salvation.
You said, “Peter is assuring them that they are safe and saved, yes the eelct , if they do these things.”
Whether or not they do these things does not determine whether the are the elect or not. In fact, whether they are the elect or not determines whether they do these things or not. Since the election came first, it could not, and I repeat, COULD NOT possibly be determined by these things. This is just pure logic, Ray. This is not even an interpretation! If election came first, then it is the deciding factor, PERIOD. There is no other possible, or logical, alternative.
You said, “To do so will protect them from falling.”
By this statement, you are saying, in effect, that there is a possiblility that a Christian can lose his salvation. This is not a possible interpretation, Ray. Therefore, Peter MUST be saying that to do these things will protect them from doubting their salvation.
You said, “But you said , ” but they are not always sure they are the elect.” And all I asked is why not ? Do not the elect , have the supernatural illumination of the Spirit and should they not know they are the elect and therefore why would they need assurance so as not to dobubt. Why should any Christian doubt their salvation or that they are elect , unless sinS havs overtaken them to the point of the hardened heart.”
I explained all this in my last post. The supernatural illumination of the Holy Spirit comes in the form of the Fruit of the Spirit. You are right, if a man knows he is saved, then why would he doubt? He wouldn’t doubt if he knew he was saved. But that is just it, unless the Holy Spirit is clearly working in a persons life, that person cannot know whether he is saved. The fruit of the Spirit tells us that we are of the Spirit. Therefore, without the fruit of the Spirit, how can we know that we are of the Spirit? That is precisely why Peter tells us to add these fruits to our lives: to make our calling and election sure (not sure to God, but sure to us).
I have explained all of this to you with biblical support. If you cannot prove otherwise, then I expect you to change your view. If you can prove otherwise, then I will change my view. I can already anticipate what you will say. You will say something like, “I have already proven my view with scripture.” However, this mearly shows that even your view of the word “proven” is flawed. If you are going to “prove” your view, you will first have to “disprove” my view. This can only be done by proving that my interpretations of certain verses is false. There, I have now given you three simple steps to defeat me in this debate. If you will follow them (assuming your view is indeed correct) you will convert me to your view. If you do not follow them, you might as well stop posting, because you can never hope to convince anyone of anything.
Daniel ,
You are right. I have given sufficient proof of what I believe but I know there is no way for you to accept anything I say because of the theological perspective through which you interpret everything and it is not just the scripture but the theology you present through the augustinian/calvinistic perspective.You have also made up your mind and nothing I say biblical will make any difference to you because of your theological bias. I am not worried about convincing you or even trying to win a debate with you, just having a discussion.
I have explained everything in this discussion with biblical support even if you deny such. And if you choose to leave the discussion , ok . I has been interesting and thank you for the time you spent.
There is nothing in the text in 2 Peter to say that the Christians are doubting their salvation. If so , show me the exact words , not what you call logic. Peter is saying that they can make their calling and election sure if they increase in the Christi qualities he wrote about. And can make sure they will not fall. That is the context for the word sure.
Ray,
You said, “There is nothing in the text in 2 Peter to say that the Christians are doubting their salvation. If so , show me the exact words , not what you call logic.”
Okay, Ray, here are the exact words (even though you just used them). “Make your calling and election sure.” Those are the exact words.
Ray, you have not given me any answer to my interpretation of the verses you mentioned, so you have not given sufficient proof.
You said, “You have also made up your mind and nothing I say biblical will make any difference to you because of your theological bias.”
If you were to say something biblical, it would make a difference to me. That is just it though: you have not said anything biblical. Just answer what I have said about the verses you used, and respond to the verses that I have used. That is all that I am asking.
You said, “I have explained everything in this discussion with biblical support even if you deny such.”
That is simply not true, Ray. You used verses, but they did not support your view, and I showed you how they didn’t and you were unable to respond. If you would like to continue this “discussion” then deal with what I have said.
Daniel ,
I have supported my view but your bias has closed your mind to every explanation but it is because how you see every verse. In my last post and even before I said to you what sure means in the 2 Peter discussion. And I said it within the context of the verses. Be very careful about adding human words and human logic to divine truth.
Ray,
You said, “I have supported my view but your bias has closed your mind to every explanation but it is because how you see every verse.”
I showed you how your “support” did not actually support your view, yet you have not answered me on that matter. My mind is not closed to anything you have said, it is just that you have given me nothing that can be proven by scripture. If you can prove that your interpretation is correct, then do so. As of yet, you have not.
You said, “In my last post and even before I said to you what sure means in the 2 Peter discussion. And I said it within the context of the verses.”
2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
What does “make your calling and election sure” mean? Does it not mean that they are to make sure of their calling and election? Surely they cannot make themselves the elect. As I have said, election is an act of God before the foundation of the world. There is nothing that we can do to make ourselves the elect, so this verse cannot be commanding us to do these things so that we will be the elect. Rather, we are to do these things so that we will be SURE that we are the elect. We will thereby make our calling and election sure. If we do these things we will not fall into sin, but it goes beyond that. If we are not doing these things, then we would have cause to doubt our salvation (for reasons I have already given). So, in like manner, if we are doing these things we will be sure that we are the elect, that we have been called. Nothing we can do will make our calling and election more sure to God (for He knows everything already), so this verse must mean that these things will make our calling and election more sure to us.
Deal with the things I have said, Ray. I will not continue this discussion if you continue to refuse to listen to what I am saying. You are not showing any signs that you truly want biblical truth, for if you really did, you would listen to what the scriptures say. I have shown you what they say, and you have given no defense. So you have two options, either deal professionally with what I have said (by professionally I mean that you should quote my words and then respond to them) or discontinue this discussion.
Daniel ,
I have supported or stated or whatever word you want to use to what I believe. I have given you what I believe “sure” means, you do not agree. It was an issue about not falling. They would be sure and not fall. But I have already so stated. It is not a matter of me not giving answers , it is your bias that does not see what I mean. If you choose to not participate in the discussion, it is your free choice. It has been interesting.
Ray,
You said, “It was an issue about not falling. They would be sure and not fall.”
That is true. To do those things would ensure that they would not fall, but in so doing they would be able to assure themselves that they were the elect. Why would the term “election” be used in this verse if there was no election? I am still not sure how you would define election. Could you please give me a brief statement of what you believe election is?
Daniel ,
First , I have said all along tha there is election. Those who are in Christ are the elect. I have also said , that election is corporate. When a person obeys the gospel , they are included in the elect, the predestined , they are the chosen. God planned a plan before the fondation of the world that those who choose Him ,choose His Son are the chosen , the elect the predestined. So, those in 2 Peter are those who have already received a precious faith, verse 1. They are believers . He tells them they can escape the corruption in the world and can become partakers of the divine nature , verse 4 . For that reason they need to have all the spiritual qualities mentioned in verse 5 – 7 . They need to increase in them and not be ineffective , vs. 8.
If they do these things then they will make their caliing and election sure and will not fall. They can be for sure that they will not allow sin to dominate their life and can have etrnal life and not fall. Now , Daniel , that is my understanding of the text. In a very brief explanation. And believe me when I tell you I have studied this passage for decades. I am not a novice at all this . As I have said , I have been moderated so many times until I have been hesitant to type long replys. Many of my replys could be much longer. This one would be if I was preaching the text : it would a long series over several weeks , maybe even months. So I am not coming at this lightly , just constrained by what the blog will allow as well as limited time. Hope this helps in the discussion.
Ray,
Thank you for replying to my question. That does answer my question, but I have another question for you. You said, “When a person obeys the gospel , they are included in the elect, the predestined , they are the chosen.” When did these people become the elect? Do they become the elect when they obey the gospel?
I do not consider you a novice, and I understand the moderation problem. If you continue to answer my questions, then I will be perfectly willing to listen to your’s. Thanks for continuing this discussion.
So here’s the summary point about election. There are two paradigms.
1. God elects according to His own purpose –> The elect are born in sin and are guilty before God. –> At some point, God regenerates the elect sinner. –> The elect sinner believes and is saved. Non-elect sinners are never regenerated and perish for their sin and unbelief.
2. God looks into history to see what will happen –> He elects only those who He foresees will elect Him. –> At some point, the sinner decides he’s done with sin and chooses God. –> The elect sinner believes, and is regenerated. –> The elect sinner un-elects Christ numerous times throughout his life, and so becomes un-elect numerous times. –> Salvation depends on what point you’re at in the cycle at the time of physical death.
Even shorter: 1. God’s election is based on His own electing purpose, His sovereign, free will. OR 2. God’s election is really man’s election because it’s entirely based on what God sees is going to happen independently from Himself, and so is based on man’s free will.
The Scriptures teach #1.
Daniel ,
This will be brief. Out of town for several days. God had a plan before the creation of the world that those who elect Him and His Son are the elect. It is a corporate concept. In Eph. Paul writes to those who are saints , faithful and in Christ. They have all spiritul blessings in Christ. They were chosen in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless. Predestined to be adopted as sons , etc. Chapter 1 : 3- 14. I see it as those who believed and obeyed the gospel are included in the elect , His plan before the foundation of the world.
A question for you from 2 Peter . If the elect are the particular elect and have the inevitible perserverance of the saints why be concerned about them falling ? He says that if they do these things they will not fall and will have a welcome into the eternal kingdom. Do not the elect have the assurance of salvation ? Can they not be sure of their salvation and if so are they not the elect ? And according to Eph. a Christian can know he or she is included in the elect , chosen , the predestined. I John 5 : 13 says we can know for sure about eternal life. More later. Just a brief reply.
Ray,
Thanks for the reply. My question wasn’t quite answered though. I asked when they became the elect, and I am still not quite sure what your answer is.
You asked, “If the elect are the particular elect and have the inevitible perserverance of the saints why be concerned about them falling ? He says that if they do these things they will not fall and will have a welcome into the eternal kingdom. Do not the elect have the assurance of salvation ? Can they not be sure of their salvation and if so are they not the elect ? And according to Eph. a Christian can know he or she is included in the elect , chosen , the predestined. I John 5 : 13 says we can know for sure about eternal life.”
I agree with you on this. If someone is a Christian, then they will most certainly persevere to the end. A Christian can know that he or she is included in the elect. They can know this if they do the things that Peter says to do. A true Christian has no need to doubt whether or not he will persevere, because a true Christian will most certainly persevere. However, it is possible for a true Christian to doubt whether or not he is a true Christian. A Christian might have reason to doubt if he is not currently bearing the fruit of the Spirit. That is why Peter commands us to do these things. If you will notice, the things that Peter is commanding us to do are, more or less, the fruits of the Spirit. He says that we are to do them for the purpose of making our calling and election sure. Certainly if we do these things we will not fall, but we will also not doubt. If we do these things, we will be sure of our calling and election. I hope that this answers your question.
And if I may add to that, fellas, I would say that the reason Peter tells the elect to make their calling and election sure is that he wants them to make sure they really are the elect. In other words, the elect will act a certain way because God will have changed their life. If your life doesn’t look changed, there’s reason to doubt whether you’re actually of the elect or not. He’s saying, in effect, “You say you’re saved, but make sure that’s true. Here are some things that will be there if you are saved. If you look at your life and don’t see those things, you shouldn’t be all that sure of salvation. If you do see them, you can be confident you are of the elect.”
Doing those things is just like a spiritual barometer. The doing of them does nothing to get us to be in or out of the elect.
Your view of election, Ray, is really a phony election. According to your paradigm, it’s man who elects God, not God who elects man. You have to get around this because of the clear teaching of Scripture, so you say that man elects first and God elects second. But that just makes God’s election non-consequential.
The problem with the “foreseen faith” paradigm is that it presupposes that there can be events that happen apart from God. God had to look into future history and see who would believe in Him apart from Himself. That’s not what Scripture teaches.
The Scriptures also don’t teach that definition of “foreknowledge.” It is not simply “to know information beforehand.” It is to “forelove” someone. To enter into an intimate relationship with someone before they’re even born. This is supported by the direct objects of “foreknowing” always being people and not things or events. We also see it in statements like “Cain knew his wife and she bore a son,” “Israel, you only have I known,” etc. Cain didn’t just know who his wife was. God knew about more peoples besides Israel. But the knowledge of God isn’t simply an apprehension of facts. It’s an effectual, intimate loving of its object.
Most times I am amazed by our desires to exalt ourselves in thought and word. All of us are slaves to sin or slaves to Christ. We fight the wonderfulness of being a slave to our Lord and Savior, and question his Holy scriptures with our self-proclaimed intellectualizing. Forgive us, Lord we so want to understand your greatness but just can’t! There is never “free will” only we are free to choose our sin in the flesh.
Mike said: According to your paradigm, it’s man who elects God, not God who elects man. You have to get around this because of the clear teaching of Scripture, so you say that man elects first and God elects second. But that just makes God’s election non-consequential.
I have asked several questions in this thread that nobody has addressed. Someone was polite enough to provide a response to my questions. But the questions I asked were not addressed in those responses. Some of you seem to have canned responses that you apply to everything. Mike’s quote above is a case in point. He is attaching to Ray B a meaning that Ray B has never proposed. And then Mike addresses this imposed meaning with a canned answer. Nowhere in Mike’s response does he address what Ray B has actually said – which I will repeat in a slightly different format below.
God prepared a way of salvation. That means God acts first, not man.
God sends the Holy Spirit to draw a particular man to Himself and show him that this way of salvation exists. That means God acts second, not man.
Man responds to the drawing of the Holy Spirit (either by accepting or rejecting). This action by man is the third in the sequence. Not first. Not second. Third.
Without God preparing a way of salvation, man would be lost. God prepared the way of salvation, not man. God made the way of salvation like He wanted it to be; man had no input. Sovereign.
Without the Holy Spirit drawing man to God, man would be lost. God sends the Holy Spirit to do the drawing, not man. God draws however and whomever He wants to; man has no input. Sovereign.
Jesus did not die to save a particular person or nation. Jesus died as a sacrifice. All who yield to the Holy Spirit’s call to repentance and point to Jesus’ death as the shedding of blood that God requires for the remission of sin will be saved. Saved in Christ. Saved through Christ. Those who don’t repent and point to Jesus’ death as the shedding of blood that God requires will not be saved. That is the plan that God laid out before the foundation of this world. No human input at all. Sovereign.
Those who participate in God’s plan of salvation, who yield to the Holy Spirit’s call to repentance, are God’s – in Christ.
God has elected to receive all those who come to Him in Christ and through Christ. God states that there is no other way to come to Him. If it were not necessary for us to come, why would God have made such a statement? This was His plan from before the foundation of this world. Those who come, through Christ (to “come” means we appropriate His blood as sufficient atonement for our sin), are God’s, in Christ. The elect, as Ray B has explained. This also is the clear teaching of the scripture. There is quite a bit of good stuff out there about all this for those willing to read it.
Where in this process is man electing first and God electing second? And where in this process is God’s election inconsequential?
Richard,
You asked, “Where in this process is man electing first and God electing second? And where in this process is God’s election inconsequential?”
God’s election is inconsequential if we have the ability to refuse the Holy Spirit’s drawing. Let me ask you something. If God has elected a man to salvation, then is it absolutely certain that that man will come?
Richard,
First, I have not strawmanned Ray. He and I have been interacting not only on this thread, but also another 200+ comment thread from another post on election. The view I put forth is entirely consistent with his. And in fact, it’s entirely consistent with yours as well. I’ll address that last.
Jesus did not die to save a particular person or nation.
Exactly. The Arminian atonement does not actually atone. It only “prepares,” as you say. We should call this doctrine “Unlimited Preparation.” Jesus didn’t die for my sins, He died to make a way that I could take care of my sins. Hanging on the cross, Jesus should have said, “It is started,” instead of “It is finished.”
The reality is that Jesus did die to save paticular people. Those people are the elect. The elect by God’s choice, not by man’s.
Where in this process is man electing first and God electing second? And where in this process is God’s
election inconsequential?
I’ll show you. According to your paradigm, the only people that God “acts” for (in His “first” and “second” actions) are those who He “knows” will accept Him. His choice is based on man’s choice. Before the foundation of the world, God looks down into history to see who will respond to His first and second actions, and based on that He decides to elect them. Their choice of Him is the impetus for His choice of them.
That’s not God electing. That’s God electing to “act first,” as you say. That’s God electing to “act second.” That’s God electing those who elect Him. But that’s not the Biblical doctrine of election. Romans 9 says it’s not of the man who wills… but of God who has mercy. It’s all of God. It’s not God for parts 1 and 2 and man for part 3. Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, before they chose or rejected God, God Himself purposed to love one and hate the other.
Scripture doesn’t teach that God brings all of humanity to a point where original sin is eradicated and now we’re back to innocence like Adam and have the ability to accept or reject God. That ability to accept or reject was lost with Adam. He and Eve had that ability, but no one else through human history had that ability, except Jesus. All of us are guilty of the sin of Adam and have fallen with him. That’s original sin, for which we die justly. Jesus comes and actually saves people from that sin. There’s no biblical teaching for prevenient grace.
Hopefully that answers your question. If not, I’ll see what I can do after your comments.
Richard P. said
There is quite a bit of good stuff out there about all this for those willing to read it.
Can you direct me? I’d like to see it.
Does the Bible teach that, without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin? Does the Bible teach that Jesus was the Lamb of God, slain for the sins of the world? Does the Bible teach that Jesus was the last sacrifice that God would ever require from man? For what purpose was Jesus sacrificed?
Jesus’ death does not save me. It cannot. It wasn’t meant to. The jailer asked Paul and Silas “what must I do to be saved”. They responded “believe”. Believe what?? When I repent before God and ask for forgiveness, He says, “I’d like to, but I need a blood sacrifice first. Where’s yours?” My response is, “I have no sacrifice. But Jesus said that you would accept His blood as the blood you require. I believe what Jesus said and I point to His sacrifice on the cross to provide what You demand and what I cannot provide on my own.” God says, “You have spoken well. I accept Jesus’ blood as the shedding of blood necessary for the forgiveness of your sins. Your sins are forgiven you. Welcome Home!”
as an aside: what shedding of blood do other religions who believe in God point to when asking God to forgive their sins? How do they satisfy the requirement that ‘without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins’?
Jesus died on the cross that I might be saved. But if I do not repent and point to His blood as the shed blood God requires from me for the forgivness of my sins, I will not be saved. Jesus’ death on the cross is effective for me. But it is not effective unless I make use of it. I must do something. I cannot do anything without the calling of the Holy Spirit. But once called, I must do something. I can accept, or reject; I can choose or refuse to choose. I can believe and then fall away. But I will not ever be saved – in spite of what Jesus did on the cross – unless I repent and offer to God Christ’s shed blood as sufficient payment for my sin. (This pointing to Christ’s shed blood as a sacrifice sufficient to cover my sins is what is meant by the command “believe”.)
All of that is clearly taught by the Bible. I do not deny what you say. But you deny the truth of what I have just said. Both positions are taught by the Bible, even tho they seem to contradict each other at times. That is the only point I am arguing for here.
—–
I leave this thread with one final thought. If I hear you correctly, the Reformed view is that God did not peer into the future, see who would choose Him, and then base His election on that knowledge. But the reality is this: if God is truely omnicient, then there has never ever been a time when He did not know who would choose Him. Ever. That means this knowledge was His at the time He created His plan of salvation and chose His elect. He did not have to peer into the future to see it; this knowledge was already in His mind from the beginning. The reality is, God could not choose the elect while at the same time being ignorant of who would choose Him later. To say otherwise is to deny God’s omnicience. Which is why I think the argument that God chose the elect regardless of whether they would choose Him later is an unfruitful position to take. God maybe chose in spite of that knowledge; He certainly did not choose while being ignorant of that knowledge.
Thank you all for your interaction. I’m still learning, seeking to understand. For those who may not have read my posts earlier, I am not attempting to refute the Reformed view in my posts here. Rather, I’m seeking to understand it.
Richard,
On the contrary. I agree with everything that you said. We must believe, or we cannot be saved. I never said that this is not what the Bible teaches. However, the Bible does teach that we cannot believe unless it is given us by the Father. This is all I am saying.
You said, “If I hear you correctly, the Reformed view is that God did not peer into the future, see who would choose Him, and then base His election on that knowledge. But the reality is this: if God is truely omnicient, then there has never ever been a time when He did not know who would choose Him. Ever.”
You have defined the Reformed view correctly. What I believe is that election is not conditional upon any forseen action, belief, or any other merit of man. I believe that God chose who would choose Him. By that I do not mean that He chose those whom He foreknew would choose Him, I mean that He decided who would choose Him. He elected them. It is true that the knowledge, of who would choose Him, was with Him before the foundation of the world. There was never a time when God did not know who would choose Him. However, there also was never a time when God did not know WHY they would choose Him. They would choose Him because He predestined them to do so. He did not elect them because they would choose, they choose because they were the elect. In this way, election is primary, and therefore unconditional. To say that election is conditional, is to say that it is inconsequential.
You said, “The reality is, God could not choose the elect while at the same time being ignorant of who would choose Him later.”
This is true, however, the choice that God was currently making was the deciding factor in determining who would choose Him later. The outcome (who would choose and who would not) hinged directly upon whether God elected them or not.
Again, I agree with most everything you said. We cannot be saved unless we believe, and therefore, we have a responsibility to believe.
Richard,
I appreciate your soberness in your response. Allow me to respond further.
First, I think Daniel has made the point nicely. I agree heartily with everything he just wrote. But I want to address something you said. You were talking about how God couldn’t not know who would choose Him. I want to speak to that.
Before the foundation of the world, outside of time, God did indeed know who would choose Him. The answer: no one. That’s the entire point of the reformed teaching of Total Depravity, or Absolute Inability, or being dead in your trespasses and sins and being by nature a child of wrath (Eph 2:1-3). God did indeed know… He knew that absolutely no one would choose Him, because no one seeks God. Because we try to demonstrate that the will is much more limited than the Arminian thinks it is, we get pidginholed into saying that man’s will doesn’t have any role in salvation. We do not say that. Man’s will is entirely involved… it’s just all going one way, in one direction: away from God. Man is neither capable nor willing to be saved. Isaiah 59:15b-16 says that God looked and saw that there was no one to intervene. Psalm 69 says Jesus called out for help and no one provided it. We have all exercised our will against God, for it is our nature to do so.
So, seeing and knowing this in His omniscence, Isaiah continues, “so His own arm brought salvation to Him.” God sovereignly acted apart from any positive action by man… ever. He recognized that man would always choose ‘not-God,’ because man’s nature is fallen and corrupted beacuse of the sin of Adam (Gen 3, Rom 5:12-21, 1Cor 15:22). Perceiving man’s nature — that he was neither able nor willing — God sovereignly marked out a people for Himself, whom He purposed to redeem in order bring the glory He was worthy of to Himself by making alive that which was dead. He sovereignly elected His people when they “were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,” and “so then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.”
Then, in time, those people are brought to salvation by grace through faith. Their salvation is purchased by Christ’s death, that actually atoned for sins. I’m not saying all the elect got saved the day Jesus died. I’m saying that His death purchased their salvation, and their salvation was applied to them in time at the moment of belief. The belief happens when God sovereignly regenerates an elect person, giving him a new nature that is capable and willing to choose God.
I have just returned from a trip. A family matter. Will post next week .
Heb. 11 : 6 . God rewards those who diligently seek Him. Will He only reward those who have supernaturally been enabled to believe ? Are those who seek him only those who have been arbitrarily elected ? Not by any choice of their own but entirely through irresistible grace without any ability except what is supernaturally given only to a certain group chosen to respond only because they are unable to make a choice except by supernatural choice ? I know these questions overlap but just wondering what some mean by not having any will or choice except by that which is given via a miracle of the mind. Trying to get a real clear explanation.
Ray,
“Will He only reward those who have supernaturally been enabled to believe ?”
Yes.
“Are those who seek him only those who have been arbitrarily elected ?”
Yes. (except for the term “arbitrarily”)
“Not by any choice of their own but entirely through irresistible grace without any ability except what is supernaturally given only to a certain group chosen to respond only because they are unable to make a choice except by supernatural choice ?”
Correct.
Let me ask you a question. Was there anything righteous in yourself? Anything Just? Anything worthy? Was there any moral or spiritual capability or life in and of yourself? Was there any desire to follow Christ? Was there anything whatsoever in yourself that would enable you to call upon the undeserved mercy of God, that He Himself did not give to you?
Daniel ,
So , in other words everyone who is saved it is by supernatural intervention ? There is no choice except by supernatual means ? Then all has been decided . Then by your defintion all th elect are like robots , puppets on a string with no volition except by miraculous intervention. It is a chess game and God makes all the moves and no one is really responsible , or said in another way , the elect will never fall because God has made sure that all the elect , who have been arbitrarily chosen will always make the right moral choices because they cannot help but make the right choices because their minds and emotions are always supernaturally controlled. They cannot help but make the right moral and ethical decisions. Even their love of God and wife and children , etc. will always be correct because God will mkae sure they say and do whatever is needed to love, even though it will always be by superantural intervention , not a free choice.
In answer to your questions : I was convicted by the word. I was one of those that Heb. 11 : 6 speaks of that was diligently seeking God and that was before I was born again , before I repented , confessed and was baptized. Nothing worthy but willing to obey once I heard the truth. I was one of those who chose God and then became one of the elect. But I was given a choice. I had to make a decision. Personal volition was involved .
It is a chess game and God makes all the moves and no one is really responsible
Wrong.
God makes all the moves AND everyone is really responsible.
Do you find it disconcerting that you’re making the same argument that Paul himself is anticipating and refuting in Romans 9?
So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
The argument goes: If God really just arbitrarily elects to have mercy on whom He desires, and if He really just arbitrary elects to harden whom He desires, then no one can be responsible. He’s doing it all (no noe can resist His will), so He can’t fault someone for not doing things right.
And the answer is: You think too highly of yourself, little earthling. God is God. Not you. He can choose to do whatever He wants, whenever He wants, with whomever He wants, still require them to do something, and punish them for not doing it. “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?” (Matt 20:15).
The Bible maintains both complete divine sovereignty and human responsibility at the same time.
I was one of those who chose God and then became one of the elect.
So then you weren’t chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. You became one of the elect after you chose, much after the foundation of the world.
But I was given a choice. I had to make a decision. Personal volition was involved.
Again, you must understand, we don’t negate this. We don’t deny that personal volition is involved in salvation. Of course you had a choice. Our point is that before anyone is sovereignly regenerated, they always make the choice that is “not-God” because of their sin nature. If anyone ever does make the choice that is “God,” it’s because they have been born again, their sin nature destroyed and are given a divine nature. Then, they see sin for what it is and Christ for who He is, in such a way that was impossible before and now is impossible to reject.
Mike ,
Before the fondation of the world God planned a plan and that plan was that those who chose Him would be the elect. Eph. 1 speaks about those who had chosen God as those who are in Christ and therefore the chosen , the predestined. But yes, before the fondation of the world the plan was planned and yes there is God who is sovereign and there is reponsibility. No argument with either one from biblical doctrine. No argument with God and His mercy from Roamans 9 . My previous post was in response to the agustinian/calvinistic viewpoint that if I understand that viewpoint,in that teaching then there is no human responsiblity and if there is then everything from salavation and sanctification is entirely miraculous . Even , how a person epresses love. No independent volition. No indivual moral choice but only a total supernatural intervention at all times. That is why I say , a chess game and yes, God makes all the moves even all the moves in intervening with the sanctification of the elect. Again , they cannot help but do what is right, holy and pure. They actually have no free choice and no real responsiblity except only responding , obeying , being morally responsible , having the fruit of the Spirit but via the spernatural , miraculous intervetion of God to make sure they , the elect , the chosen , the predstined will always have the correct moral behavior . This is the logical conclusion I come to with the augustinian / calvinistic perspective.
Ray,
You said, “Before the fondation of the world God planned a plan and that plan was that those who chose Him would be the elect.”
You are wrong. Election was first. I have already explained this to you. Election was first. Election was first. Election was first. Election happened before the foundation of the world. We do not “become” the elect. We either are the elect already, or we will never be the elect. No one is ever added to or taken away from the number of the elect, because election happened first. The elect are those who have been chosen by God before the foundation of the world. Yes those who have placed their faith in Christ are the elect, but they did not become the elect when they did so. In fact, they did so because they were already the elect. There are some even now who are the elect who have not placed their faith in Christ. God has chosen them before the foundation of the world. Of course, we do not know who these people are. That is why we must evangelize. No one will ever be saved who is not already the elect. This is because ELECTION CAME FIRST. There is no other correct definition of election, Ray.
You said, “Eph. 1 speaks about those who had chosen God as those who are in Christ and therefore the chosen , the predestined.”
They are not the chosen because they chose God. God chose them before the foundation of the world. That is why they are the chosen, and that is when they became the chosen. To say that they became the chosen is like the following situation: I am playing a game with a group of people. To start the game, I pick a team out of the group without telling anyone else who I picked. After this, it just so happens that those who I picked are placed on my team. To say that Christians become the chosen when they chose Christ is like saying that those on my team became the ones that I picked when they walked over to my side. No, Ray. That is ridiculous. They had already been chosen. The fact that they walked over to my side did not determine whether they had been chosen or not. In fact, whether they had been chosen or not determined whether or not they would walk over to my side.
Daniel ,
Those who are in Christ are the elect.The election to salvation is only for those in union with Christ. This is what was planned before the foundation of the world. In Eph. 1 : 14 , Paul writes about those who were included in Christ when they heard the word of truth. Those who heard and obeyed are the corporate elect .
Daniel ,
In Eph. 1 : 14 , Paul writes about those who were included in Christ when they heard the word of truth. Those who heard and obeyed are the corporate elect .
In Eph. 1 : 14 , Paul writes about those who were included in Christ when they heard the word of truth.
Wrong again. In Ephesians 1:13, Paul writes about those who were sealed after listening to the message of the truth and believing.
This is so absurd. If you just read the chapter and say what it says, everything’s spelled out for you. Election comes first (vv. 3-6). That’s before anything happens. Before absolutely anything in redemptive history, God contemplates the situation of man and sin, and elects to save a remnant of sinful people.
Then, Paul and the Apostles get saved (vv. 7-12) when God lavishes His riches upon them. Doesn’t say anything about them doing anything. He just lavishes the riches of forgiveness upon them through Christ’s blood (that actually atones for their sins and actually forgives them). Then, after salvation, not before, He made His will known to the Apostles. And that is to sum up all things in Christ. So we even see it here. God seeks, not man. Man seeks only after God has lavished forgiveness on us and given us eyes to see (regeneration).
Then, Paul describes how the Ephesians got saved (vv. 13-14). Wayyyyyyyy after election before the foundation of the world, the Ephesians — in the 1st century AD — listened to the message of the truth, and believed the gospel. When they did this, they were sealed, not elected. Even in this passage it shows the chronology. Election was way up in vv. 3-6. Salvation is way down in vv. 13-14.
So what happened? This was in my response to Richard. Before the foundation of the world the Ephesians were elected and predestined to be adopted as sons of God. Then, in time, having already been elect, but not yet being saved, they heard the Gospel. So here we have elect unbelievers hearing the Gospel. Then, these elect unbelievers get reborn/regenerated by this Gospel, this word of truth that was preached to them (cf. 1 Peter 1:23-25). Then, these newly regenerated elect unbelievers BELIEVE! There’s faith. Now they’re saved. Their salvation, which was determined for them before the foundation of the world, is now applied to them in time. That’s the seal that Paul talks about.
———
Read this only after you’ve completely understood the above.
Also, about your post about being robots… First of all, congratulations on your originality. No one’s heard that before. Secondly, yes, it’s all miraculous. It’s blasphemous to say otherwise. Salvation and sanctification are entirely miraculous and are in no way natural. You can think that we’re robots before salvation, because all we do is love sin and hate God and choose sin and not God. After salvation, though, our will is no longer enslaved, but set free to serve God. Again, the will is free to act in the boundaries of its nature. Before salvation, sin nature. After salvation, divine nature. So we’re not just puppets in that we have no emotions or choices in anything. We choose all the time. But our mechanism for making choices before salvation never chooses God. After salvation, our mechanism for making choices is such that we never not choose God in a salvific sense. When we sin, we choose sin over God, but not in such a way that we can be lost… because were kept by Christ.
Think of it this way: I get set free from prison. But I still wear my prison clothes. So because I’m so used to being in a certain place when I have my prison clothes on, from time to time I wander back into my prison cell, even though I’m a free man. I can choose to go outside and live as a free man. But because my prison clothes are indeed still deceitful, I choose to sit in my cell.
Ray,
I do not understand your view of election. You said, “Those who are in Christ are the elect.The election to salvation is only for those in union with Christ. This is what was planned before the foundation of the world. In Eph. 1 : 14 , Paul writes about those who were included in Christ when they heard the word of truth. Those who heard and obeyed are the corporate elect .” You already know that election came first, because we have been the elect since…well, since God elected us. I am not understanding your definition.
Daniel and Mike ,
I jumped ahead , meant Eph. 1 : 13 when speaking of being “in Christ”. Thanks for your answers to my questions . Now I have a bettter understanding of your views of election.