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 h