The "U" in TULIP
This is the second part of a series I am writing dealing with the doctrines of grace (otherwise known as the five points of Calvinism). I am writing these articles not primarily to rehash the theology of each of the points or to provide an exhaustive apologetic of Calvinism, but to draw some fresh application and to show what these doctrines mean to me as I ponder them and attempt to live in light of them. I hope to show that these doctrines of grace are more than “mere theology,” but can be integral in living out the Christian faith. I am assuming that my readers are, by and large, familiar with the Points of Calvinism. Still, I will provide a brief explanation of the doctrine before drawing application.
Today we will look at the “U” in TULIP. This doctrine is known as unconditional election, though some theologians have begun using other terms that are a little bit more precise. For example, R.C. Sproul and Steve Lawson speak of sovereign election while Michael Horton chooses to speak of grace before time. But of greater importance than the phrase are the definition and the application. We will turn to those now.
Unconditional election is one of the more contentious doctrines and the one that causes the most difficulty, for it deals with the touchy subjects of election and predestination. It is premised on several of the doctrines of God. Most notably, it is premised on God’s omnipotence and omniscience (which is to say that God is all powerful and knows everything). This doctrine teaches that God’s election of some to salvation and some to reprobation is entirely unconditional. God, in His sovereignty, makes the ultimate choice of who will be saved and who will not.
When we say that God’s choice is without conditions, it does not mean that His choice is random or haphazard but rather, to borrow the words of R.C. Sproul, that there are “no conditions attached, either foreseen or otherwise.” It is this word, unconditional, that distinguishes the Calvinistic understanding of election from other theologies. Because election is made clear in Scripture, every system of theology founded on the Bible must have some concept of it. Most teach that there are conditions to election, and most often, that the condition is God’s ability to foresee a person’s faith. In other words, on the basis of God’s knowledge that a particular person will exercise faith, He then sovereignty elects that person as His own. He knows this person will meet the conditions for election and elects him on that basis.
There are two objections to conditional election. The first is simply that by basing election on foresight we are destroying the very meaning of the word “elect.” As James Boice says, “It actually means that men and women elect themselves, and God is reduced to a bystander who responds to their free choice. Logically and causally, even if not chronologically, God’s choice follows man’s choice.” The second objection is that it would be impossible for God to foresee faith in the heart of a person who is spiritually dead. If people are radically depraved (as we discussed under the “T” in TULIP) it is impossible for them to display any kind of faith without the prior work of God. All God would see in the hearts of humans would be deadness and enmity towards Him.
And so Calvinism teaches that election is unconditional. God foreknows who will be His elect and his choice is based on His decree, plan and purpose. He chooses people for His good pleasure and does not make known to us why He has chosen some and not others. We do not know why He has set His love on only some. But we do know that God’s act of election brings His chosen people, through the Spirit, to a willing acceptance of Christ. They are not forced to love God against their wills, but have their hearts changed and renewed so that they desire God and willingly embrace Him. Those who are not elect never undergo this change of heart and so never truly desire God (and we will have more to say about this under the “I” in TULIP).
There are many facets to this doctrine that merit discussion. Is God just to elect only some? Is God active in reprobation or does God only choose the elect while those who are not elect choose their own fate? Why would God choose some and not others? But because my purpose in these articles is not to provide a thorough defense of the doctrines of grace, I will stop here and turn now to application.
Unconditional Election: The Great Humbler
When discussing the “T” in TULIP I said that it is the “great equalizer” — the doctrine that makes us all equal before God in our depravity. If total depravity is the great equalizer, unconditional election is the great humbler. Ephesians 2:8-9 cautions Christians against using their privilege of being among God’s elect as a point of pride. In fact, it suggests that if salvation were not all of God, we would be filled with pride. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” When we acknowledge that salvation is all of God — He is the one who chose us, who provided the means of salvation through Christ, and who now gives us faith as a gift — we have no possible reason or cause to boast. We are humbled and brought low. We are undone.
And, like the two sides of a balance, as we are brought low, God is brought high. As we understand that salvation is all of God, as we understand that we could not possibly meet any conditions for election, we come to see God in His mercy and sovereignty. We see that God is gracious to those whom He loves and we see how and why we are in need of this grace. We see in unconditional election that the doctrines of grace are systematic theology, each depending on the others. When we look back to our radical depravity, depravity that extends to every aspect of our being, we understand why we are incapable of electing ourselves. When we understand how sinful we are and see that our natural hearts are wholly opposed to God, we realize that for anyone to be saved, He must be chosen and regenerated by God.
And so the doctrine of unconditional election is the great humbler. We are humbled when we see that we must rest not in the person who wills to be saved, but in God who elects and who has the power to save. We remove all trace of pride, all trace of self-confidence, and rest in the sovereignty of God. We allow this humility to filter to all areas of our lives, for only by God and through God are we saved. We lower ourselves and lift God high. We are humbled, so God may be magnified and glorified. And we live in service to God out of gratitude that His amazing grace extends even to sinners like us — sinners who would never and could never have chosen Him, but for His gracious and unfathomable choice.
We will continue this series in the future with a discussion of limited atonement, the “L” in TULIP.
Here are the first two entries in this series: The “T” in TULIP Part 1 and Part 2.
Comments (122) »
1. francisco
December 14, 2006
10:32 AM
Tim, Dr. Mohler answered a question on election/human responsabilityl/God’s sovereignty to this doctrine in his debate with Dr. Patterson at the last SBC convention: “there are two impossible persons: those who want to be saved and are not saved and those who do not want to be saved and are saved”. Not an exact quote but I guess it is close…
2. Tom Chantry
December 14, 2006
10:45 AM
If Calvinism were, as it is often misrepresented, a focus on myself as one of the chosen few, it would necessarily result in an arrogant Christianity. If on the other hand it is, as it ought to be, a commitment to the Sovereign Character of God, it will necessarily result in deep humility.
3. donsands
December 14, 2006
11:06 AM
Mighty fine teaching. Very encouraging. Thanks.
God elected Issac before he was ever born. He chose Jacb over Esau, before either of them was born, and did any good or bad.
God chose Paul to be a vessel of clay, filled with His glory to do His will.
And God chose us in the same way. Issac, Jacob, Paul, and whoever else, are all the same; sinners, dead in their sins, quickened and saved by His amazing grace of no conditions election.
4. Todd Mason
December 14, 2006
12:11 PM
I’ve been thinking much lately of the effects on being reformed. The humility aspect is massive. The humility and brokenness that occur as the result of knowing this doctrine changed everything for me. Thank you for a great post.
5. Stephen B.
December 14, 2006
2:06 PM
This ties right in to a Tim Keller sermon I was listening to the other day. It is so easy to claim salvation as something as something we have achieved. This mindset tends to creep up on us, especially in a culture that prides itself so much on personal achievement. Thanks for pointing out the “great humbler.”
6. Brian
December 14, 2006
2:08 PM
Always enjoy new application. Great post. The question of free will is not an ‘active’ condition, but a ‘passive’ acknowledgment of God’s sovereign grace and character, often labeled faith or trust or surrender. When I become aware of God’s intercession in my life, His person and character, His purpose and will, I can only humbly acknowledge that He is God and I am not. He can (and has) accomplished my salvation and I cannot. The lack of active free will, e.g. “I accept” or “I understand” does not constrain God at all. He is glorified and I am humbled.
It is when we go in the other direction, assuming an active component of free will in salvation that our hearts are hardened - we want a reason but never get satisfaction to “Why me?” or “Why not him?” We constrain God to our flawed interpretation. It is difficult, though not impossible, to lower that barrier.
7. Cap Stewart
December 14, 2006
2:32 PM
I see you’ve gone back to a topic less controversial than homeshooling. ;-)
8. Cap Stewart
December 14, 2006
2:36 PM
Evidently I can’t spell “homeschooling,” which is especially embarrassing since I was homeschooled.
9. St.Brianstine
December 14, 2006
4:16 PM
So what exactly does God’s foreknowledge mean? I take it to mean he knows what he is going to do, and he does it. I don’t buy the “he knew who would believe” explanation, it’s not biblical. But what is Paul saying? Am I off?
10. Josh
December 14, 2006
4:43 PM
Hi St. Brianstine,
In the context of Rom 8:28, to foreknow would mean something along the lines of God “fore-loving” someone.
When Adam went into Eve, some translations say that he “knew” her. In that sense of course, it was sexual relations between husband and wife. But in general, it is a sort of special love.
In Ephesians 1, it says that “In love He predestined us …”. So before we were created, before we had done another good or bad, not because if anything intrinsic within us, God set His special love upon us and elected us to salvation.
I am not sure exactly how that would fit into the foreknowledge mentioned in 1 Peter 1:2
Hope that helps.
11. Bill Burns
December 14, 2006
4:44 PM
Yes, Cap….but you’re sense of humor’s been left intact! ;0)
12. Steve
December 14, 2006
5:01 PM
In studying the doctrines of Calvin for many years. Speaking specifically of the “U”, in this response, I find scripures such as 2nd Peter 3:9 and others just like it render the “U” contradictory. “The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
While I could go through a list of scriptures like this, as well as ones demonstrating a choice in the matter of salvation, I’ll refrain from that at this time.
To put it succintly, even if I gather all of the scriptures with predestination, foreordination, or foreknowledge; the context of these scriptures places the knowledge of future in the “plan” of election/salvation…not the selection of individuals. For to find otherwise would be to say that Peter and the others who made statements like I just quoted, were lying…and God is not really wanting us to come to repentance. Even the simple phrasing of the scripture gives indication of us moving towards the repentance…nothing else.
This is not to say that man has, or has the ability, to save himself. That still lies in God’s hands. The method of how this comes about becomes the question. Calvin would say that God made the choices, but scripture would contradict him. Calvin, for whatever reason, in his attempt to elevate God, actually made Him less than. He could not see how a God who is omnipotent, ominiscient…(I know, I’m spelling things wrong..) could create man, set in motion the laws of life and the universe, and still give man the choice to live for Him, without somehow making Himself less. One shows God as building the set, gathering the players, playing the players and then saying that the players were good or bad and punishing them for things they ultimately had no choice in. In this, God does, indeed, become a respecter of persons.
People seem to skip over the fact that God’s Word has power. It created all that we see, and all that we can’t. It has the ability to reach past man’s sinful nature, to prick his heart, as we see in Acts 2:38. Does that mean that God did it? Of course. God opened the path. This fits with the scriptures. It fits with cutting off branches for disobedience, and in grafting them in again. It fits with the need to preach the Word. It fits with scriptures of God waiting on us, and being patient with us, being His children and more.
Do I pretend that God is left wringing His hands in the corner while we make up our minds? Of course not. All that He is and does will never be known by us, but when what is taught defies scripture in so many points then it is incumbant on us to find why.
Obviously many points were not made here. I can already hear the counter points coming. I do not, an did not intend to step on toes. I learn a great deal here, especially in Tim’s posts…the “T” of which is one of the best I have ever seen.
13. Mike
December 14, 2006
6:11 PM
Hey there Steve. Check the context in that II Peter reference. It says that God is patient with “you”, which precedes his not wanting any to perish. The verse is not intended for the whole world. Peter was writing to the Church, God’s Elect. Also, the “any” used there happens to be the same Greek as “some” when Peter says as “some think Him slow”. In either case, to imply that it’s God’s sovereign will that every person is saved, based on stretching this verse doesn’t hold much water. It also would come into direct contrast with much of the book of Romans.
14. Dallas Pymm
December 14, 2006
6:17 PM
the context of these scriptures places the knowledge of future in the “plan” of election/salvation…not the selection of individuals.
Hey Steve, I am one of the voices you heard. Romans 8:28 is talking about specific individuals..those whom I called…also Romans 9 does not get more specific than Jacob and Esau.
You should check out Piper’s TULIP seminar online. It can be downloaded free at monergism.com and is very informative. He discusses this issue you brought up her specifically…just as specific as God’s plan for individual people is. :o) Sorry, couldn’t resist.
15. Mike
December 14, 2006
6:19 PM
Sorry, I forgot one thing. John 6 is Jesus clearly teaching us Sovereign Election. The order and limitation of the events Jesus lists from v.37-v.44 is inescapable. Only those the Father gives to Jesus have the ability to come to Him, God’s will is that Christ save all that come to Him, and God’s will is accomplished and sealed with Jesus’ own claim that all who come to Him He will raise up to eternal life, and Jesus is no liar. There’s no room for acceptions, the agreement was made between God the Father, and Jesus Christ, and neither of them will compromise on that agreement, it was made before the foundations of the world, and as we see in Revelation, has been accomplished in the future.
16. John Lee
December 14, 2006
6:51 PM
Since the last time I posted something here in disagreement with the recent school of thought called Calvinism and was threatened with censorship, I am a little leery of saying anything in conscientious and studied disagreement once again.
I want to pay due respect to the writer and readership of this blogsite, and not disparage any theological convictions and beliefs. However, I feel it incumbent upon me to say that most of the people who peruse this site are Calvinistic in belief. The comments you leave one another are usually no more than the slaps-on-the-back kind of boys in the same club. You say nothing that surprises, nothing that challenges. You are all preaching to the same choir here, all trying to impress. You throw out Bible verses like poker hands at a card table. You find affirmation in the pandering words of each other; and where on occasion, as here, a conscientious voice speaks out like a bee alighting upon a tulip, you can almost hear the panicky hands reaching for the fly swatter.
That voice is dismissed with a swift slap. “Not biblical”; “not enlightened”; “not one of us.”
17. donsands
December 14, 2006
7:06 PM
I don’t know about you John Lee, but I need a slap on the back, or in other words I need encouragement. I love to share the truths of the Bible with my fellow brothers and sisters. I love to be built-up in the truth, and I try to edify others in the same way. The pure and simple truth of the gospel never gets old to me. And when I’m sharing with a brother in Christ it seems there always something fresh about it.
There is a place for debate as well. But the Scriptures are the foundation of any, and all debates.
If you have thoughts that disagree with unconditional election, and they’re based in the Holy Writ, share them.
God bless.
BTW, I don’t believe most of the commenters are trying to impress one another. You can surely believe that if you wish, but the last point of the post was about humility, not impressing others.
18. Dallas Pymm
December 14, 2006
7:07 PM
John Lee, may I call you Johny Lee?
With all due respect to you my friend. What does your comment have to do with the topic at hand?
You have stated your disagreement with Calvinism, so…why do you disagree with with Unconditional Election? The topic at hand.
19. Steve
December 14, 2006
7:15 PM
Okay…you guys have sent me back to my Greek. I ground thru this junk in college…curse you for making me get back in those books…:) For Mike, and for clarifications sake, the word any, used specifically in II Pet 3:9 is the Greek word “tis”, and is translated as ‘anyone, and any’. It is a variation of the Greek word “pas”, which is translated as ‘all, any, and every’. I would have supplied the Greek spellings but alas and dang it all, no Greek characters on my key board.
I agree that Peter was speaking to the elect in this passage…so I take you to an earlier Peter, this time preaching. Acts 2:36-39, “Therefore, let all Isreal be assured of this: God has made this Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, Brothers what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, everyone one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off - for all whom our Lord will call.
With many other words he warned them: and he pleaded with them, “save youreselves from this corrupt generation”. Those who accepted his message were baptized and about three thousand were added to their number that day.”
I ask you to consider that Peter is speaking of the same promise here that he spoke of in II Pet. Only here he is not speaking to the elect. I know that many will leap on the statement “for all whom our Lord will call..” I ask you to consider here, as in II Pet. that the Lord is calling “all” men.
Please note that it states they were cut to the heart. God’s word reached them. In the end “those who accepted the message” were added. Again, this is not an “I chose you”, but rather a; “you accepted my message”. Who’s message…God’s…His gospel.
Again, please do not take this as an anti-Calvin thingy. Many of Calvin’s precepts and ideas are fully valid, and I agree with them…but again, many are not.
20. Alex
December 14, 2006
7:28 PM
Josh,
Foreknowledge from 1 peter is “prognosis” in the Greek.
It simply means foreknowledge or forethought, or pre-arrangement.
Hope this helps.
21. Dallas Pymm
December 14, 2006
7:41 PM
Steve, It looks like Peter is talking to an all Israel crowd and was trying to convince them that Christ was not just the Savior of the Israel people, but all people. It seems they were the ones mocking the miraculous tongues that took place earlier. Lets not also forget that although the WORD is powerful, the WORD is the sword which belongs to the Spirit. He wields it and saved 3000 that day by cutting to their hearts with His sword. It was the spirit that filled Peter that day and worked as He planned to..
22. Steve
December 14, 2006
7:44 PM
Sorry Mike…I too forgot. I believe the section of John 6 that you refered to was the latter part of the chapter. You might take note of something in this set of verses….
I believe that you are basing your ‘election’ statement on a couple of the verses taken not out of context, but not meant the way Calvin took them. Jesus knowing that Judas would betray Him, I believe was a divine insight into the man. Note that Jesus said that the “Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you, they are spirit and they are life.” If you take note of the flow of Jesus statement you’ll see that He was speaking of the fact that His word was what was giving life, while Judas’ non belief was what was keeping him from achieving this.
Again we come to the fact that God’s word is the enabler…if the deciples election left them no choice then questions such as “are you going to leave me too?”, fall into the realm of nonsensical questions that need never have been asked. Their election would have given them no choice.
Peter told Him the reason they stayed…”because He had the words of eternal life.” They weren’t staying because they had no choice, but because God had enabled them through the spirit to be able to see where life came from and they chose to be there.
Jesus finally tells them “haven’t I chosen you, the twelve.” He still includes Judas…though he knows Judas will betray Him. So, did His divine choices falter here? No. Like you, I believe He kept Judas around in spite of His knowledge of his betraying nature…for a specific purpose, to be sure…but I believe that scripture bears out that God can use the bad as well as the good to acheive a purpose.
I do not see this final statement as a support of Calvin’s teaching, but a simple statement of fact…He did, indeed, choose those twelve men.
Uggghhhh…joo are making my brain hurt….:)
23. David
December 14, 2006
8:38 PM
John Lee’s comment has nothing to do with the topic; he’s just trolling again. Don’t feed the trolls.
John, if you really want to engage the topic of Tim’s post, go right ahead. If you’re just dropping in to be condescending and insulting, you’re just not welcome.
24. Matt
December 14, 2006
9:00 PM
If election is unconditional and we do not know until we stand before His throne our eternal destination, then where is the assurance of salvation?
25. donsands
December 14, 2006
9:16 PM
“brethern, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure … though you know and are established in thr present truth. Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my [Peter] decease.” 2 Pet. 1:10,12,15
“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” 1 John 5:13
26. Flawedcricket
December 14, 2006
9:26 PM
Steve,
Here’s what helped me in regards to the II Peter passage:
God has a sovereign will. That which will come about. God has a moral will. Those laws and rules we are not to break. And God has a disposition. There are things that please him. He does not take delight in the death of wicked people. Punishing evil people does not bring joy to God just like punishing our children does not bring joy to us.
Now, lets apply these three possibilities to 2 Peter. If we take the statement, “God is not wishing or willing that any should perish” and apply the sovereign will of God, the results are obvious. No one will perish. We should therefore expect everyone to be saved, which they aren’t. So that’s out.
If we apply the moral will of God then we read that God does not allow anyone to perish. That is, he forbids people to perish. It is against the law. Therefore, the punishment for perishing would be more perishing. How do you punish an already perishing person? Sorry. This make no sense.
It’s only the last definition that fits the verse. Peter is saying that God takes no delight in the perishing of anyone.
Now, when you add this to the argument already discussed (the antecedent to the terms “anyone” and “everyone” is the word “you”. And the “you” is referring to the church or to Christians at large because that is who Peter is writing to), it is more likely that Peter is saying God does not wish for any of his elect to perish and that he called more people at the beginning of time to be saved than had been saved at the time he wrote the letter.
Just something else to think about.
27. Steve
December 14, 2006
10:58 PM
Flawedcricket, I would agree with you over all.
Your statement of “God takes no delight in the perishing of anyone.” That would be accurate to all of scripture. That He seeks for all of us to find, to respond to His message of life, would fit with what Peter, in both instances that I described, is attempting to say.
However, to say that He called more than had been saved at the time of these statements would not follow with scripture, nor the statements made in either example. I do not argue that God has no place in the selection of people, nor do I say that our choice is the only method. I do say that both are a part of the salvation process. That God seeks to…as scripture states abundantly…to restore us to a point where we are coming together.
This would fit with the descriptions of Him as Father, as us and Him as family, of us as children. He refers to us in terms of a marriage…which carries with it, both in terms of His descriptions of it, and from a basic human perception, of entering into a committed relationship. One in which we, unlike a human relationship, bear the burden of getting to know the groom…as He is refered to.
Please do not think that I rely on II Pet as my only justification for this train of thought. When I began to study Calvin’s teachings, it was with the complete intention of finding if this were the path that God had chosen. Had I found it to be so, you would find me the biggest supporter of his teachings. I do not throw this stuff out randomly to stir the pot, or inflame….no, I find, in many avenues of christianity, that most leap to defend their beliefs, rather than seek to find if this is God’s will.
Again, not to tromp on anyone’s toes…I seek to learn as much as give differing opinion. As scripture says…”as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”
28. Randy Hurst
December 14, 2006
11:23 PM
Man has proven himself (and herself) adequately depraved over the eons. Our Creator knew it was coming, yet He was willing to endow a (potentially?)rebellious creature with not only His own image but His own freedom. He also planted those seeds of gracious intent before the foundations of the world we know. The mystery that unconditional election solves is… why would anyone refuse this grace…not how could He keep so many from it. He who numbers the hair on our balding heads (speaking for myself here) and has set in motion the solar and our own neuro-respiratory systems knew that the diamonds of reciprocated love would indeed be worth the cost of all that would be lost.
Good digging of this fallow ground gentlemen…
29. John K
December 15, 2006
12:40 AM
There is an alternative view of predestination to the Calvinist view of “Unconditional Election,” often not considered in the debate. It is referred to as the “Open decree of predestination.” It is not even addressed by many 5-point Calvinists with whom I have discussed this issue. In my experience, many Calvinists tend to see things in a totally “black or white” manner. In other words, one is either all-out Calvinist or is accused of being Arminian. This, I believe, is a straw man or at least, tunnel vision. They are ignoring a perfectly viable and Biblical option. It is not an either/or situation. I believe the true Biblical concept of election is this “open decree.” The open decree of predestination says simply that God decreed before the foundation of the world, that all “in Christ” would be saved. The elect consist of all who are or will be “in Christ”. He did not decree specifically who would finally be in Christ, but that all who are, would inherit eternal life. The group consisting of all those who come to faith in Him will be saved. “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.“ (Acts 2:21; Rom 10:13, quoting Joel 2:32) These are the “in Christ,” or the “in him” of Ephesians 1, and I believe that understanding predestination in this context is entirely consistent with Scripture. It takes nothing away from God’s sovereignty. True, God has known from eternity past who would be saved, but He has forced no one, nor has He specifically excluded anyone. He merely sovereignty declared that the group composed of all those who come to faith, the “in Christ,” if you like, would be saved. Again, there is that “tension” between foreknowledge and fore-ordination, but I don’t believe one necessitates the other. God can know our choices but still allow us to make them. Interestingly, this is a favourite point on which non-believers attack Christianity. They claim (as a strict interpretation of the Calvinist view must hold) that humans have no choice in the matter. They then say that God is a capricious bureaucrat who has already decided the fate of everyone, even before they were born, appointing some for salvation and specifically and arbitrarily excluding others. “How unfair!” they cry.
Admittedly, God can and could have done things in any way He wanted to, including decreeing arbitrarily who, specifically, would and who would not be saved. (Incidentally, it makes no difference to me, or anyone else who is saved. Our position is secure, no matter how the mechanism works.) Yes, He could have arbitrarily excluded some from even having a chance at salvation, but I don’t think it necessary to believe that He did. Just because He can do something, doesn’t force Him to do it. In fact, it occurs to me that unconditional election can be seen actually to detract from His sovereignty because one might say, “God could do it, so that must be the way He did it.” Or, to put it another way, “God is all-powerful, so He must always exercise His absolute power.” Yes, He could, but we limit His very omnipotence by insisting He must always exercise it in a particular way. He could very easily, in His sovereignty, have decided not to. One prerogative of God’s absolute sovereignty would be to grant mankind the freewill to seek Him, as I believe He did.
The use of Romans 8:29,30 to illustrate unconditional election doesn’t necessarily prove the point. In my opinion, the entire passage can be viewed quite consistently within the “open decree” paradigm. The only part that gives me any pause is the phrase, “…those God foreknew he also predestined…;” not because it leans toward strict Calvinism, but just the opposite; Arminians could easily claim it for their own position on election. A sovereign God, however, can in no way be bound or obligated by foreknowledge, so there must be another interpretation.
My view of God’s work vs. our part in salvation?
Luke 11:9-13:
“So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened… …how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
Yes, I agree that salvation comes only from God, and the real work is His. Regeneration is 100% of God, completely a work of the Holy Spirit, and we have no choice or play no part in it. The final pull into the kingdom is His, in His time and at His sole prerogative, but I think He honors our seeking, asking and knocking, as He has promised and as He has called us to do.
No one has mentioned this, but the logical extension of the “U” of 5-point Calvinism is the hyper-Calvinist notion that God will save the elect regardless of our evangelism or lack of it. In other words, face it: the true logical extension of unconditional election is that evangelism is unneccessary.
30. Afrikaner
December 15, 2006
12:51 AM
“No one has mentioned this, but the logical extension of the “U” of 5-point Calvinism is the hyper-Calvinist notion that God will save the elect regardless of our evangelism or lack of it. In other words, face it: the true logical extension of unconditional election is that evangelism is unneccessary.”
No - in obedience God commands preaching of His gospel. We must never presume upon God or His ways. I’m content to rest on His promises - and in obedience to Jesus’ commands, be part of worldwide evangelism, knowing that God’s word will not return to Him void, but will accomplish all He has planned. It is by the means of the evangel that God works His purposes out. No more - no less. I remain convinced that the doctrines of grace are a true expression of scripture, and anyone who peddles a hypercalvinism is not being true to scripture (or understands human responsibility under God’s sovereignty).
31. Morris Brooks
December 15, 2006
1:27 AM
One of the ways to help understand God’s election and predestination is to look at it from the perspective of God’s purpose. In Ephesians 1:11 it says we have been predestined according to God’s purpose. In Romans 8:28 it says we have been called according to His purpose. In Romans 9:10-14 it talks about Jacob being chosen so that God’s purpose according His choice would stand, In Ephesians 3:11 it talks about THE eternal purpose, or more literally THE purpose of the ages. There is one purpose that runs through out eternity. It is God’s purpose, and His choosing of us is not whimsical, not like einey, miney, mo; but purposeful, intentional and in perfect concert with His one eternal purpose. His choosing of us accomplishes that eternal purpose. Everything that God does is done to make certain that the one eternal purpose is carried out to completion. I like what A. W. Pink said about the crucifixion, that it did not make salvation possible, it made it certain. In fact Scripture never talks about God’s purposes, but only His purpose.
The word for election means to choose out of, to pick out of, to select out of. This makes perfect sense when you understand Total depravity/Man’s inability. Since all men are totally unable, incapable, and helpless God chooses some out of the mass of humanity to save in accordance with His eternal purpose. He did not choose some to go to hell, because all have turned aside and are rushing to hell like lemings off of the cliff, but He chose to reach down and save some of us because we have been predestined to salvation according to His purpose.
32. Dallas Pymm
December 15, 2006
11:51 AM
John K, You are right. I have never actually heard someone bring this up in a debate. I have only heard of this view of predestination. However like I said before in an earlier post, Romans 8:28 certainly is specific. Those whom he called…this is important because it seems this would imply two types of calls mentioned in scripture. One to all to repent and believe, and then this special call which is assuredly for God’s people to eternal salvation. Also, you can not get any more specific than Jacob and Esau. Paul is not quoting this passage said by God about a group in Christ. He is being specific. Then he addresses the objection of who could resist His will simply by saying who are we, God has the right. If it was simply an open group not specified, there would be no reason the objections Paul addresses in Romans 9. This view also does not hold up with Total depravity. We need to be resurrected and it is the Spirit who must do it because no one seeks God to be resurrected. If I have misread you I am sorry, I am actually confused to how “A sovereign God, however, can in no way be bound or obligated by foreknowledge, so there must be another interpretation.” It is not that he is bound by foreknowledge, he freely operates his foreknowledge. He loves his people before the foundation of the world, and doest his freely for all eternity. Praise be to God!
33. David S
December 15, 2006
12:23 PM
John K (#29),
A couple of thoughts:
“The elect consist of all who are or will be “in Christ”. He did not decree specifically who would finally be in Christ, but that all who are, would inherit eternal life. The group consisting of all those who come to faith in Him will be saved.”
1) I’m not sure how God would decree a group of people (the “elect”) without also knowing the individuals in that group, and if He did, what would be the point? If I invite everyone on my block over for dinner, and then decree that “those who attend will be the ones who come,” I’m making a true statement, but hardly one with any practical significance. Is this what you mean?
“True, God has known from eternity past who would be saved, but He has forced no one, nor has He specifically excluded anyone.”
2) If God is truly omniscient— knowing all things, including the future— and omnipotent— able to control all things, how is it that He knows the future without being involved in some way? It seems that if He knows and is sovereign, He must be involved, either by a) actively ordering the future or b) passively allowing it to occur without intervening. The only other option would be that He knows, but can’t do anything because He isn’t truly sovereign (which is where some have taken this).
I should also say that I don’t see God acting as some sort of puppetmaster— but Scripture doesn’t seem to resolve all our questions as cleanly as we (or I!) would like. And of course, if I’ve mischaracterized what you’ve said, I apologize.
34. Joop
December 15, 2006
2:32 PM
In the article it is said: “When we say that God’s choice is without conditions, it does not mean that His choice is random or haphazard(…)”
I believe you can distinguish two kinds of choices: 1. The election of Israel, of Juda, David, Jacob (above Esau) etc. 2. The election of who will be damned or saved forever.
I certainly believe in both there is a conditional election. Stating that all is UNconditional raises many, many questions and paradoxes. Here are some: First: unconditional election (to get saved or damned) must be random. Either it is random or not. Else there would be some condition. Second: I know I am saved and, I believe, you all reading this, are saved. Why? Could it be you were not saved if the coin had fallen the other side as a result of a random act? In that case, you too could never be saved? All I know is I am saved because I love the Lord and because Jesus is MY Lord too! I freely chose for Him. And no, I could not save myself. Never, never! He did it all for me! Third: What about angels? And fallen angels? Were they also elected before creation? Some to fall away, others not? If so, why did Lucifer fall? Did he choose so, or was he forordained to fall? Or did God ALLOWED Lucifer to fall (which I believe)? God bless, Joop
35. John K
December 15, 2006
3:09 PM
Quote by David S: “If I invite everyone on my block over for dinner, and then decree that ‘those who attend will be the ones who come’.”
I would say the analogy would be more like, I invite everyone on my block over for dinner and those who come to the door, I will bring inside and they will be fed. Those who don’t, won’t. The “elect”, then, are “those who are inside the house”. But we don’t enter by ourselves; He brings us in.
Quote: “He must be involved, either by a) actively ordering the future or b) passively allowing it to occur without intervening.”
I would agree, but I would prefer to say He is sovereignly allowing something to occur, not passively. In this case, I believe it is both. He invites to seek Him, then actively rewards those who obey.
36. Heather
December 15, 2006
6:06 PM
Joop said: “First: unconditional election (to get saved or damned) must be random. Either it is random or not. Else there would be some condition. Second: I know I am saved and, I believe, you all reading this, are saved. Why? Could it be you were not saved if the coin had fallen the other side as a result of a random act? In that case, you too could never be saved?”
You assume random acts are possible. I would challenge that assumption by pointing you to Proverbs 16:33 where we are told that even the outcome of roll of the die is directed by the Lord.
I would maintain that unconditional election is unconditional in the sense that God saw nothing favorable in us that caused Him to salvifically love us. In the mind of God , we may be assured that this election is not arbitrary. It conforms to His purpose and will as per Eph. 1:11. Again Joop said: “All I know is I am saved because I love the Lord and because Jesus is MY Lord too! I freely chose for Him. And no, I could not save myself. Never, never! He did it all for me!” You’re claiming that you freely chose for Him, yet all the while saying that you could not save yourself, that He did it all for you. Apparantly, He didn’t do it all for you, there was something left for you to accomplish. Your choice is what saved you. If it was your free choice, with no sovereign electing grace exerted upon your will, then by right, you deserve some of the credit for your salvation. After all, what makes you different than your unsaved neighbors, family and friends? In your view, it’s your free choice that brought you to eternal salvation. Those currently outside of this salvation clearly have yet to recognize the goodness of God that you recognized and received. So I ask you, who ultimately receives the glory in your position? You for being wise enough to see God’s provision or God for graciously saving you by changing your heart to desire Him. After all, that’s what faith is. Manifesting a change of heart.
I would challenge you to rethink your current understanding of the salvation process.
37. Jesse Gardner
December 15, 2006
6:48 PM
If what you’re saying about unconditional election is true, we have a most capricious God who delights not in grace nor in love, but in favoritism and elitism. He is also a terribly skilled actor in publicly calling all men unto Himself with the lifting up of His Son but only giving the power to respond to some. And worse yet, we have a two-faced God that tells us to show love to all but does not do so Himself. And if His version of love is a disingenuous Gepetto-style puppet show that intentionally saves some and damns others (through no choice of their own) than maybe I should give Nietzsche a second read…
38. Michel
December 15, 2006
9:28 PM
I would agree with John K. What he described is exactly the view of election I hold.
If I may, let me point out another problem with the Calvinistic position — that of the primacy of Christ.
In Calvinism, the order of decrees goes roughly like this: - God elected a group of people - God sent Christ to save the elected people. In this view, Christ is secondary to the elect. However this contradicts scripture, in which Christ is described as the head, the firstborn etc.
In the view John K presented, which I hold, - God elected Christ - God saves those in Christ This is entirely consistent with scripture. Whenever election is mentioned with respect to salvation of persons, there is always “in Christ”, “through Christ” etc, which is entirely consistent with this view but not the Calvinistic “U” view. This “open decree” view is also consistent with the scriptural description of the “elect” as the Body of Christ.
Another problem with Calvinism is that the meaning of election has been somewhat distorted. “To elect” in Greek as well as in English means “to choose”. There is nothing in the word that limits it to particular people. God can “elect” a nation, which He did, and He can “elect” particular people. So it is not a valid argument to say that God must “elect” particular people. “to Elect” simply means to “choose” nothing more.
Finally, consistent with the “open decree” view is the fact that Christ is referred to in scripture as “the chosen one” i.e. the Elect of God.
39. John K
December 16, 2006
12:06 AM
Comment by Dallas Pym: “Also, you can not get any more specific than Jacob and Esau.”
The passage in question is referring to God’s sovereign choice, and His sovereign choice is this: those who are in Christ are saved, those who aren’t, aren’t. God has mercy on those He wants to have mercy. Someone who rejects Christ might say, “That’s unfair!”, but it’s not. God has set the rules and everyone has an opportunity to abide by them. Some choose not to, but as Romans 1:20 says, they are without excuse.
Quote: “I am actually confused to how “A sovereign God, however, can in no way be bound or obligated by foreknowledge…”
I was mentioning that as the classic Arminian position on election: that is, that God bases His election upon His foreknowledge of who would come to faith and therefore is forced by that knowledge to elect them. This clearly subordinates God’s sovereign will to man’s choice and is therefore absolutely wrong.
Take Care
40. Steve H
December 16, 2006
8:41 AM
First, I never knew that this site existed. I was on John MacArthur’s site and found a link to it in an article I was reading. What a great thing this is.
I have no trouble whatsoever with the concept of the “U” thanks largely to RC Sproul’s “Chosen by God”. I am having trouble with something that I hope someone can explain to me.
Quickly, my believing niece is dating someone who happens to be an unbeliever which I believe that Scripture prohibits. In talking to my sister who is a “Calvinist” about this, she dismisssed it with some thinking that I just don’t understand. To summarize her logic: we are all sinners; this fellow might actually be a believer, but he doesn’t realize it-we just don’t know what he is; there will be those in heaven who never come to the realization of Christ as Savior on earth, but are elect nonetheless; it’s ok for her to date him. (It might be a big problem if this was her daughter. My brother, also an ardent Calvinist, is having huge problems with his daughter’s choice.)
I have trouble with this thinking. In spite of the fact that I believe in the “U” and am not sure that there is something called “hyper-Calvinism”, at this point I am almost ready to call this thinking hyper Calvinistic. It dismisses biblical teaching in my view. Help!
41. donsands
December 16, 2006
10:46 AM
Steve H,
I would say your sister is quite off in her thinking. And I agree with your brother, that this is a huge problem, and needs a lot of prayer.
All of mankind, every soul, is in rebellion to a holy Creator. We will not have Him tell us what to do, unless it agrees with what we want. I will not bow my knee.
The Lord has mercy on these rebels, not all of them, but the ones He has chosen to.
The big argument from those who are Non-reformed is that this isn’t fair. That has been what I run into time and again.
Also, when we finally are brought out of the darkness, and into His marvellous light, we need to walk in the light as He is in the light, so that we can have fellowship with one another. Also we need to come together to worship the Father in Spirit and truth, for this is His will.
42. Dgat
December 16, 2006
11:13 AM
Steve, There is definately such a thing as hyper-calvinism. Hyper-calvinism is basically when unregenerate men who have no affections for Christ get ahold of the five points of calvinism. Take for instance, Fred Phelps, he has a “tulip” church in topeka, KS, and he’s the guy that parades around funerals saying “God hates America”, “God hates Fags”, “”the military” etc. etc.. It is not like this man is preaching the gospel to these folks. The Gospel of our Lord, is a day of mercy for all kinds of sinners. Mercy to all because all are not in hell at this moment , and mercy to some especially who will come to Christ, the ones whom by grace are drawn to the Christ by the Holy Spirit.
43. Joop
December 16, 2006
12:28 PM
To Heather,
Thank you for your response.
First. I want to state: When it comes to saving people out of the realm of satan (the world), there is nothing random about that. I do believe Christ died for the world (everybody), and God doesn’t want anybody to perish. I just mentioned the ‘random act’ in relation to unconditional election. I wanted to make clear that IF election is UNconditional, then -for me- God is playing with dices..so to speak. So Heather, you are saved. For what reason? You probably say: no reason at all. True? Otherwise it would not be UNconditional election. So the ‘dices’ came into the right positions for you? Lucky you! You’re quite right I could not save myself. However, in asking the Lord to save me is not a saving act in itself. Please! I was bankrupt, as we all were. I could never make ‘money’ to earn my saving(s). Not a dime! All I had do to was to invite the Lord as my ‘Curator’, so He could take care of me. Yes, I invited the Lord as my Savior. I opened the door to let Him in. However, I didn’t earn a penny to get saved. So, to answer your question Who got all the glory for me, getting saved: He did! For 100 percent. You read my comment, so Heather, maybe you can explain if and how angels were elected for eternal glory or eternal damnation? Looking forward to your respons, God bless, Joop
44. Paul Brown
December 16, 2006
1:22 PM
For Steve H.:
Your sister is definitely off. No one will be in heaven who has not placed faith in Christ this side of eternity. This fellow may or may not ever come to Jesus; we simply have no way to know. At this point he is an unbeliever, an enemy of God, and all the warnings against unequal yoking and mixed marriages will apply.
My observation of my peers is that they generally consider emotions to be uncontrollable and finally decisive. That is, you cannot help falling in love (even if it is an unbeliever), and if you love, you must follow where this leads.
I am troubled when young adults spurn the counsel of scripture and the advice of their parents to “follow their hearts”. It might make popular films, but I fear that more often than not it leads to tremendous internal struggle trying to serve two masters (the heart and God), which eventually must be resolved by choosing one or the other.
Sorry if this is getting off-topic, but it seemed right to offer what support I can to a brother who is dealing with an issue that hits near to home.
45. John K
December 16, 2006
4:04 PM
Quote by Steve H: “…there will be those in heaven who never come to the realization of Christ as Savior on earth, but are elect nonetheless…”
That’s not only not Calvinism, it’s not even Christianity. It sounds more like a Jehovah’s Witness influence.
Take Care
46. Steve H
December 16, 2006
8:30 PM
Please note that this Quote is not my position, but is apparently that of my sister. The quote does not reflect my thinking at all
Quote by Steve H: “…there will be those in heaven who never come to the realization of Christ as Savior on earth, but are elect nonetheless…”
Just wanted to clarify this! Thanks.
47. John K
December 16, 2006
10:57 PM
Sorry Steve. I realize it is not your quote. I didn’t mean to make it sound as if it came from you. Take care
48. Ann
December 18, 2006
8:37 AM
I know I’m late posting, but it seems to me a correct understanding of the gospel gives the right pair of contact lenses (vision correction) needed.
(Eph 2:4-9) But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
God’s actions: He loved us; He made us alive (He cut us to the heart)
Our actions when we were dead: no action, which is characteristic of dead
Our actions after God made us alive: repentance and a baby’s cry of distress and a call for mercy and salvation (babies do not understand at the time of birth that the pain of birth is good)
Blessings,
Ann
49. TODD
December 18, 2006
2:35 PM
JOOP (43),
In response to angels.
Much could be said about the fact that the angels that sinned have no hope of redemption as we do. ( 2 Peter 2:4) ( Heb 2:16 ). God would be just and fair in dealing with us the same way, as this is what we deserve, just as the fallen angels. Another way God demonstrates His great love for us. 1 Tim 5:21 makes reference to elect angels.As stated in an above post elect simply means to choose. The use of the word elect in this verse seems to imply some influence used in keeping them, and a purpose respecting them, that did not exist with those which fell. Saints are called elect because they are chosen unto salvation( Eph 1:4-5). The angels who remain in their state of holiness, and those of the human race who are being made holy are the subjects of purpose and choice on the part of God. This fact is only stated in scripture, the reasons that led to the choice are not.
In Christ, Todd
50. Joop
December 18, 2006
3:56 PM
To Todd,
Thank for your reply. What I really want to know is whether angels were chosen/elected before creation, either to eternal glory or eternal condemnation. I personally do believe that elected angels (1 Tim 5:21) are those angels who refused to follow Lucifer in his rebellion and fall. I believe that originally ALL angels were predestined to eternal glory; however Lucifer (satan) chose to rebel and thus chose his own destiny (which is ultimatily the lake of fire). So, my question here: speaking of angels, can you speak here of UNconditional election? If this were the case, did GOD chose or forordained Lucifer to rebel and fall?
God bless, Joop
51. Heather
December 18, 2006
4:40 PM
Joop: Your response showed you read my comments. Your answer however only reinforced what you erroneously postulated the first time. I have no idea what “dices” is meant to refer to. In answer to your question about my salvation, I’m saved because God changed my heart to love Him and hate my sin.
52. TODD
December 18, 2006
11:55 PM
Joop, I believe God decreed or foreordained everything that has and will occur in time. I believe God made His decree in eternity before exercising any creative power. God created time and He exists apart from it, with God there is no succession of events. He has no need to look foreward to see events yet to occur because He has ordained it all. History is God accomplishing His predetermined purpose.(Acts 15:8)Known to God from eternity are all His works.(Isiah 46:10)Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times, things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure.(Isiah 14:27)For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?(Psalm 148:6)He also established them forever and ever; He made a decree which shall not pass away. (Jer 5:22)Do you not fear Me? says the Lord.Will you not tremble at My presence, Who have placed the sand as the bound for the sea, by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass beyond it? And though its waves toss to and fro, yet they cannot prevail; though they roar, yet they cannot pass over it. Scriptures given are not a sentence by sentence reference to the above statements, simply given to establish when God decreed and that His purpose will stand. Hope this gives you further insight, Todd
53. John K
December 19, 2006
12:11 AM
Todd, Who can disagree? But none of it contradicts the open decree of predestination as against the Calvinist understanding of Unconditional election.
Take Care
54. Todd
December 19, 2006
7:37 AM
John K (29)
You’ll have to forgive me because I’m about to comment without researching the theory you presented,however a few things come to mind as I considered it. It seems to me to be inconsistant to God’s character of perfection, and omniscience, not to fix a definate end when making a decree, rember I’m commenting quickly. Second, scripture teaches us that there are none who seek after God. Third, scripture speaks of the names of those Chosen in christ bieng written already.
willing to learn, Todd
55. Matthew Lipscomb
December 19, 2006
10:31 AM
To All:
As usual - I have enjoyed reading through the discussion that this topic has generated. There were some observations made that may have been a bit condescending - but I would encourage those of you who all agree to affirm your own openmindedness and those who disagree to do so respectfully and without disputations (Romans 12).
I wanted to throw some things out for consideration though it seems that things I have mentioned in the past have seemingly been sidesteped (Calvinian Contestations, essay).
I have been working on a book on the alcohol issue and fundamentalism, and I have a few things to draw from from that:
1) Some of our theology in the church today is ‘reactionary’ theology; it is doctrine that was drawn up in response to a challenge or perversion. We do not always have a good record (a la Nestorius and others) of reacting correctly, and in many cases - I would submit to you, the ideas that we put forth in opposition are worse then those that challenged us to begin with.
2) We don’t need to always understand everything. If we are to posit ourselves as scholars of faith - many contemporaries of our own in the world of Science have room for things that they cannot understand such as The (Heisenberg?) Uncertainty Principle or Black Holes - which almost all astrophysists affirm though they cannot possibly be directly observed outside of their presupposed affects on light around them. We affirm ourselves as people of faith but then refuse to accept a theology that requires it - expressing disbelief at the idea of faith in unknowables and mystery. The Eastern Orthodox church can teach us something here with their notion of “Negative Theology” or that parts of our system of thought is unknowable and mysterious and can be rejoiced in and celebrated with enthusiam in the nature of being as such.
I believe that Calvin is in the same rank of Nestorious whom Tillich once described (if I remember correctly) as church history’s first inadvertent heretic: he tried to correct a problem and became a problem himself.
I can except the wonder and the mystery of the fact that there is foreknowledge and predestination and that I still have a choice in the response to the Gospel Message. I don’t know how it all may work “in the center” but I know if I go too far left or too far right then I get into error. If philosophy says there is a Law of the Excluded Middle, then in theology there must seemingly also be what we might consider (proposed neologism) The Law of Excluded Boundaries: that the truth is somewhere in the center but not beyond certain parimeters. [I think a great illustration of this is Grace and Justice in the nature of God - if you get too radical in either (with less and less or no consideration of the other) then you get into either Legalism or Cheap Grace (in Bonhoferian terms)]
Just ‘some thoughts’
-matthew
56. donsands
December 19, 2006
11:07 AM
So Matthew,
Is it your understanding that God elects, unconditionally, those whom He has set His love upon, for eternal lfe?
57. Joop
December 19, 2006
4:26 PM
To Heather,
”(…) I’m saved because God changed my heart to love Him and hate my sin. ” Yes Heather, that part applies also for me. However, my question was: why did God changed YOUR heart (and not your ‘neighbor’ etc). Do you consider God changing your heart a part of the so called UNconditional election? If this question is maybe not clear enough: where does UNcondiotional election come in, in saving and changing our hearts? Is God electing some people and passing by others? And why then did God save you (and me)? If there is not a single condition, then God could also playing dices (so to speak) and just picking (electing) some people to save, while passing by others? Hope I did make myself clear enough.
To Todd (‘willing to learn’, good!).
Thanks for your reply. You made some statements I cannot really disagree with. However, I doubt if we have the same opinion about the meaning of the word ‘decree’. And then we have also the word ‘sovereign’. Anyway, I am missing some particular answers about electing angels (in general). So my questions stand: was satan forordained to rebel and fall while other angels were forordained to glorify the Lord forever? Like Gabriel. So, does the doctrine of Uncondiotional election apply to the eternal destiny of angels? Can you (or somebody else) give some thoughts.
God bless, Joop
58. Todd
December 19, 2006
4:35 PM
John K Re: Open decree again. ( Rom 8:29 ) For whom He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son… ( 1 Pet 1:2 ) chosen, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the spirit, for oobedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. In each case foreknowledge preceeds election. Foreknowledge as it relates to individuals, implys an intimate knowledge of the individual. How can God choose whom He does not know? ( Rom 8:30 ) Moreover whom He predestinated… Seems also to imply knowledge of individuals. ( Rom 9:11-13 ) again implys God’s choice resulting from loving Jacob, a specific person, before he was born. Also having a hard time subscribing to the open decree view when I consider it in light of God’s provedence. The divine, and sovereign controll of all things by God is the underlying premise of all that is taught in the scriptures. P.S. I’m not necessarily a proponent for calvinism, as Paul taught long before calvin.
Todd
59. Dallas Pymm
December 19, 2006
4:50 PM
Joop. Here is a brief article defining Biblical sovereignty by Dr. Sproul.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/SPROUL10.HTM
Here is a list of just some things God is sovereign over from monergism, and a link to this page with a lot of helpful articles. God is sovereign over the entire universe: Ps 103:19; Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11 God is sovereign over all of nature: Ps 135:6-7; Mt 5:45; 6:25-30 God is sovereign over angels & Satan: Ps 103:20-21; Job 1:12 God is sovereign over nations: Ps 47:7-9; Dan 2:20-21; 4:34-35 God is sovereign over human beings: 1 Sam 2:6-7; Gal 1:15-16 God is sovereign over animals: Ps 104:21-30; 1 Ki 17:4-6 God is sovereign over “accidents”: Pr 16:33; Jon 1:7; Mt 10:29 God is sovereign over free acts of men: Ex 3:21; 12:25-36; Ez 7:27 God is sovereign over sinful acts of men and Satan: 2 Sam 24:1; 1 Chr 21:1; Gen 45:5; 50:20
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/sovereignty.html
60. Todd
December 19, 2006
5:37 PM
Joop,
The unconditional in unconditional election, as far as I understand, implys that there is nothing on the part of the individual that initiated God’s choice. Scripture simply calls them the elect, so lets just say election, I dont think you like the other term. It is God and God alone that sustains, the elect from mankind, as well as angels, and every other aspect of His creation. ( Col 1:16 ) ( Heb 1:3 ). Hope this helps, Todd
61. Todd
December 19, 2006
5:54 PM
Dallas Pymm,
Amen!
Todd
62. John K
December 19, 2006
11:03 PM
Todd, I don’t disagree at all. I have no problem with God’s foreknowledge. But His foreknowledge does not necessarily equate to His fore-ordainment. God knows everything, everyone, and everything about everyone. He knew us before we came to be. In fact He has known who would be saved before the beginning of time. That does not mean that He has actively barred all others from eternal life, which is what the Calvinist view of unconditional election must maintain.
It is the Body that is elect, not individuals. When Paul or Peter write addressing the elect, I believe they are addressing individuals, yes, but as members of the elect Body of Christ. It is the “in Christ” they are addressing and those who are in that state, either individually or corporately.
Regarding Jacob and Esau, again, no problem. God, in His sovereignty, has the right to make any choice or decision He wants, although I believe the example of Jacob and Esau can be applied to the open decree as well. He still ordains who will be saved and who will not, but as a group, not individually. He declared before the foundation of the world that those who are, or will be, in Christ would be saved, those who aren’t won’t.
As for the term, “no one seeks God”, the lynch-pin of total depravity and therefore unconditional election, I believe we must realize that the Bible writers used figures of speech; among them that of hyperbole. In fact, Calvinists are fond of asking the question, “Does all really mean all?” They give the example of “all the people of Jerusalem” following John the Baptist (Mark 1:5) and ask, “Did all the people of Jerusalem really go out to see him?” the implication is that they did not, but that Mark was using hyperbole. Well, I think we must give the same grace when Paul, quoting David, says that “no one” seeks God or that “no one” is righteous. Indeed, the same David writes, in Psalm 63:1, “earnestly I seek You.” Is he lying? Or is this a contradiction? As a Biblical inerrantist, I have to say, “No!” Dozens of times throughout Scripture God calls us to seek Him. Why would He do so if He has made us incapable of doing so? Is He a cruel practical jokester? Of course not! Paul, and David whom he quotes, say that “no one” is righteous. Yet Noah (Gen 6:9), Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6) and Simeon (Luke 2:25) are all declared righteous in Scripture. Again, we cannot see these as contradictions, but must understand that we cannot always take the Bible woodenly literally, disregarding all literary imagery. Everything must (and can) be harmonized.
In short, I don’t believe my view of election diminishes God sovereignty one bit. It affirms it every bit as much as the Calvinist view of unconditional individual election and I believe, is more easily reconciled with the whole of Scripture.
By the way, you may see a more complete statement of what I believe on my own blog. http://temporarybaptist.blogspot.com/ Take Care,
63. Kenny
December 19, 2006
11:13 PM
Tim,
I know this is an old post but I just wanted to thank you for it. I can really relate to a lot of what you have said. I have often thought in the past that I have a boring testimony, now I look at it in a different way completely.
Keep up the good work.
64. donsands
December 20, 2006
8:16 AM
john,
“but as a group, not individually”
Surely Romans 9, when taken in its immediate context, is specifically teaching us about individuals in election. It would take a lot of forcing in order to say God wasn’t speaking about individuals here.
“So then it is not HIM who wills, or HIM who runs, but God who shows mercy”. (Rom. 9:16)
65. Brian at voiceofthesheep
December 20, 2006
8:57 AM
He still ordains who will be saved and who will not, but as a group, not individually.
John:
This is a nonsensical statement, as the “group” is made up of individuals. So the only way the group can be made is by the election of individual people.
I think also, that if you were to ask Jacob and Esau, both would say that election (or non-election) is both personal and individual.
QUESTION - If election is not personal and specific to the individual, then what is the significance of Jesus’ words in John 6 when He says that NO ONE (personal) can come to Him unless the Father draws him, and that ALL of those given to the Son by the Father WILL come to Him?
Group election without individual election is impossible.
Also, your take on the “no one seeks God” doesn’t hold up to the qualifier in Scripture itself, as it also says, “No, not even one.”
If any of those passages you cited using the word ‘all’ were to also include a qualifier such as, “every single one”, then they would obviously be referring to each and every individual. Scripture is clear that no one seeks after God. No, not even one.
Your arguments here against personal election and foreknowledge are not only weak, but unbiblical and inconsistent. Can you provide any other biblical evidence of why you reject personal election, and the freedom of God in salvation to save whomever He chooses apart from anything we do?
Thanks.
66. Heather
December 20, 2006
10:52 AM
Joop asked: “Do you consider God changing your heart a part of the so called UNconditional election?”
Yes.
“Is God electing some people and passing by others?”
Yes.
“And why then did God save you (and me)?”
God has saved us cause He chose to.
“If there is not a single condition, then God could also playing dices (so to speak) and just picking (electing) some people to save, while passing by others?”
Yes, from our perspective, that’s what it appears to be and that bugs us. However from God’s perspective, His electing grace comes from His purposes and will (Eph. 1:11).
Do you want to take a stab at why God places some people in Christian homes where they hear the gospel and believe at a young age and others in unsaved homes where they live and die in utter darkness and sin? I don’t care to ponder the fairness of that issue. God does as He pleases and no man can say to Him, “What have you done?”(Daniel 4:35) I’d advise you to read the Bible with the thought that God is not answerable to anyone, nor do His commandments apply to Him.
67. John K
December 20, 2006
2:27 PM
Hi Brian,
B@VotS: “…the “group” is made up of individuals.”
Agreed.
B@VotS:”…the only way the group can be made is by the election of individual people.
The word, ‘election’ in your statement is a non-sequitur. If the Body of Christ is elect, then the individuals in it are elect by virtue of being “in him”, not by virtue of having been pre-selected to it.
I was thinking last night about Numbers 21, the snke on the pole, which we all would agree I’m sure, is a picture of Christ. “The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” Who would live? Anyone who looked at the snake. Now, I’m sure we can assume that not all the people looked at the snake, but those who did lived and those who didn’t died. The holder of the Calvinist “unconditional election” position would have to say that God fore-ordained which specific individuals would look at the snake and, by default, prevented others from looking at it. I think that is a pretty forced position, not at all in line with the text. God invited everyone to look at the snake, and all who did, lived. Or to put it in a New Testament context, everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Quote: …what is the significance of Jesus’ words in John 6 when He says that NO ONE (personal) can come to Him unless the Father draws him, and that ALL of those given to the Son by the Father WILL come to Him?
I don’t see a contradiction here. No one could come to Christ if the Father did not draw them. But, I believe, the Father draws everyone, and some reject the call (because of John 3:19). In the context of John 6, not all who are called are given. Those given are the body of Christ, and none of them will be lost. I will try to do more later, but now I have to get back to work.
Take Care,
68. Joop
December 20, 2006
2:41 PM
To Heather,
thanks for taking the trouble to answer some of my questions. However, you failed the answer my question about the ‘election’ of angels. I wonder why? Maybe you don’t know - fair enough - our my question is troubling you? Heather, please, I know my bible, though I admit, I’m still learning and willing to learn, just like Todd. You claim that God is not answerable to anyone. Sure? Please read the dialog of Abraham with God about the fate of Sodom. And maybe you remember ‘God wanting to destroy Israel’, which Moses prevented throught intercession. So was God not answerable to Moses? Who said so? Some preacher who doesn’t know the bible? You better check it out next time. More troubling to me is your statement ‘His commandments won’t apply to Him.’ What about justice? What about love? And what about holiness? Claiming: ‘Gods commandments won’t apply to Him’ would implicate that He could give us really bad examples. Impossible for God who can’t deny Himself! ‘God does as He pleases’. I agree. But, but, would it pleases God doing unjust, unfair acts?
To all who dare to question my thoughts -just kidding ;-)
On the sovereignty of God much can be said. Just a few thoughts: God sovereignty does not neccessarily mean: absolute sovereignty (which was owned by men like Mussolini, Hitler, Saddam Hoessein). I believe God has the sovereignty to limit his sovereignty (for enabling men and angels to choose for or against Him). Surely, not everything happened/happens according to God’s will. You may well read Gen 6:6: “And it repented the Lord that he made man on the earth, and it grieved him his heart.” So, what about the [Calvinists] sovereignty? So, IF God forordained the wickedness of men in Gen. 6, why then did this grieve Him? And if unconditinal election were true, then why not apply this unconditional election to everybody? Everybody happy, God happy!
God bless you all, folks! Joop
69. Kenny
December 20, 2006
6:16 PM
sorry for post 63, i meant to post it in T in Tulip part 2, that was the article I was reading but somehow i managed to post it here!?
70. Dallas Pymm
December 20, 2006
6:40 PM
“But, I believe, the Father draws everyone, and some reject the call (because of John 3:19). In the context of John 6, not all who are called are given.”
This is why Romans 8 is so important. There must be two calls, one general call to every single person, and one that is special that accomplishes salvation.
71. Dallas Pymm
December 20, 2006
7:23 PM
Joop, I think the election of angels is irrelevant for this topic being that God elects his people to salvation. It would be a good study though.
“You claim that God is not answerable to anyone. Sure? Please read the dialog of Abraham with God about the fate of Sodom. And maybe you remember ‘God wanting to destroy Israel’, which Moses prevented throught intercession. So was God not answerable to Moses? Who said so?”
You are forcing onto these examples God saying one thing and doing another after these men spoke means he is answerable to them. God answers to no one, to think so is placing man above God. It follows much more from Scripture that God did this to teach these men.
“‘His commandments won’t apply to Him.’
Well…they don’t. We are subject to God’s commands he is not. God commands us not to hate yet he hates all you practice iniquity, he hated Esau. There are many examples of this. One human one would be telling your kids they can’t stay up passed 9pm. Can you? Do you bind yourself to the same command as your kids?
“What about justice? What about love? And what about holiness?”
God is just, God is love, God is Holy, God is totally sovereign over everything. Glad that got cleared up. :o)
“Claiming: ‘Gods commandments won’t apply to Him’ would implicate that He could give us really bad examples. Impossible for God who can’t deny Himself!”
Why do you think the above?
“‘God does as He pleases’. I agree. But, but, would it pleases God doing unjust, unfair acts?”
What at all do we disserve from God to charge him as unjust in anything he does?
“Surely, not everything happened/happens according to God’s will. “
Depends on what will your are talking about. God’s will of command cab be broken, or to put it another way we break his rules all the time. However God’s sovereign will is never thwarted. Period!
“And if unconditinal election were true, then why not apply this unconditional election to everybody? Everybody happy, God happy!”
Why is it that this is always the question. Why does God save any of us wretched sinners is a better one.
72. Steve
December 20, 2006
8:53 PM
You might consider a couple of things in your ideas of election.
Election: as Calvin would state it, is based on God picking and choosing individuals based on His own considerations of…”x”…factor/s. Factors that we do not get to participate in, nor do we have any choice of.
Second: this choice would not only deny much of scripture where in, people have a responsibility for sin, but would also place God as a respecter of the persons He catagorically stated He was not.
Many of the things that Calvin purported are founded on each other. While you must have Calvin’s ideology in mind as you read the scriptures, in order to see his ideas, it leaves much out…such as our responsibility for sin. No matter how you twist the idea…if we are responsible for our sin, it must be a ‘choice we made’…not an inability to do otherwise. If the latter, then we were created to sin, and God becomes the author of our sin. Only when we have a choice to do otherwise, do we have responsibilty of our sins.
No matter how you boil it down…for God to choose one person over another and not give the individual a chance of redemption makes the scriptures of His unwillingness for ‘any’ to perish a lie. Therefore, He either meant that we have an opportunity, elicited by Him, or we must follow Calvin’s idea and die or live regardless of our conduct or lives lived, for if we are elect, by Calvin’s standard, then statements such as “fallen away” or “turned back” become meaningless babble from the apostles who stated them.
Finally…though not really….if we are to consider Calvin’s ideas as valid, then we must ask ourselves, why did God leave us to fumble around for nearly five hundred years after Jesus death without Calvin’s idea of salvation and God’s method of life, liberty and happiness? Were those people simply dead? They did not have, nor did they teach anything a kin to Calvin’s ideology. Or was Calvin right…or perhaps Joseph Smith? Neither have scripture as a full foundation for thier understanding….but both have scriptures that support the things they stated. Of course, I can make WWII fit with Hitler as the antichrist. But all three would be wrong.
Scripture says much more, and much less than Calvin taught. God was much more than Calvin gave Him credit.
73. Todd
December 20, 2006
9:19 PM
John K Predestination according to Calvin states that God elects all who will be saved, apart from any merit of man. God freely chooses those on whom He will bestow His grace and mercy,interveining in their lives through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, bringing them to repentance and faith in Christ.This is an active role on God’s part in salvation. This aligns with the teaching of scripture. With repobation, however, scripture, and Calvin, teach this is a passive act by God. They live out their lives apart from God’s intervention, thus remaining in their sin and perishing therein.This is no injustice of God for we are all sinners through Adam, and deserving of condemnation. Scripture, and Calvin, also teach the free agency of man; that we make choices freely according to our inclinations. However there are numerous cases in scripture where God clearly influenced people to carry out His purposes, in most of these instances, with the exception of Balaam and Jonah,however, he was persueded to comply, they acted unaware of any intrusion on their will, they acted according to their desires. Scripture doesnt explain how this takes place only recording the occurance. It almost seems that the theory you mentioned attempts to make a “loophole” to protect God, when none is really needed. The reformed, calvinistic, doctrine on soteriology is biblical. Many after him have perverted his teachings, just as James Arminius’s followers did after his death. If you havent already, try reading Calvins own words, not what others interpret his words to mean.
74. John K
December 20, 2006
9:19 PM
Quote by Dallas: “There must be two calls, one general call to every single person, and one that is special that accomplishes salvation.”
With that I agree, Dallas, except I would say the “second call” is really more than just a call. It is the “I” in TULIP. It is the pull into the Kingdom and the closing of the door behind. It is the act of regeneration, accomplished by God and Him alone.
Take Care
75. John K
December 21, 2006
12:50 AM
Quote by Brian:
“Also, your take on the “no one seeks God” doesn’t hold up to the qualifier in Scripture itself, as it also says, “No, not even one.”
Does that include David himself. If so, what do you do with Psalm 63:1?
76. Todd
December 21, 2006
7:39 AM
John K
The regenerate do seek God. This corresponds with thier new nature, given by God. The unregenerate do not seek God. This corresponds with their fallen nature, a result of sin. Which we all know seperates us from God and places emnity between us and Him. We only seek God after His intervention(drawing).
77. donsands
December 21, 2006
8:07 AM
One other thought to continue Todd’s thought.
The Good Shepherd is seeking His lost sheep, and He will save them. And they will come to faith, and repentance, and they will know Him and follow His voice. Those who hear His voice and do not come to faith, are not His sheep.
Jesus seeks us, and He does this through His Church, the body of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, “speaking the truth in love”.
The Lord is also building His Church with living stones.
He sovereignly takes each stone, and places it where it fits best. He takes a dead stone, and makes it a living stone.
78. Dallas Pymm
December 21, 2006
11:06 AM
“With that I agree, Dallas, except I would say the “second call” is really more than just a call. It is the “I” in TULIP. It is the pull into the Kingdom and the closing of the door behind. It is the act of regeneration, accomplished by God and Him alone.”
Amen! That is precisely why I said: “There must be two calls, one general call to every single person, and one that is special that accomplishes salvation.”
79. John K
December 21, 2006
12:54 PM
Todd,
“The regenerate do seek God. The unregenerate do not seek God.”
What Scripture passages might I check out as proof of this position?
Thanks,
80. Heather
December 21, 2006
1:02 PM
Many thanks to Dallas Pymm for your reply in #71.
And to Steve in #72, if your interpretation of 2 Peter3:9 is right, then you have several questions to answer: 1) Why did God create people knowing their choice would cause them to perish? Why didn’t He just create the ones who would “choose” Him? 2) Why does the Bible speak of God desiring to put people to death for their disobedience? (1 Sam. 2:25) If your view is correct, God should desire to keep everyone alive until they “choose” Him.
3) How do you explain why God does not provide equal opportunity to all mankind for hearing the gospel and believing? Why does He not make sure that every person ever born has heard about Jesus and the cross? Why did He only make the Isrealites His people and He their God? Why didn’t He do the same for the Egyptians or the Cannanites?
Perhaps you’ve already thought of these things, but maybe you haven’t.
81. Joop
December 21, 2006
2:38 PM
To Dallas Pymm,
I think the election of angels is irrelevant for this topic being that God elects his people to salvation. It would be a good study though
I do think election of angels is relevant because the topic is “Unconditional Election”. Sure, that would apply at the first place to men, however, if you read the [Calvinistic] Synods, you will find the election of both men and angels :
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His own glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. (Westminster Confession of Faith)
Why does God save any of us wretched sinners is a better one.
Why did God save us? Because He loved us? Grace? Why did He create us (knowing that we could/would fall)? Please, why so much emphasis on the ‘wretched sinners’ part. Yes, we were sinners, and wretched, yet also God creation. The latter is ultimatily the most important. Once, we all will be perfect in heaven. God has given us hope through the Gospel. And the Gospel, the message of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection is for the whole world.
To Heather, #80 You are good at asking questions. I like that. As for your first question, I put another question: why did God create Lucifer who became satan? Another question: did God foreknow Lucifer WOULD fall? Or did God foreknow Lucifer COULD fall? Another question: did Lucifer fall because he rebelled or did he fall because God foreordained his rebellion, because he was predestinated to fall (see Westminster Confession)?
Finally, what is YOUR interpretation of 2 Pet 3:9?
God bless, Joop
82. John K
December 21, 2006
2:53 PM
Heather, Quote: “Why did He only make the Isrealites His people and He their God? Why didn’t He do the same for the Egyptians or the Cannanites?”
For what it’s worth, there were beleivers, even in the OT who were not Israelites. In fact everyone before Abraham falls into that category, Enoch and Noah, for instance. Melchizedek was a Priest of the Most High God (Gn 14:18) even before God’s covenant with Abraham. Even after the time of Abraham, there were people outside of the Israelites who put their faith in God. I’m thinking of Ruth and Rahab, for instance. I, frankly, don’t think God has excluded anyone from the opportunity to know Him.
Take Care
83. Todd
December 21, 2006
4:03 PM
John K,
Sorry, youre right, should have given references.
Regenerate seeking: you probably know more than these but here’s a few. ( Ps 9:10)(Ps 63:1)(Ezek 11:19)(Ezek 36:26)
Unregenerate not seeking: (Gen 6:5)(Ps 10:14)(John 5:44)(Ps 14:2)(Rom 3:11)(Rom 8:7)(Rom 10:20)(1 Cor 2:14)
The overall point I was trying to make is that God is the seeker of men, not the other way around. Sure some seek after God but only after His intervention; regeneration. This example is seen as soon as Adam sinned and fell from Grace. Adam did not seek God, he hid from God. It was God who sought out Adam. It’s given again through the prophets where God speaks of Himself as seeking out His people. And again in the new testament as God seeking out the lost.
84. Josh
December 21, 2006
4:41 PM
Joop,
I read your questions for Heather and thought I would try to answer them.
Why did God create Lucifer who became Satan?
Ultimately, I don’t know. But I do know that it was in accord with His eternal plan. As it says in Ephesians 1:11, God is He “… who works all things according to the counsel of his will”. Also, God does everything for His glory (this would take a lot of time to develop, but whole books have been written on this subject, The End for Which God Created the World by Jonathan Edwards for instance), so we know that somehow, this worked for God’s glory.
Did God foreknow Lucifer WOULD fall? Or did God foreknow Lucifer COULD fall?
Well, both actually. If God knew that Lucifer would fall, then He must have known that he could fall. God knows everything that will happen (1 Jn 3:20, Heb 4:13, John 21:17). So He did know that Lucifer would fall. In fact, if God did not know what people (or angels) would do, then He could not make prophecies, only guesses.
Did Lucifer fall because he rebelled or did he fall because God foreordained his rebellion, because he was predestinated to fall (see Westminster Confession)? Also, both are true. Nothing happens that God did not foreordain to happen. (Is 46:8-11, Ps 33:11, Ps 135:5-6, Prov 19:21). But people have to act in order for God’s plan to take place. For example, did God predestine Jesus to die or did men kill him? Both statements are true (Acts 4:23-28, Acts 2:23).
Joop, when the Bible calls Christians elect, or that He “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world” or that “he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ”,