- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (2/6)
- Next Post »A La Carte (2/7)
Having One Without the Other
- 02/06/08
- 50
Some time ago a reader of this site, a new Calvinist, wrote to ask, "If a person is ‘a child of wrath’ from birth due to Adam's sin and unable to choose God because of Adam's sin, how is he responsible for his actions if he was born this way (and has no ability of his own to choose God)? … If Christ didn't die for all men, yet all men were condemned for one sin (and by that sin, thereafter, unable to choose good), how is it just of God to condemn all men if they are ‘determined’ to be sinful by the action of Adam?"
This is one of those questions that could be answered in a few short lines, many sermons, or in a few great volumes. And it is probably best answered by someone far smarter than I am. But I will attempt it anyways, and hope to answer it satisfactorily, without going into laborious detail.
It is first important to understand that the Bible points us to a unity in the human race. Acts 17:26 tells us that "he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth." Some of the older translations read "he made from one blood every nation of mankind." Thus all of us are descendants of the one man and we have inherited his humanity and his attributes. The blood of Adam is in all of our veins. But Adam has passed down more than flesh and blood; he has also passed down sin.
John Piper writes, "The problem with the human race is not most deeply that everybody does various kinds of sins--those sins are real, they are huge and they are enough to condemn us. Paul is very concerned about them. But the deepest problem is that behind all our depravity and all our guilt and all our sinning, there is a deep mysterious connection with Adam whose sin became our sin and whose judgment became our judgment" ("Adam, Christ, and Justification: Part I").
Let's now try to come to an understanding of how Adam's sin affected the human race. This is one of the topics Paul addresses in Romans 5, a chapter that deals primarily with justification by faith. We will begin with verses 12 - 14 of that chapter. "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." This is something of an awkward construct, for Paul begins a thought in verse 12, and does not conclude it until verse 18. Verses 13 through 17 are parenthetical, yet still crucial to the argument he is building.
We learn from these verses that sin came into the world through one man, and we know this to be Adam. We learn also that death entered the world through sin and that death spread to all men because all men sinned. The meaning of these last words has been in dispute throughout the history of the church. Somehow we need to reconcile the fact that when Adam sinned, every human being also sinned, even though they were not yet in existence. From the moment of Adam's sin, God regarded the human race as sinful. This is the meaning of verses 13 and 14, for Paul tells us that even before the Law was given, men still died. Thus before God gave the Law to Moses, men were already counted guilty by God on the basis of their forefather's sin. This is further reinforced in verses 18 and 19 which read "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous."
We see that Adam was more than the father of the human race, but was also the representative head of the human race—our federal head. God had determined this from before the time Adam sinned. Thus Adam's actions directly affected us. Consider the metaphor of the President of a nation. When the President of the United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, every citizen of the nation was also at war with Japan. Acting as the head of all those whom he represented, the President made a decision that affected each one of them. It is, of course, an imperfect analogy, but sheds some light on how one man can represent others. Adam made the decision to wage war against God, and this affected every aspect of his being. It also affected all those whom he represented.
Just as our physical bodies are descended from Adam, the same is true with our souls. A child is not given a perfect, sinless soul at the moment of conception, but rather inherits an already sinful soul from his parents and ultimately, from Adam. So when we read in Genesis that Adam "fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth" we know that Adam's likeness included a sinful body and a sinful soul. Just as Adam had sinned in the whole man, both body and soul, so Seth inherited that sinful body and soul.
There is a term here we ought to define. To impute is to "attribute or credit to" or, said otherwise, "attribute (responsibility or fault) to a cause or source." Adam, acting as our representative, sinned on our behalf and his sin was then imputed to us—held on our account. Hodge writes, "Such was the relation, natural and federal, between him [Adam] and his posterity, that his act was putatively their act. That is, it was the judicial ground or reason why death passed on all men. In other words, they were regarded and treated as sinners on account of his sin." Thus Adam's sin is regarded as our own. When Adam sinned, we sinned and are justifiably considered condemned in God's eyes because of this sin.
Naturally, there are objections to this view. I will outline two responses we can make against these objections:
First, anyone who protests that this is unfair has already committed a multitude of sins, proving his own sinfulness. He has sinned because he is a sinner. God does not place an innocent man under Adam's sin against his will. It is his own sins that will form the primary basis for his condemnation. Romans 2:6 tells us that God "will render to each one according to his works." Similarly, Colossians 3:25 says, "…the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality."
Second, if we deny that men can be declared guilty on the basis of one man's sin, we will have difficulty accepting the parallel between Adam and Christ, who is called the Second Adam. "As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." Adam stood as the representative head of the human race and sinned, but God sent His Son to stand as the second representative head and through Him provided salvation. We are counted guilty through Adam's sin, but Christ, standing as the representative head of all who would believe in Him, obeyed God and now God counts us as righteous. To return to the word "impute," we can now have Christ's righteousness imputed to us, overcoming the sin of Adam.
Parenthetically, Wayne Grudem provides a third response, but seems to give it little credence. He suggests the view that any other human would also have sinned had he been in Adam's place. However, the Bible does not explicitly state this and by Grudem's own admission, "it does not seem to be a conclusive argument, for it assumes too much about what would or would not happen" (Systematic Theology, page 495).
So now we turn back to the original question of how it is that God can condemn all men on the basis of one man's action. Or said otherwise, how can He hold our sins against us when we are so predisposed to sin that we are unable not to sin? As we have seen, Adam's sin is our own as fully as it was his. This is just an unavoidable biblical reality. Yet this is not something we should regret or despise. Rather, we ought to embrace this, for if this is true, it is equally true that Christ stands as our representative and is able and willing to impute His righteousness to our account. There is nothing to be gained in objecting to the imputation of Adam's guilt, but everything to be gained in accepting it. As G.I. Williamson says, "Explain it, or explain it not, as we may, it remains true. It is also a fact that there is no salvation for such sinners as we are, except by the word of Jesus Christ as the representative of His people" (The Shorter Catechism Volume 1). We cannot have one without the other.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (50)
This is the truth.
Can you expand on the first “response to objections?”
If we have a fish tank representing our human nature - Calvinists saying that it is totally depraved. And we swim around not able to choose God because it is outside of our tank/nature. All of mankind is swimming around in their own tanks (billions of them), and God decides to take his chosen out of their tanks and put them into a new tank (a new nature) - and naturally leave the rest in their old tanks. The question that comes to mind is - who put us in the original tank? Adam or God?
If it was God, then true, I would have a problem with Calvinism since that’s saying “God made man sinful. God chose to regenerate some, and leave others. How could he do that?” If it were Adam, then it may make more sense. I’m thinking aloud, but what are your thoughts?
Well done Tim. Your third from the last paragraph draws the conclusion very well and it seems like that ought to provide sufficient resolution to the question originally posed by the “new Calvinist” reader you mention at the beginning of this post. Or at least it would have, had I been that person posing the question.
Nice work Tim.
A helpful summary on Original Sin.
I was disappointed you didn’t touch on the other part of the question though. The questioner also asked about the seeming disparity between imputation of sin to all and the imputation of righteousness to some.
I look forward to a future post dealing with this second part.
That was really enjoyable to read.
I might add to the comments already here that a quick glance at Romans 9:19ff seems to reveal that Paul anticipated the “Well, that’s not fair” argument we hear from time to time from the Free Will advocate.
Several observations that may be interesting to others, instead of just to me.
(1) Eve was the first one to eat the forbidden fruit. Yet it’s Adam’s sin that’s proffered by Scripture as to why all of humanity is fallen because of his original sin.
What does that tell you? What kind of theological import, if any, can be gathered by this observation that it was Adam who was held responsible, and not Eve?
(2) Hypothetical. Suppose Adam refused to eat of the fruit when Eve offered it to him. What would have happened then?
Tim,
Thank you for your explanation. I agree that Adam bears the responsibility as our head for bringing sin into the world. My thinking on this matter is still being refined though.
Certainly we all inherit our sin nature from him, but are we not judged with death specifically because we act out that nature individually “death spread to all men because all sinned”?
I’d also be interested in some interaction with Ezekiel 18 on this point. Thanks in advance!
I thought the question had to do with how God could condemn someone whom he has not allowed to apprehend Christ, not about the total depravity of man.
The first revoloves around the concept of predestination, the other about the guilt of sin humanity shares.
Most have no problem coceding that all people sin. Many take issue with the idea that people exist or are created who have no possibilty of salvation because God has not chosen them.
As far as I can see there is no good theological argument for this concept other than a “God can do whatever he wants” kind of statement which really resolves nothing.
Good points Truth United.
But could it be reasonably argued that Adam did indeed sin before Eve? That his passivity in stopping the serpent (which was driven by unbelief) was the first sin?
I’d be interested to hear thoughts on this.
Excellent summary.
I’ve always explained it, to those who ask, in a manner similar to Grudem’s answer. If God had created Tim and Rhonda Irvin as the first human beings and placed us in the garden, under the same circumstances, the outcome would have been the same. Once the first Couple sinned, there becomes no way to duplicate the trial in future generations because now the circumstances and surroundings have changed. The earth bears a curse and sin is present.Of course, we can only agree on this assumption if we agree that God was Sovereignly and Providentially in control of the whole chain of events.I agree that this is an oversimplification and does lack concrete support but it does often help someone understand “Federal Headship” a little better.
Tim this is phenomenal. I too am interested in the second part of the question. I hope you have time to answer it!
If I may, I’d like to suggest the novel “Perelandra” by C.S. Lewis. In it, he posits a newer planet inhabited by two Adam and Eve types, and asks the question, “What would happen if…?” It’s by no means a doctrinal presentation, but is food for thought.
Truth unites … and divides:
With regard to your mention of Adam being the one held responsible for the entrance of sin:
I have always thought of it a bit differently. we are told that sin entered through the transgression of Adam. We know that transgression is somewhat of a more serious class of sin, for the law made sin transgression. Transgression is a willfully direct affront to a known law and lawgiver.
Paul specifically says that Eve was deceived. he never says this about Adam. Adam’s part was transgression. It seems to me that while Eve was deceived into her state of sin, Adam entered in willfully.
Moreover, God had given Adam more reason to trust His character. When Adam was sad and had felt that there was no provision for him to have a mate and fulfillment in that way, God provided Eve. For some reason God wanted Adam to be aware of the special care and provision that God had for him.
When Adam saw Eve eating the fruit, he listened to her instead of the God whom he knew loved him. he defiantly took of the fruit for no other reason than autonomy and pride. This seems to me to bemuch different than Eve’s being deceived into her sinful state.
I do not disagree that the fall of the race in Adam is true and real. Eve was counted a sinner in Adam as well. Adam was the head and first of the human race, and he was put in the garden and on this planet to rule it under God. When he fell, everything in his dominion was subject to a curse on his account.
Anyway, I am curious to hear any comments on this line of reasoning for Adam’s transgression being sin and death’s entrance into the race rather than Eve’s.
“As we have seen, Adam’s sin is our own as fully as it was his. This is just an unavoidable biblical reality. Yet this is not something we should regret or despise. Rather, we ought to embrace this, for if this is true, it is equally true that Christ stands as our representative”
Very nice.
When this truth is proclaimed, it indeed is unfair in our eyes, and foolish noise to our ears. How can God condemn someone who is born blind and dead and lost?
But not those who have been graciously forgiven of all their sin as far as the East is from the West, and imputed Christ’s righteousness! We sing with all our hearts:
“Amazing grace, how sweet the soundThat sav’d a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found,Was blind, but now I see.”
All very nice, but terri (#9) poses the question the spirit of which I believe was the whole basis of Tim’s original questioner. It regards the “sixth” point of Calvinism, double predestination, (that God actually exludes some people from the possibility of salvation by, in effect, deciding that these certain, specific individuals may not come to faith. No one here has yet addressed it.
“(that God actually excludes some people from the possibility of salvation ”
All people are excluded because of Adam. We all deserve hell, and are cursed at our birth, and we go on to live a life of rebellion and self-focused.
God has mercy on Noah, but He kills millions, maybe billions of people, because they deserve it. And yet He regretted that he made man.
I think Tim’s point is that there’s biblical truth here, and the revealed truth is ours to grasp, and to even wrestle with, and the secret things are His.
John K,
You have the same “problem” with Arminianism, because God (who is all-knowing), knows who will be saved and who will not, and yet He creates them anyway knowing they will never come to saving faith.
The God of Arminianism is no less involved in double predestination that the God of Calvinism…unless ones believes in the heretical god of Open Theism.
Finally, the whole ‘it’s not fair’ objection to a sovereign God choosing some and not others overlooks one very simple fact…everyone deserves justice, and God - out of his own good pleasure - chooses to show some mercy. So, some receive mercy, the rest receive justice.
and God - out of his own good pleasure - chooses to show some mercy. So, some receive mercy, the rest receive justice.
Is this the same God that “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked?”
As far as I can tell God is always trying to extend his kingdom, not limit it. He is always reaching farther and more deeply into unexpected places to lead others to him, not excluding and restricting people from coming to him.
At least Arminianism gives people a shot at redemption.
“At least Arminianism gives people a shot at redemption.”
And also says that perhaps no one will be redeemed. And the Lord’s great mercy and grace fails.
“You have the same “problem” with Arminianism,…”
You raise the strawman of Arminianism, as if it is the only alternative to your own views. And I agree with you that Arminianism as you describe it is not Biblical.
I consider myself a Calvinist; just not a six point one. I believe God is sovereign. He has elected a people to be saved, the Body of Christ. I believe He calls all people to come to Him. Of course, not all will heed the call. John 3:19 says clearly that although Light has come to the whole world, there are those who reject His call, preferring darkness to light because their deeds are evil. But He also promises that all who seek will find, all who ask will receive, and to all who knock, the door will be opened.
Again, consistent with God’s sovereignty, it is He who opens the door. We cannot open it ourselves. But again, He has promised to open it to all who knock.
There is no need to accuse God of being capricious, nor to feel the need to defend Him against the accusation.
Terri et al.,
Romans 9 seems fairly clear - Paul says that it’s possible (even likely) that God has allowed disobedient people to thrive and continue for the purpose of making his wrath and power known in destroying them. It also says “… he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills”, and “So then it [salvation] depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy”.
This is fairly clearly Paul’s understanding: salvation began with the choice of God before the creation of the world (see also Eph. 1:3-6).
I don’t dispute the fact that in his amazing grace, God ALSO allows some undeserving, sinful men and women an opportunity to know him and be saved - but as donsands and Scripture testify, no one deserves salvation, or even an opportunity to be saved, because they are guilty of sin - all people (see Rom. 3:9-18). If someone is passed over, that’s fair; if someone gets to hear the Gospel, that’s more than fair - that’s grace.
You ask, how can I say that God predestined some to be saved, and also that they can have an opportunity to respond to the call? Because Scripture says both. We don’t know how they can both be true, but that’s because of the smallness of our minds, not a fault with God.
Interesting stuff. It does inevitably beg the questions of election doesn’t it.
On election, i’m with Karl Barth - individual people are not elected, but Christ is, so that we are elect if we are in him. The Father elected Christ from the foundation of the world, and so all who are in Christ are elect, and those who are not elect can ‘gain’ election by being joined to Christ by faith.
(I have been reading challies.com for well over a year…this is my first post - scary!)
Ok…at first I wasn’t going to read past the first line…the words reveal a world view of the author that has been a growing frustration for me: “a new calvinist” - It impacted me too much like a view that says, “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [and calvin/reformed theology] and teaching them to observe [calvin/reformed doctrine]”
I find myself most often in agreement with those who adhere to reformed doctrine or reformed doctrinal statements, but I don’t consider myself reformed or calvinist and never refer myself to that. This kind of language (perspective?) on doctrine probably hindered more of my sincere growth in Christ and I often observe that it is hindering the church in getting outside it’s own walls. ….(few minutes later) now, after reading the rest of the post, I think it’s a good doctrinal/biblical review of imputation of sin and righteousness.
Recently, I have come to a point where I want to tangibly and practically change and re-assess my doctrinal language - seriously re-assess and change it (and I have not read McLaren’s orthodox book thingy, so no charges of heresy please ;-)) - I only desire that now after a sincere effort to change my lifestyle to be more in contact with people who have no american church experience about Jesus.
As far as I can tell God is always trying to extend his kingdom, not limit it.
Trying? Does that mean He is sometimes failing? Christ said, “I will build my church”!
Is this the same God that “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked?”
Yes. It is.
On election, i’m with Karl Barth - individual people are not elected, but Christ is, so that we are elect if we are in him.
That’s quite a weak view of election. How about asking Esau if election wasn’t personal and individual..
Brian, you are quite confident to assert that there is a weakness here, perhpas you could explain to us exactly how Barth deals with that question ;-)
Rich,
I wasn’t evaluating Barth’s position, but was responding to your comment that individual people are not elected.
Ask Abraham if individuals are not elected, as well as Isaac and Jacob. Saying that individuals are not elected, but become so if they are in Christ, because He is elected, demeans the nature of what election is.
The Father gave certain ones to the Son. They were individually elected (chosen) to receive eternal life. Now, perhaps you would agree with this, but your comment above implied that election is a group thing (all those in Christ), and is something that is not personal to the individual.
I have heard very similar terminology used to refer to election and predestination which describes predestination as a ship heading to a certain port (salvation, eternal life, heaven). The ship is Christ, and as long as you are on (in) the ship, then you are of the elect, and are predestined to arrive at that port. However, if you remove yourself from that ship, then you are no longer a part of the elect, and are no longer predestined to arrive at that port.
I’m not saying you would agree with that analogy, but your comment about individuals not being elected, but are only so if they are in Christ just sounded very similar to what I just described.
So basically Calvinism = karma. Only, in Eastern thought, there is at least the possibility of finally getting off the ever-turning wheel of fate. In Calvinism, before the overwhelming majority of people were even conceived, they were doomed to an eternity of unspeakable suffering. And this is because Calvinism’s God is love. Or justice. Or mad for vengeance. This would include roasting infants, I presume, because they are just as much children of Adam.
So the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob becomes in Calvinist thought indistinguishable from Moloch…
I emphasize “in Calvinist thought,” by the way, which thank goodness is and has always been a minority opinion in the Church. But, of course, that can only confirm the Elect in their own convictions, being as the Elect are, by definition, a chosen few. So much for the First Adam/Second Adam analogy in 1 Cor. 15. In Calvinism, the devil’s victory must far outweighs Christ’s, otherwise what’s the fun in being “special”?
In Calvinism, before the overwhelming majority of people were even conceived, they were doomed to an eternity of unspeakable suffering.
when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls, she was told, The older will serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Brian,The ship is Christ, and as long as you are on (in) the ship, then you are of the elect, and are predestined to arrive at that port. However, if you remove yourself from that ship, then you are no longer a part of the elect, and are no longer predestined to arrive at that port.
You are assuming that the analogy automatically includes the ability to get off the boat, but it does not necessarily follow. Biblically, one cannot, but that does not negate the rest of the analogy. To complete the analogy, neither can one get on the boat by oneself. It is God that places one on the ship in response to aHis own promises to those who as, seek or knock.Saying that individuals are not elected, but become so if they are in Christ, because He is elected, demeans the nature of what election is.
Be careful it is not you who is demeaning. It is still God’s sovereign choice. Your statement is really just your own subjective opinion. I don’t think it is up to any one of us to declare which view does or does not demean the nature of election.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9, NKJV)
” But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13, NKJV)
It may be difficult to fully understand, but yes the ultimate reason men are redeemed is by God’s grace alone. Left up to themselves men will not earn enough merit to acquire righteousness. Salvation is a supernatural work of God’s grace. No wonder John Newton called it “Amazing Grace.”
Believing in free will does not mean not believing that salvation is from God.
Since when does saying yes to a gift that is offered imply that you have done any of the work in choosing the gift, the way it is offered, what it consists of, and how much it cost?
Saying yes to God is not a work. To put that on the level of trying to fulfill the entire Mosaic Law in order to be forgiven of your sins is a silly comparison. It is no comparison at all.
John K said: “Again, consistent with God’s sovereignty, it is He who opens the door. We cannot open it ourselves. But again, He has promised to open it to all who knock.There is no need to accuse God of being capricious, nor to feel the need to defend Him against the accusation.”
I really liked this idea, John, then I remembered this from The Revelation (3:19ff) “19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. 20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
Here “anyone” may open the door to restore fellowship with Christ. These are already “in” the church, but they remain volitionally culpable in choosing to be overcomers.
The difficulty in understanding any view of God’s sovereignty is that somehow human will always [still] plays a role, both before and after spiritual birth. We would never exercise choice without God’s awakening. But it is still a consistent part of His design that we choose Him back. What is repentance if not THE choice.
“Since when does saying yes to a gift that is offered imply that you have done any of the work in choosing the gift, the way it is offered, what it consists of, and how much it cost?”
Where in Scripture is the gift put forth as an “offer”.
The gift is GIVEN, not offered.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God
For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Here’s a question to ponder:
How does one accepted or reject a gift while dead?
How does one accepted or reject a gift while dead?
How does a camel pass through the eye of a needle? With God all things are possible.
John,
Your answer is not Scriptural, for Paul says that even while we were dead, God made us alive, and there is no teaching in the word that says we can or do anything spiritual while dead (in fact, the opposite is taught in many places). He also said that the natural man (spiritually dead) CANNOT understand the things of God, and are in fact foolishness to him. In short, one must first be made alive (resurrected spiritually), his heart of stone replaced with a heart of flesh, before he can see and perceive the things of God (this is the calling of which Paul mentions in Romans 8:30). And all those called in Romans 8 are saved.
Mike,
One commits sin before he is born because Adam was our representative…like it or not, that is clearly taught in Scripture. It is perhaps similar to how Levi paid tithes through Abraham, since he was still in his loins, as the author of Hebrews states.
I should add that I don’t really see this salvation as a gift to be accepted or rejected. I only see human freewill applying in whether to seek or not to seek. God grants it in response to those who seek, but when God, “puts us in the ship,” to go back to the analogy. We do not have a choice about whether we want to board. We are on board before we know it, and He will not let us get off.
I only see human freewill applying in whether to seek or not to seek. God grants it in response to those who seek,
No one seeks God.
No one seeks GodYou’re basing that on your interpretation of one or two verses of Scripture (which I believe are open to alternate interpretation), as opposed to dozens of verses citing God’s commands to seek Him and His promises to reward those who do.
You seem to be trying awful hard to give yourself some credit for coming to God in faith, John.
All that the Father gives me will come to me,
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
The giving of those by the Father to the Son precedes the coming, and all those given to the Son are raised up on the last day. Are there any that are given by the Father to the Son who do not come to the Son? No.
as many as were appointed to eternal life believed
The appointing of those to eternal life precedes their believing.
In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will…not according to a response by us.
Brian,And yet Jesus says that when he is lifted up he will draw all men to himself. Elsewhere, many are called but few are chosen.
Let me say this: Yes it is God who gives new life and no other. But, I don’t know about you, but how many testimonies begin with something like, “I began reading the Bible,” or, “I felt drawn to go to church (or back to church),” or, “I prayed a prayer saying, ‘God, if you’re there, please show me.’”? I would say countless people’s journey to faith began with these types of ‘seeking’ processes, following what they sensed was God’s call.
But all of them began before regeneration, before being made alive in Christ, before God replaced their heart of stone with a heart of flesh. IOW, when they were still “dead.” That is unless you would claim they were somehow made alive before regeneration.
Similarly, any of us involved at all in witnessing or evangelizing have seen cases where someone, “came close” and then turned away. Granted, we don’t know the future, or “those who are His” but, again, many are called, few chosen.
John,
People may be seeking all sorts of things in the name of God, but they will never truly seek the One true God who has revealed Himself in the person and work of Jesus Christ until they have been called forth from the tomb…not until they have been born from above.
Jesus told Nicodemus that, in order to even see the kingdom of God, one must first be born again (lit. born from above). So, how can one truly seek after that which one cannot even see? Regeneration must take place first, before someone can truly seek God.
And yes. Many are called, but few are chosen. The calling in this sense is the general outward call of the of the gospel, and the ones chosen are those who have been given to the Son by the Father from before the foundation of the world….all of whom will come to Christ, for He will not lose a single one of them.
“Regeneration must take place first, before someone can truly seek God.” -Brian
Many of my friends will disagree here. And I understand why. Acts 17:25-27 says, ” … He [God] gives to all life, and breath, and all things;…That they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us.”
One thing is for sure. Jesus is seeking His sheep who are lost. And the Father draws the sheep to the Son. The way God brings people to salvation can be many ways, and He is overeign in how He does this.
Cornelius is a great example for me, for I feel like I was a Cornelius for a season, until the Gospel, and the power of it, changed me, and regenerated me. The regeneration is of the Lord, and all the means to that moment are of a loving Father, and Good Shepherd, who loves His sheep.
Like many others, looking forward to the answer to the actual question posed: how do you explain the Bad News of the Gospel?-
“Hey folks! let me tell you about my God:He created the whole world, and He created all the people in it. Most of the people He created, were created simply to display His wrath. Excuse the pun and the bad theology but they don’t have a hope in hell [or heaven for that matter]. A small minority were created with the capacity to know Him. That’s me of course. The rest are screwed. Anyone want to sign up?”.
Try this, Gordon:
“Hey, y’know what? I know you’re enjoying this shopping mall. There’s lots to enjoy here, no doubt. But I just learned that the mall is on fire! - in fact, the fire is in the upper floors, where the storage for the shops is kept. It’s spreading rapidly, and it looks like we need to get the word out, or the roof will fall in and most of the people in this place are going to perish. The eastern entrance is the only reliable exit. Please tell everyone you see to head as quickly as possible for the eastern entrance! I’m heading that way, of course.
Anyone going to join me?”
You’d have to be an idiot or an insolent dolt to take your chances on the herald being wrong, and continue shopping, complaining, “I don’t like the eastern entrance, and I don’t like that guy’s tone. That’s terrible news! I like shopping, etc.” …
Shoot the messenger, Gordon.
Try this Chris:”hey everyone, just thought I’d tell you the mall is on fire. Even though there are exit doors its pointless trying to escape. You’ve been predestined to fry. God planned this so that you could be objects of His wrath, to display His glory.I think I’m going to be OK, because I’m one of the chosen few [but I could be wrong about that]. Anyway, gotta go.”
I’m not shooting the messenger. I’m just asking for those who have developed a Bad News version to explain why the central proposition supporting their version of the Message has any good news in it.
ChriBut I just learned that the mall is on fire!……The eastern entrance is the only reliable exit.
The more apt analogy to six-point Calvinism would be to add, “The eastern exit is the only reliable exit, but only certain people are allowed to use it.. The rest have been chosen to burn to death.
Brian,I see the problem now. We are defining our terms differently. Your definition of “seek” is not the same as I understand it. How do you define “seek” as it is used by Paul in Acts 17. It seems clear to me he is talking about (and to) unsaved people seeking him. I don’t see the evidence you may to make the statement that no one can seek God unless he is born from above. They cannot know Him, but how can we say categorically they cannot seek Him. I believe the Biblical evidence is to the contrary.
You may not know what a bitter doctrine your six-point Calvinism is to those yet unsaved. It is what Chesterton meant when he referred to the new wine of the Spirit being turned into the vinegar of Calvinism. It turns many away and I think it is flippant (even prideful, dismissive and arrogant) to assume or to say that those people are just not predestined to be saved.
John K hits the nail on the head with his Chesterton quote. it’s all very well stacking up Scripture passages to create a construct that justifies Calvin’s way of looking at God. The problem is that few Calvinists these days take a step backwards to examine what in essence it says about God.I find that the tulip crowd these days in their resurgence in the evangelical world have morphed into a more marketable form of Calvinism: ‘Cappuccino Calvinists - all froth and no wrath.’
Gone is the emphasis on the more unpalatable aspects of what it all boils down to, and in its place is Calvinism Lite. The God story as defined by Calvin is Bad News:God created all people.He destined most to be objects of his wrath and judgement.The atonement of Christ is limited.It’s all prefigured.Who are you to object to that? He can do what He wants.
If that’s what I truly derived from Scripture I would keep quiet about it.
Tim did not delete your posts. I did.
Any cursory look around this site will demonstrate that there is plenty of room for dissenting opinions. However, there is no room for trolls.
And that is the last word on that.