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”, what do you think that means and why?
I look forward to your response.
85. Joop
December 21, 2006
4:44 PM
To Todd,
You stated that unregenerated men are not seeking God and you supported your statement with some verses. I checked these verses, but to me, nowhere in your verses are the unregenerated in general mentioned. There where fools mentioned, Israel (in general), the flesh etc.
In Acts 17:27 KJV it is said: That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.
In fact, many are seeking God, however, without the gospel they all end up with false religions.
And, of course, many are denying the very existense of God. The fools(!). They might end up in darwinism etc.
God bless,
Joop
86. Joop
December 21, 2006
5:12 PM
To Josh,
I will try to answer your questions:
I believe the whole creation was created and predestined to share God’s glory.
First the angels were created, however, some of these angels fell, together with Lucifer.
I don’t believe this was according to God’s will or glory, and I won’t agree God has planned this, or has foreordained this. If God DID foreordained it, well, in that case God would have some part in creating evil.
The same (about predestination) applies to men: I believe all men are predestined (before the existence of the universe) to be with Him and His glory. However, man chose to obey satan rather than God, so mankind ended up in satans dominion (outside the paradise)
So God made His plan of salvation to free all men. At least, that is His desire. So Christ died for ALL men, nobody excluded. However, not everybody will ever accept Him. This is not according to God’s will, just a fact.
We all are elected in Christ, however we can refuse this election, or after having accepted Christ, fall away. No, I don’t believe in OSAS.
As for Jesus, God took his only begotten Son as a Sacrifice. So He had to die to buy us free, to be delivered out of satans dominion, so we can life a live according to God’s will.
Jesus was predestined to die. However, I won’t go that far as to say that Judas Iskarioth was predestined to betray Jesus. He chose that himself. Nobody forced him.
I hope I gave you the answers of your questions,
God bless,
Joop
87. Todd
December 21, 2006
5:56 PM
Joop,
I can always count on you Joop.
Neither does it say in Psalm 63:1 that because he is born again he does this. It’s a natural conclusion.
Acts 17:27; good verse!
What about Acts 17:26; again a statement of God’s soverignty. Determinrng their preappointed times and boundaries. The context of 27 is that such a display of sovereignty should compell all to seek Him, leaving them with no excuse, having revealed Himself through His providence.
Psalm 136:16; Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when yet there were none of them.
Again a display of God controlling our destiny.
Rom 9:21; Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for destruction?
Another account of Him controlling our destiny.
And while were at it lets talk about Pharaoh. Equal accounts from scripture where Pharaoh hardened his own heart and God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. This example, equal accounts, is to show us that God is 100% sovereign and man is 100% responsible.
Rom 9:19; You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?
20; But indeed, oh man, who are you to reply against God?
88. John K
December 21, 2006
11:56 PM
Regenerate seeking:… ( 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)
Hi Todd,
It may be that you and I are using different Bibles, but most of the verses you cite don’t even mention seeking. The Ezekiel verses have to do with regeneration, but that is not in dispute. I think we agree that it is God and God alone who gives a new heart.
Two of the verses you quote are the two with I am trying to illustrate my point. Romans 3:11 says that NO ONE seeks God. It does not differentiate between regenerate and unregenerate. All I am trying to do is to get someone who takes the “no one” absolutely literally to reconcile that verse Psalm 27:8 and with another you cite, 63:1.
I believe that God invites all people to seek Him, and that He rewards those who do (Heb 11:6) and I could cite dozens of verses to back up my position. (Deut 4:29; Iasa 55:6; Jer 29:13: Lam 3:25; Mt 7:7,8 & Lk 11:9,10 to name a few)
I came across another verse to illustrate my point that God has not, as the strict Calvinist must hold, invited us to seek Him and then excluded some, a priori, from finding.
“I have not spoken in secret,
from somewhere in a land of darkness;
I have not said to Jacob’s descendants,
‘Seek me in vain.’” Isa 45:19
Take Care
89. donsands
December 22, 2006
7:37 AM
Joohm & Todd, good discussion.
I feel, and believe, that there is a mystery to the teaching of election, not that we can’t understand it to a point, however, the Scriptures present only so much for us.
“I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to babes.
This was done, Father: because it seemed good in Your sight.
All things are delivered unto Me of My Father: and no man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, except the Son, and to whomever the Son will reveal Him.
Come unto Me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Matt 11:25-28
God is the One who reveals, and no one can know, unless He does.
And the call is to all.
90. Joop
December 22, 2006
11:29 AM
To Todd,
Yes, God determined the boundaries, men can violate this boundaries. As we see all the time.
You mentioned Ps 136:16.Of course you meant Ps 139:16.
About Rom 9:21: This has to do with the election of Israel (Jacob above Esau), not with the election of some going to eternal glory, others to eternal destruction. Esau should have known better, he had to recognize his brother’s election. By this, he could have shared the blessings of Israel (Jacob). The same applied to Pharaoh. You remember the Pharaoh in Josephs days? Well, he recognized Joseph was blessed by God. So God blessed Egypte. The Pharaoh in Moses’ however rebelled against Moses (and God). As a result of this rebellion, God hardened his heart.
So, you are correct in the fact that, by not recognizing God working through Moses, Pharaoh was 100 percent responsible. You are also right that God is 100 percent sovereign: His plan was to let His people go out of Egypt, either way, for the good, or for the bad. It turned out for the bad, for Pharaoh and the Egyptians.
God bless,
Joop
91. Todd
December 22, 2006
1:15 PM
Joop, Steve K, Tim, and all
Joop,
Sometimes we have to agree to disagree. This debate has been going longer than both of us, and I know I’m not smart enough to resolve it. God has just left some things somewhat of a mystery. Some of us, myself included, just like the discussion.
Steve K,
I’ve enjoyed our discussion on this topic. I think you and I agree on more points than not. Interisting perspective you’ve brought up, and often we , myself included, get too carried away trying to prove a point, instead of seeking truth.
Tim,
Thank you for your articles that give us insight, deepen our understanding, and give us opportunity for discussion.
To all,
Lots of wisdom here. Hope you and your families have a very merry Christmas as we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Saviour.
P.S. looking foreward to “L”.
92. John K
December 22, 2006
2:41 PM
Todd,
Thank you for your gracious discussion on this subject. It is, after all, an “in-family” discussion betwen brothers and sisters.
Take Care,
In Christ
93. Joop
December 22, 2006
2:59 PM
Todd,
You said:
God has just left some things somewhat of a mystery.
Well, at least I agree on that one.
I think we all are trying to resolve some of the mysteries. Many ‘solutions’ may be offered, which may cause serious conflicts between Christians.
Like the Calvinist/Arminian debate, or the posttrib/pretrib debate. It should be friendly discussions, too bad it’s not always so.
I enjoy debating, and to challenge. And to be challenged. It may keep us (me!!!) sharp.
Thank you for your thoughts which were more than once really challenging for me,
God bless, and, also to all: Merry Christmas and blessed days!
Joop
94. Steve
December 22, 2006
6:03 PM
Heather,
In answer to your questions in #80….
Your first question, “Why did God create people knowing their choice would cause them to perish…”
It is inherent in the ability to choose, that people will choose wrongly. Even people enabled by God’s Word to see the truth, do not always accept Him, and in many cases even those who do accept and follow the plan of salvation find the troubles and cares of this world drag them back, and they turn away from God. Your question is basically a variation of Calvin’s interpretation. Only instead of, as Calvin’s ideology would say, He specifically created some for death and others for life. Scripture, however does not bear this out.
Why does God not keep everyone alive till they choose Him? Because they are given the chance while they are here. Don’t mistake God’s willingness to send men to Hell for choosing wrongly as the desire to kill them. Equally, do not think that because they choose wrongly He no longer loves them. This would be no different than my children being disobedient. Do I regret that I must punish them? Yes. Is it for their betterment? Yes. But in the end, when they reach adulthood, there comes a time when they must choose for themselves and bear the punishment for those choices, alone. This is why God spent so much time equating our relationship with Him in terms of family, marriage, children, and more…to demonstrate this part of His intention for His creations.
Your question of 1 Sam 2:25 does indeed have God killing those boys, because He willed it. We are God’s, and in that respect He can do with us as He wills. In the case of your scripture reference, the boys were not only defying their father, but specifically God. Scripture is rampant with God dealing out justice in this manner. David’s son was demanded for his sin. The people of Isreal were placed in bondage, or had armies of other nations come in and destroy thousands. Why? For disobedience. These were not simply because God had the power to do it; but every time He has stepped in to do so it has been because we were disobedient.
As for everyone being one of God’s people…read your New Testament. “I will call them my people who are not my people…” He had apostles preaching specifically to gentiles. As for reaching everyone…well, I think you’ll find very little on this planet that has not been reached in one way or another. Has it all been reached? I know of a few places still holding out, but I also know there are men searching them out as we speak.
95. Heather
December 22, 2006
7:53 PM
Steve,
Your response as lengthy as it was failed to address any of the points I made.
You proclaim God’s intention to save all, yet you fail to prove how He actively works to save all.
You oppose election because it takes salvation out of man’s choosing and puts it into God’s. Yet you cannot explain why God would go ahead and create those who by their unbelief damn themselves. You think that somehow it is more freeing to know that people damned themselves, yet you ignore that God created those people so that they could damn themselves.
Please deal with that. Those in hell are there because a Sovereign God created them and caused them to be able to damn themselves. He didn’t have to create them, but yet He did and He sends people to hell for unbelief that He Himself could have avoided. Again, how does that fit into your beliefs??
Your position when shown for what it clearly is does not “put God” in a more loving, merciful light.
Your response to the 1 Sam. 2 passage shows that you are unwilling to deal with the fact that God desired to kill two men instead of letting them die of “natural causes” in their old age. He cut off their time to choose Him and yet I don’t ever hear a non-Calvinist discuss that in light of 2 Peter 3:9. God is somehow trying to save everyone, even though He already knows those who will be saved and those who won’t, according to your views. He still somehow thinks that He can save those bound for hell even though He knows that the number of believers is fixed. Why would we interpret that verse in such an irrational manner? It makes God look confused and out of touch with His own plan.
As for your response on the availability of the gospel to all, I think you missed my point and you’re being naive.
God’s OT people were the Isrealites. God did not deal favorable with any other groups of people in the OT. He left the other nations in the darkness content to give His law to the Isrealite people only and to those who converted to Judaism.
Secondly, you must be naive or ignorant to think that all men and women, boys and girls have had equal opportunity to hear the gospel and repent.
The unreached places that you admit to knowing about prove that God has not provided His gospel equally. God has sovereignly purposed that many people die without the knowledge of Jesus and the cross. Note, I’m not saying they die without a knowledge of God, however the “gospel” as we call it has not been equally provided to all.
I ask you why that it is?
My answer is that God sends His Spirit, thus His gospel, to everyone that He intends to save. His sheep hear His voice and they follow Him. The goats don’t hear His voice, thus they don’t follow Him.
96. Heather
December 22, 2006
8:06 PM
John K said:
“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.
Yes, John, you listed the exceptions. Those who converted to Judiasm.
What about all the other nations that God did not reveal His law to?
I, frankly, don’t think God has excluded anyone from the opportunity to know Him.”
Since I’m not sure what you mean by “know Him”, I’ll assume that at least you mean know Him through His creation and our conscience.
OTH, many people have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. How do you explain this uneven “playing field”?
97. John K
December 23, 2006
4:29 AM
Heather,
Quote:
“Yes, John, you listed the exceptions. Those who converted to Judiasm.”
Actually, as I mentioned, before Abraham, there was no Judaism. Judaism never saved anyone, but only God by His grace through faith in Him, even in OT times.
Quote
“What about all the other nations that God did not reveal His law to?”
Once again, it was not the law or its revelation that saved anyone. People were saved (I believe) before the law was given and apart from it. I gave the example of Melchizedech. He came to whatever position he was before God quite apart from Abraham or any other circumstance we are told in the Bible. We don’t know how he became a “priest of God Most High”, but we are just told that he was.
Quote:
“Since I’m not sure what you mean by “know Him…”
By “know Him” I mean to have come to a saving relationship with Him, as, obviously, people did, even before Christ. Such a relationship, however, is and was made possible only through the work of Christ on the cross. Without that, no one could ever be saved.
Quote:
“……”, I’ll assume that at least you mean know Him through His creation and our conscience.”
No. That is how He reveals Himself to everyone (Psalm 19:1), so that all are without excuse (Rom 1:20), but that kind of knowledge is not enough for salvation. I think we would all agree on that.
Quote:
“OTH, many people have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. How do you explain this uneven “playing field”?”
I will not try to explain it here, but in short, I leave it to God. I rest on Gen 18:25, “…Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
Take Care
98. Heather
December 23, 2006
10:43 AM
John K:
You continue to state the obvious regarding God’s OT dealings.
God gave one nation His revealed way of coming to Him and He did not reveal Himself in like manner to all the other nations, until the Final Revelation.
I have yet to hear a non-Calvinist lament that unfairness of God’s election of Isreal when it clearly led to salvation for the Jews and left the Gentiles in the darkness and judgement.
As for the gospel outreach, you and I both take it back to God as He is the determiner for who hears the gospel and who responds accordingly.
And that is exactly what Reformed theology teaches. It’s God who is sovereign over salvation, not man.
99. Todd
December 23, 2006
12:43 PM
John K
Sorry, sometimes I cant resist. My wife has said that I perceive her telling me no as just an opportunity to change her mind.
” Why would God ask us to do something we are incapable of doing”(62)
Did He not command Israel to obey and keep the law, knowing all the while it was not within their ability? Wasnt His purpose in this to show them their inability to meet His demands? And that righteousness could never be achieved this way because no one could keep it at every point?
Also doesnt the gospel require every man to repent and believe, scripture affirming that repentance is granted by God(2 Tim 2:25), implying this is not within mans own ability apart from God’s intervention?
I’m not looking to get into another legnthy debate so please consider these points as I will ponder yours.
And granted Psalm 27: 8 and 63:1 say David sought the Lord.
One last Question. Is this open decree theory part of Hobbs theology? Thought I recognised some similarities.
In Christ
100. mike white
December 23, 2006
1:32 PM
The Gospel preached is the good news of the Kingdom of God and of its risen Lord, Jesus. It proclaims that all who submit unto Jesus will recieve eternal life and peace with God.
To submit unto Jesus requires both a true understanding of who He is [not simply a knowledge of what Christians believe] and a willing heart towards God.
Election then should be kept away from Gospel preaching in that no one except God knows who the unsaved elect are. But as we come to God with that willing heart and informed therein of the trueness of the Gospel proclamation by the Spirit, we do trust in the Lord and are saved. We *then* realize we are one of the elect.
None that come to God in that way will ever be turned away. But the question is *who* can come to God like that? Who can make there God-hating heart [spirit] God-submissive? Who can truly know that Jesus is the risen Lord that died for sins *unless* the Spirit reveals truth to the heart?
No one.
Hence the Gospel promises are conditioned on recieving them by faith, and faith can only be in the heart by the work of God in that life.
Therefore the Arminian foreknowledge is an invalid expression of God. God certainly knows who is coming by faith because He knows in whom He will bring faith to and in whom He *wont*.
Likewise, those in whom God has not wrought faith in see the Gospel as foolishness and *freely* decide not to rst their lives on inanity. And those whom God has brought life and life to, see the Gospel as the power of God unto salvation and *freely* embrace the Lord and are saved.
As to fairness: God is not required to grace anyone since we all have chosen to sin and do what we know is wrong. We all chose to suppress what knowledge of God we did have and decided to be like God or our own God by elevating our evil choices to the same level as obedience to Him.
Hence we have all chosen against God. there is no mandate that declares that God is required to help us rebels find our way back to Him. But He does help those He *chooses*! Those He chooses are the elect: His choice, His election of those people. Even if you think that people were not individually elected before the foundation of the world, they certainly were elected when God brought life and light to their rebel fallen spirits and saved their souls.
101. Steve
December 23, 2006
3:32 PM
Heather,
You will have to forgive the lack of specific scriptures in response to your earlier questions. This type of forum does not lend itself to lengthy discourse of scriptures in an effort to support or deny the plausibility of a given subject.
I assumed you had a knowledge of the scriptural passages to which I alluded, and from them you could begin to see the foundation from which God and Christ deal with us. I did this in rather broad, sweeping strokes….so I appologise if I muddied the water too much.
While I would love to discourse this in detail with you, it would probably suit this forum, and us, better if we continued our discussion via our personal emails, where we can get as detailed as we need.
Two final things as I step away from this particular post. First, you might look at some of my earlier responses…those did contain specifc scriptures and responses. Second, in your 1 Sam question; I would direct you back to the 2 Peter 3:9 as the begining of your quest to find the connection between the two. If, as you hold, God desired to kill those boys out of nothing more than the fact He is God, or Sovereign, then Peter’s statement is completely false. While, the 1 Sam passage is interperative in its meaning…even a word by word disection of 2 Peter 3:9 leaves the meaning exactly as its stated. Remember also, in the OT God was dealing directly with man, while in the NT we are following by faith what was left to us.
I submit that if there is a contradiction that profound, between the 1 Sam and the 2 Peter, yet it is the same God, then the truth must lie some where in between.
God bless.
102. Joop
December 23, 2006
5:25 PM
To Heather,
quote (#95)
(…)Those in hell are there because a Sovereign God created them and caused them to be able to damn themselves.
Not quite true. I would say: God created them, able to choose right or wrong.
Also as a supplement to Steve’s post (#101):
Reading the OT might give you strange conclusions You might read Ex 5:24 which reads that God sought to kill Moses(!). The same God who just called Moses to deliver Israel!
Lots could be said about that, however, is beyond topic here.
I believe, getting to know God Who is really is, is to look at Jesus. Thus for me NT is more important than OT (though I hold to the unerrancy of the WHOLE bible!).
So, I believe 2 Pet 3:9 is much more important than 1 Sam 2:25.
So, I ask you again, Heather, was is the meaning of 2 Pet 3:9 for you, even if this verse seems / is contradicting Calvinism?
You ask: why is not everybody having the same opportunity hearing the Gospel.
Well, that’s a good question! And why did it takes thousands of year before Jesus was born and died for our sins so there was the Gospel?
And here, I think, Calvinism is putting the horse behind the waggon: Because chances seemed to be unqual, (not to speak about children dying premature or in young age) so there MUST be election.
I believe God is justice and everybody will have a fair chance to accept Jesus or not.
Look at these gentile people, still looking after the poor and weak. Will they be lost forever, not having heard the gospel and, yes, sinners, but still caring for other people?
God bless,
Joop
103. John K
December 23, 2006
6:10 PM
Back at it, eh Todd?
Quote by Todd
“Did He not command Israel to obey and keep the law, knowing all the while it was not within their ability? Wasnt His purpose in this to show them their inability to meet His demands? And that righteousness could never be achieved this way because no one could keep it at every point?”
Yes. The law was put into place to drive us to Christ. God knew we couldn’t keep it. That is why He did not leave us in our fallen state, but put into place His plan of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Quote by Todd:
“Also doesnt the gospel require every man to repent and believe, scripture affirming that repentance is granted by God(2 Tim 2:25), implying this is not within mans own ability apart from God’s intervention?”
I’m not sure the repentance referred to in this passsage is repentance unto life, but the repentance of those opposing Timothy in quarrels and arguments. That having been said, I agree that true repentance unto life is not possible apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. We cannot do it on our own. My whole question in this discussion is this: did God decide who, a priori, He would save and who He would not, or does He grant the Holy Spirit in response to our seeking, as He promised in Luke 11:13?
Quote by Todd:
“One last Question. Is this open decree theory part of Hobbs theology? Thought I recognised some similarities.”
I don’t know. I have never heard of Hobbs. I first learned of it (although not by that name) from Hank Hanegraff(sp?) of the Christian Research Institute. I believe he subscribes to it, although I don’t want to speak for him.
Take Care
104. John K
December 23, 2006
6:27 PM
Hi Heather,
Quote:
“You continue to state the obvious regarding God’s OT dealings.
God gave one nation His revealed way of coming to Him and He did not reveal Himself in like manner to all the other nations, until the Final Revelation.”
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t follow at all.
Israel being given the law did not guarantee any of them salvation. In fact, Paul actually differentiates between Israel and the elect in Rom 11:7:
“…What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did…”
People in the OT were saved completely apart from Israel or being Jewish. I gave several examples, but consider Adam (if you believe he was saved), Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Melchizedech. None of them were Israelites and all lived before the law was given.
Israel was not guaranteed election to salvation, but was chosen in the sense that it was through the descendents of Abraham that the whole world would be blessed, ultimately in Jesus Christ.
Take Care
105. Todd
December 23, 2006
6:49 PM
Joop,
I guess I’m just a glutton for punishment because I keep coming back.
(2 Peter 3:9) God is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us (you; the elect, to whom the epistle is written),not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
(See 2 Peter 1:1)
Also while you are looking please consider the meaning of these verses( 1 Peter 2:8 )( Jude 4)
106. donsands
December 23, 2006
7:52 PM
” …yes, sinners, but still caring for other people”
God sees sin and sinners differently then we do.
We [mankind] don’t seem to mind some sin. We surely do have our list of sins that we hate as well, but some sin isn’t too bad, as long as we are caring for others, and make amends.
I believe there’s an infinite difference bewteen the way we see sinners, and the way God sees sinners. By sinners I mean those who are not Christians, or those unconditionally elected by the Lord.
107. Heather
December 23, 2006
7:52 PM
I said:
”(…)Those in hell are there because a Sovereign God created them and caused them to be able to damn themselves.”
The Joop said:
“Not quite true. I would say: God created them, able to choose right or wrong.”
I don’t want to accuse you of not reading my words, but did you?
I said that God caused them to “be able to damn themselves’. I left room for your free will view in my statement. I can’t be much more generous than that.
My understanding of 2 Peter 3:9 is the same as almost every other single Calvinist on this blog.
Peter was writing to the Christians, comforting them that the Day of the Lord had not passed them by as some false teachers were claiming. Instead he tells them that God is keeping His promise and He is patient with them. He is not going to come until all are saved and brought unto repentance.
These words “anyone” and “everyone” have a context. And that context is the “dear friends”(NIV) that Peter exhorts in this letter. Those same group of people are then told that in light of the day of the Lord, they ought to live holy and godly lives, and thus speed it’s coming(whatever that means).
That is my current understanding of this passage. It fits better than a God who is shown to be wanting that which is impossible for Him to have, namely salvation of more souls than is divinely known.
Is God insincere in this desire, since He already knows those who will believe and those who won’t believe? How can God’s Spirit try to save those who He already knows will not come? Is He really trying to save or just heaping more condemnation on them?
Please explain this contradiction in the Godhead.
Joop said:
“I believe God is justice and everybody will have a fair chance to accept Jesus or not.”
Just because you believe that does not mean it is a reality. The reality is that many, many people have died and will die without hearing the gospel and those people are not just in the jungles. They are our neighbors and co-workers who have been absorbed into a secular culture.
Is it fair for one baby to be born into Billy Graham’s household and the other into David Koresh’s household?
Face it, some people are positioned to hear the gospel and believe it and some are destined to only hear deception and false teaching their whole lives.
Your position cannot explain this disparity, except to adopt the Reformed view which says that God determines that place and times when we live and that He is responsible for when and if we hear the message of the cross.
108. donsands
December 23, 2006
7:55 PM
I meant to say:
” not unconditionally elected”
Have a blessed Christmas.
109. Heather
December 23, 2006
8:06 PM
John K said:
“Israel was not guaranteed election to salvation, but was chosen in the sense that it was through the descendents of Abraham that the whole world would be blessed, ultimately in Jesus Christ.”
I find that you make points that neither of us disagree on. I’m not advocating that every Israelite was saved. Nor am I saying that the Law is what saved anyone under the old covenant.
My basic point is that God elected one nation to receive the Law and a temporary means of atoning for sins. He did not do this for every nation. He passed over the other wicked nations and made the Isrealites His people.
110. Heather
December 23, 2006
8:09 PM
I did not mean to write:
“The Joop” in comment #107.
That should have been “Then”
111. Steve
December 23, 2006
10:00 PM
Heather,
At the risk of inflaming this already difficult subject, I chose to take a soft and light-hearted stab at throwing out another point of view. This is, after all, a blog in which we are allowed to voice our opinions, and beliefs, and given the courtesy of non-censorship, as long as we behave ourselves. For that, we have Tim to thank.
At the risk of endangering that; I find I must object to your statement of:
“That is my current understanding of this passage. It fits better than a God who is shown to be wanting that which it is impossible for Him to have, namely more souls than is divinely known.”
I realize that in the vehemence of the moment, we might speak stronger than we intended. Yet, you, by your statement, limit God to what you believe you understand of Him. He is no longer God, but what you perceive. He is limited to your understanding of Him, and your interpretation of of what He wants, expects, and desires. All based on the second hand interpretation of another man’s interpretation.
At the risk of sounding pompus, I would not…could not let what I saw pass, in the person of another calling themselves by Christ’s name. Not because I have some monopoly on truth, but because statements like that demonstrate a spirit that is not humble, or desiring to learn, but one that is adamant that they know the full measure of truth, and have nothing else to learn.
I know the desire to defend one’s beliefs. I have that desire all day, every day. But we must temper our desire with the willingness to know that we do not know everything. I see your defense of Calvin’s teachings, and I applaude them…yet your own statements of “you did not prove your position of….” are as applicable to you as the persons to whom you have debated.
In the statement I quoted from you, you have demonstrated that God must be as you understand Him. That it is impossible that He can be different than you understand. But I would tell you what scripture says…”we go about as brute beasts speaking of spiritual beings and matters…” Paraphrased: we are about as knowledgeable of angels as a cow is knowledgeable of us…”; and that does not even, in a remote form, include our knowldege of God.
I say this as a brother in Christ, not as an attempt to belittle you, but to caution you in the things you state as fact. I hope you will receive this in the love in which it was intended.
112. John K
December 23, 2006
10:20 PM
Hi again, Heather,
Quote:
“My basic point is that God elected one nation to receive the Law and a temporary means of atoning for sins. He did not do this for every nation. He passed over the other wicked nations and made the Isrealites His people.”
I know we’re getting off on a real rabbit trail here, but I can’t help but say, “so what?” Of course God had the complete and sovereign right to choose one nation over another through which to bless the world. With that I have no argument. But if that election had nothing to do with the personal salvation of its members, and if salvation was available to people from other nations regardless of this choice, what difference does it make in the current discussion?
Take Care
113. Todd
December 23, 2006
10:53 PM
Steve, (#111)
Thanks for bringing us down a notch. Some very humbling remarks. Appreciate the reminder and your words of wisdom.
114. Joop
December 24, 2006
5:19 AM
Heather,
quote #107
“I don’t want to accuse you of not reading my words, but did you?
I said that God caused them to “be able to damn themselves’. I left room for your free will view in my statement.”
Actually, I DID read your comments. What I DID NOT read however is you mentioning men able to choose right. Obviously you believe men have only free will to choose wrong.
Here I respectfully disagree with you.
About 2 Pet 3:9.
“It was written to Christians”. Correct.
That “all” should be limited to the “elect” is quite illogical. Then Peter could also have said:
“(…) willing that all but the elect should perish, and that [only] you should come to repentance.
quote:
“Is God insincere in this desire, since He already knows those who will believe and those who won’t believe? How can God’s Spirit try to save those who He already knows will not come? Is He really trying to save or just heaping more condemnation on them?”
What about Matt. 11:21? And Matt. 23:37? And what about the rich young man? Was he elected? Or not?
Quote:
“Please explain this contradiction in the Godhead.”
So was Jesus contradicting God (see Matt. 11:21)?
Heather, you are asking the right questions, I give you that. You are also very passionate.
However, by following just reformed [Calvinist] doctrines, I think you are -as I told before - putting the horse behind the waggon.
Todd,
Yes, you are a quite sticky glue ;-). But I guess, I have asked for it…
1 Pet 2:8 is about disobedience. So, what’s new?
God bless you all,
and Merry Christmas!
Joop
115. Heather
December 25, 2006
1:11 PM
To Steve, Joop and John K,
I read your remarks, but to be quite honest, I don’t see how they apply to my statement.
I’m not claiming any unique understanding of God. I’m simply taking better interpretations of passages over the poor ones.
Election of Israel led to their salvation, even if it was only a remnant. That cannot be said for the Gentile nations until the time of Christ.
I find this format to be the most difficult to deal with these issues.
I have sought to ask questions that previously helped me understand God and His word.
Thanks for the discussion and perhaps the other posts on TULIP will shed more light on these passages and interpretations.
Enjoy the time with family and friends.
Merry Christmas.
116. Josh
December 26, 2006
1:27 PM
Joop (or anyone who cares to answer):
In 114, you wrote the following to Heather, “What I DID NOT read however is you mentioning men able to choose right. Obviously you believe men have only free will to choose wrong.
Here I respectfully disagree with you.”
I was just wondering what Scripture you use to support the belief that man has the freewill to do spiritually good things. Nobody (as far as I know) disagrees with unregenerate man being able to do commendable or good things (such as give to charity), but those who believe in the “T” of TULIP believe that man can do no spiritually good thing (such as trusting in Christ for salvation). What Scriptures do you use to support your position that unregenerate man is able to trust in Christ for salvation?
Thank you very much.
117. Joop
December 26, 2006
2:13 PM
Josh,
In the whole bible men are commanded to hear, to listen and to obey. Or, to choose (whom we shall serve).
Also in NT Israel (and now: we) were commanded to listen to Jesus, to repent, and to follow Him.
And when we are commanded to listen and to trust, we can do it. At least we can do the first step.
Personally, what I find hard to obey is to love your enemies. I mean, real enemies. Yet, we are told to do so. So we can. At least we can do the first step -stretch out my hand and say: I forgive you! And, at least we can pray and ask the Lord to forgive them them. Just like what Jesus did. And Stephanus.
It’s all a matter of choice and obedience. If we are commanded to obey, we are able to obey.
So I don’t believe in the “T” of total inability, not being able to obey.
Moreover, when the result of original sin was the inabilty to trust and obey, why was Israel given the law (which wasn’t that heavy to be followed)? I believe, God wouldn’t give commands we were not able to follow or obey.
In that case it would be fairer from God to say: You unregerated people: just wait and see whether you will be saved….or not!
God bless
Joop
118. Ken Abbott
December 26, 2006
4:07 PM
Joop wrote: “If we are commanded to obey, we are able to obey.”
That is the essence of Pelagianism and the crux of Augustine’s dispute with Pelagius. So it is readily apparent that this “discussion” has been going on a long time and the church historically has sided with Augustine (but not consistently, sad to say).
Joop, if we have lost the ability to obey through our own fault, we retain responsibility and culpability even if we cannot obey. This is part of the judgment for sin.
119. Ken Abbott
December 26, 2006
4:09 PM
Second point, Joop. You asked what was the purpose of the Law if sin has rendered us unable to obey. Paul gives the answer in Galatians 3—the Law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. When we come up against the Law and realize it sets an impossible standard, we find we are in need of a Savior.
120. Joop
December 27, 2006
12:59 PM
Ken Abbott,
Much can be said about the Law. It would be an interesting study why the Law was given.
I certainly believe the Law could be hold. It is not an impossible standard considering Luc 1:6 and Phil 3:6.
However, the question can be raised: would the Law change our hearts? Certainly not with Paul (Saul) or the Pharizees. And we surely are not saved by the Law!
Moreover, Jesus went a few steps further: looking to a woman with lustful eyes is already an act of adultery!
You said, as I understood correctly, we should have lost the ability to obey the Law.
To me, Scripture says otherwise. Moreover, already in OT times, some people were called righteous.
Realizing this comment is far from complete, I quit making more remarks since
a. this is far beyond topic.
b. I like to do some more study about the Law, how and why is was given, its role in OT and NT etc etc. We might discuss a few more things later.
Finally, you mentioned Pelagius. I know but a few things about Pelagius. He is considered a heretic, specially by reformed theologians.
About Augustine: I know for sure he was a heretic in many ways. He laid the foundation to the Roman Catholic Church as we know it. So I would not trust Augustine either.
You may ask yourself: was Augustine less heretical than Richard Foster, Henri Nouen,
Brian McLaren or Rick Warren. I doubt it.
God bless,
Joop
121. John K
December 27, 2006
4:56 PM
Hi Joop,
Quote:
“Moreover, Jesus went a few steps further: looking to a woman with lustful eyes is already an act of adultery!”
I feel like I’m changing sides here, but not really. You and I have been somewhat on the same side in this discussion, but I must disagree with you about man’s ability to keep the law. I think Scripture is pretty cleaar that he is not. I believe this was Jesus’ whole point in the passage you cited, the Sermon on the Mount.
What I do think is that, although we cannot keep the law perfectly, we can seek God, and He has promised over and over again that those who seek Him will find Him (or, in reality, He will reveal Himself to them).
Take Care
122. Ken Abbott
December 28, 2006
9:49 AM
Joop: “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets [i.e., the OT] bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, who God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Romans 3:19-25a).
All have sinned, Joop, without exception, even those few extolled in Scripture as being “righteous,” because all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. None keeps the law perfectly; all are crushed under its weight.
Pelagius is justly regarded as a heretic by far more than just Reformed theologians. You should read his eighteen propositions sometime—the man-exaltedness of them is truly chilling. He stands as an example of a man, for all his otherwise good qualities, refused to submit to the judgment of Scripture.
Your statements about Augustine betray a poor knowledge of the man and his teachings.