13 thoughts on “The Wonderful Truth of Election”

1. Hi Lee, a friend sent me a link to your post. I appreciate that you are a believer wanting to share God’s truth, but I hope you don’t mind me offering you a different perspective. I am a believer too, but I strongly disagree with Calvinism and think it’s not an accurate interpretation of Scripture. Here are a few things to consider regarding some things you said which might change your perspective (or maybe not, but that’s for you to decide). Please know that I am sharing this out of genuine concern and love for fellow believers and for the Church:
   1. You said “…the Bible is crystal clear that you have been chosen by God to be one of his very own: 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, ‘But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved (greatly loved) of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation…’”
   But you didn’t finish the verse: “… to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.”   They weren’t chosen for salvation, but God chose that the generation of Jesus’s time would get the new “method” of salvation – through the Spirit and belief in Jesus.  Before that generation, they had the Law, but now they had Jesus.  It’s the same thing Paul says in 1 Peter 1:2-3,10-11.  Paul is saying that theirs is the generation that got salvation by faith in Jesus instead of the Law.  This explains why some translations of 2 Thess. 2:13 add the phrase: “He chose you as his firstfruits…” – meaning “as the first to be saved through faith in Jesus.”
   2. You said “Before the earth was created God freely settled this decision that your destiny would be to become one of his chosen children: Ephesians 1:4-5, ‘According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated (pre-determined, foreordained) us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.’” 
   But this doesn’t mean God chose who to save. It means that God decided from the beginning that any people who became “in Him” would become holy and blameless.  The “in Him” is key.  He didn’t choose which individuals to save, but He promises to save anyone and make holy anyone who becomes “in Him.”  And we become “in Him” through our decision to believe in Jesus (and anyone can): “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.  Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.”  Ephesians 1:13
   And Eph. 1:4-5 is saying that God predestined that anyone who becomes “in Him (through belief in Jesus)” will be “adopted as sons/children.”  But this phrase doesn’t mean that God chooses who will become His children.  Romans 8:23 tells us “… we eagerly await our adoption as children, the redemption of our bodies.”  God predestined/promised that anyone who believes in Him will one day have their bodies redeemed.  This is far different than “God chose which individuals to save.”
   [Another “before the foundation of the world” verse that Calvinists use to “prove” Calvinism is a mistranslation of Rev. 13:8. Here it is in the Calvinist’s favorite translation, the ESV: “and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.”
   “Written before the foundation of the world.”  Sounds very Calvinist-predestination.
   But here’s the King James: ”And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Very different. And I think there are two possible ways to understand it according to the KJV (which I think is the most reliable translation), neither of which supports Calvinist predestination.
   A) “From the beginning” could refer to the Lamb being slain.  If so, I would suggest it means that Jesus was foreordained to be slain for our sins from the very beginning – that God knew before He even created us that we would sin and need a Redeemer, and so He planned from the beginning to pay for our sins with Jesus’s death.  This would be confirmed by 1 Peter 1:19-20 and Acts 2:23.
   B) Or if “from the beginning” really does refer to names being written in the Book of Life, notice that it’s “from” in the KJV, which is far different than “before” in the ESV.  This would mean not that certain names were written/chosen before the world began (as Calvinists say to support their idea of predestination and election) but that names started being added to the Book of Life from the beginning, meaning that new names are added as each new person comes to Christ, which would be confirmed in Rev. 17:8 and Eph. 1:13.  (Or maybe it’s about the Book of Life itself being created from the beginning.)
   Either way, it contradicts Calvinism. “Before the foundation of the world” is never about God choosing who gets saved.]
   3. Deuteronomy 7:6-8 is about God’s choice of the Israelites as His treasured people.  It has nothing to do with choosing those who will go to heaven, and especially not about Gentiles or general people of the world.  It’s about God’s plan for the Jews.
   4. Romans 9 is not about God choosing who gets saved.  It’s about two people groups: the Jews and the Gentiles.  It’s about how the Jews were the chosen people – chosen for the special task of being the bloodline that God would use to bring Jesus into the world and to be the people who would be blessed by getting the gospel first and the job of spreading it to the world.  It’s about God choosing certain people for a job, not for salvation. This is why Romans 9:12 says that Jacob was chosen to “serve” the younger Esau.  “Serve.” It’s about being given a job, not being chosen for heaven.  But because the Jews rejected Jesus, God turned His attention to the Gentiles instead and gave the gospel (and the job of spreading it) to them.
   5. You said “why did God set his love upon you to make you his very own child? We are told – mysteriously, but simply so – that the reason why God set his love upon you is because he loved you (Deuteronomy 7:8)! Also, because he has a special purpose in your life to showcase his mercy (2 Timothy 1:9)!”
   Once again, Deuteronomy 7:8 is about the Jews.  And 2 Timothy 1:9 is about anyone who chooses to put their faith in Jesus.  It’s not about God picking specific people to save.
   6. You said “Election isn’t referring to the fact that God saves those who believe in him…. Acts 13:48, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained (appointed) to eternal life believed.” 
   You’re saying (as all Calvinists do) that we’re not saved because we believe, but that we believe because we were first saved.  This reverses the Bible’s order of things. (Acts 16:31, John 5:24, John 1:12, Romans 10:9, Acts 2:38, Ephesians 1:13, John 3:16)
   And Acts 13:48 isn’t about God choosing who gets saved, but it’s about the people who were willing to receive Jesus putting themselves in a position to be saved, because of their willingness to believe.  It’s contrasting the Jews who were unwilling to believe (verse 46) with the Gentiles who were willing to believe.  People who are unwilling to believe will not be in a position to be saved, but people who are willing to believe will be in a position to believe.
   According to online sources and the concordance, “appointed/ordained” basically means being “in position for eternal life” or “disposed for eternal life” (which some say is the best translation).  “Disposed” would mean “positioned for eternal life … inclined to it … resolved to it … settled on it … etc.”.  But this doesn’t mean that God positioned them, as in predestination.  It means that they positioned themselves for eternal life, by their eagerness to hear the Gospel and their willingness to accept it (as seen in previous verses).  They were “inclined” to eternal life, leaning towards it, settled on it.  This is the other side of the coin to the Jews who deliberately refused the Truth.  The Gentiles were eager for it and convinced of it, and this puts them in a position to accept the offer of eternal life, to believe.  Acts 13:26-52 is showing the contrast between the resistant Jews and the willing Gentiles.  We position ourselves either for eternal life by accepting the truth or for eternal death by rejecting it.
   You said “Why did some believe – because they were appointed to believe. It was their destiny.”
   No, they believe because they were willing to hear and accept the truth.  They were saved because they were willing to believe.
   7. You said “In John 10:26-28 Jesus said, “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” Everyone heard Jesus (the good shepherd) speak. Some yielded to his voice and some did not. Why? Because some were his sheep and others were not.”
   But John 10 is not about God picking people for salvation or deciding who’s a sheep and who’s not.  It’s about how anyone who puts their faith in Jesus becomes one of His sheep and will follow Him.  And Jesus is saying that if the Jews were truly His sheep, then they would be listening to what He says.  He’s basically admonishing them, which is why they picked up stones to throw at him in verse 31.   
   You said “I used to think that what made someone one of God’s sheep was that they believed in him. Sort of like faith being the door to the sheepfold. It seems to make sense, right?”
   Yes, this is what it really is!  But it’s too bad you then talked yourself out of it, convincing yourself that “the Lord classifies people as his sheep before they believe.”   
   No, the Lord does not pick who’s a sheep and who’s not before they believe.  John 10:16 (“And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”) is not about Jesus choosing who is a sheep, who will be saved.  It’s about Jesus saying that He’s offering salvation to the Gentiles too, so that those who choose to believe in Him will be joined together with the Jews who believe in Him.  It has nothing to do with God deciding who will believe, but with God offering salvation to all and making one big family out of both Jewish believers and Gentile believers.
   The elect don’t believe because they are His sheep.  Whoever believes becomes one of the elect, one of His sheep.  Calvinism flips the biblical order of things, leading to a whole different message.
   8. You said “He did not stand on the precipice of eternity and scout through the corridors of time for all the faithful people and then stamp his seal on them.”  
   And yet the Bible says “And those He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son” Romans 8:29.  (But Calvinists don’t think “foreknew” is “to know beforehand.”  They think God only foreknew it because He first preplanned it that way.  Very different.)
   And the Bible says that when we believe, we are marked in Him with a seal, the Holy Spirit, Ephesians 1:13 as we saw earlier.  We believe and then we are sealed/saved/given the Holy Spirit who makes us born again, not the other way around as Calvinists teach.
    9. You said “Your faith is a gift from God…. Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”
   But according to the gender of the words in Greek in that verse, faith is not the gift.  The gender of “gift” is neuter.  And so for faith to be the gift, faith must be neuter also.  Genders must match if words are referring to the same thing.  But faith is female, and so is grace.  Therefore, “gift” is not referring to either one of those specifically but to the whole concept: eternal life by grace through faith.  Eternal life is the gift that God offers to all people, but we decide to accept or reject it.  
   Just some things to help you maybe re-examine how you interpret Scripture. If you’re interested, I highly recommend watching some Soteriology 101 videos with Leighton Flowers, or reading some of my own posts about Calvinism at the blogspot Anti-Calvinist Rant (I’ve got links to other sources against Calvinism in the left side-bar). God bless! – Heather

   LikeLike

   Reply

   • Hi Heather!

     Thank you for taking the time to think deeply and to interact with my post! Here’s some of my thoughts . . .

     Does your friend by any chance know me personally? Just wondering if there is any connection locally?

     2 Thess. 2

     You say that “they weren’t chosen for salvation,” but that is explicitly what the verse says, right?

     They weren’t chosen for salvation, but God chose that the generation of Jesus’s time would get the new “method” of salvation – through the Spirit and belief in Jesus. Yet there is nothing in the context of 2 Thess. 2 that would make me think the topic is the “method” of salvation. Seems to be inserting this argument into the text to try to make your point. Paul is encouraging believers, that though the world is falling apart and will be judged, they can take comfort (verse 17) and be encouraged that they belong to God, and that they should continue on in faith (2:15). You’re right that we are saved by faith as opposed to law or works, but that is not the discussion of this passage at all, nor is it really a matter of consideration for the whole epistle.

     “From the beginning” are the greek words “apo arches,” which literally means “from the beginning.” It means exactly what it says, not that they were the fruitfruits to be saved. Some translations may add that phrase, but it would be an unwarranted addition, not what the text actually says.

     Ephesians 1

     I’ll try to summarize your argument. Let me know if this is accurate:

     In eternity past God made a decision: that whoever would believe (in time and history) in Jesus would become “in him” and would as a result receive the spiritual benefit of becoming God’s child and ultimately becoming holy. This decision is Election and Predestination. Is that correct?

     The problem I have with that is that the text explicitly says that “he chose us…in him.” It doesn’t say, “He chose those who would become in him…” You have to add things to the plain reading of the text to arrive at your conclusion. Before the foundation of the world – before we ever existed (before we chose to either believe or reject – God made a decision. This decision was that certain souls would be given by the Father to the Son (the elect). They were “in him” before the foundations of the world (1:4). This is Election. It is God’s choice alone, not based on our choices (it was according to the good pleasure of his will, which is seens all throughout ehp. 1). Predestination is that this group of people (the elect) would not only be saved (in time and history), but would also receive the benefit of sonship and ultimate glorification.

     Deuteronomy 7

     I was not arguing that Dt. 7 is teaching that God chose the elect for salvation. I was using this passage to argue a certain principle – that God is truly free to make his own decisions based on his own purposes. He chose Israel to be his own special people, not because of something in them, but because of his own purposes. This same principle can be applied to God’s dealings with the elect. He chose to save a certain group of people from their sins, not because of anything good in them, but because of his own purposes. It is true that faith is the means by which the elect receive the benefits of Christ. But faith does not explain why those particular people believed. Election deals with pre-causes. God could have chosen any nation to be his people. Why did he choose Israel? According to Dt. 7 it’s not because of anything in them, but simply because he loved them.

     Romans 9

     What is Romans 9 all about?

     Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.

     Just because someone is a physical child of Abraham does not mean that they are children of God.

     There are children of the flesh and there are children of the promise. Ishamael was of the flesh, Isaac was of promise.

     Same thing with Jacob and Esau. Jacob was the child of promise and Esau was the child of the flesh. Why did God choose Isaac over Ishamel and Jacob over Esau? Was it because of something meritorious in Isaac and Jacob? No – verse 11. They were chosen over their brothers because of God’s purposes.

     I think the only question that needs to be solved is, “What does it mean to be a child of the promise? What is entailed?” I think it’s safe to say that it includes “being chosen for special tasks,” but it includes much more than that – forgiveness, eternal life, sonship, ultimate glorification, etc.

     This is supported by the rest of the passage and Romans 8-10. The overarching theme of Romans is dealing with personal salvation, not the corporate means by which God accomplishes his will in the earth. In short, being a “child of the promise” at least includes salvation, and becoming a child of promise is not based on anything meritorious in us.

     Whew – this is a lot to cover.

     2 Tim. 1:9

     You said , “2 Timothy 1:9 is about anyone who chooses to put their faith in Jesus.”

     But again, you’re adding to what the text says. 2 Timothy 1:9 “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” It doesn’t say “Who hath saved those who put their faith in Jesus…” It says that he saved us…according to his own purpose and grace.

     The elect certainly do come to believe. But again, election deals with pre-causes. Let’s not insert our presuppositions into the text.

     Acts 13:48

     The word “ordained” is the greek word “tasso” which means “to designate, fix, appoint, determine.” It doesn’t mean “willing.” Here are all the places this word is used in the NT. You can look at those and I think to conclude that the word means “willing” wouldn’t make sense.

     appointed | 3 of 8

     Mt 28:16

     Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

     Ac 22:10

     And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

     Ac 28:23

     And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

     ordained | 2 of 8

     Ac 13:48

     And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

     Ro 13:1

     Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

     set | 1 of 8

     Lk 7:8

     For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

     determined | 1 of 8

     Ac 15:2

     When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

     addicted | 1 of 8

     1 Co 16:15

     I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

     I agree with you that the Gentiles were willing to believe, it’s just not what this verse means.

     “You’re saying (as all Calvinists do) that we’re not saved because we believe, but that we believe because we were first saved.”

     I don’t like the way this is worded. We are saved because we believe. You can’t be saved without believing. But I do definitely see election as preceding faith. We believe because we are elect, as opposed to saying that we are elect because we believe. I think you would say the latter?

     We love him because he first loved us. God initiates and our actions follow.

     John 10

     Do we become sheep because we believe, or do we believe because we are already sheep?

     Sister, I think this passage is so clear on this question. Look at this verse:

     John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

     I agree with you that Jesus is looking forward to Gentiles who will believe. He calls them his sheep, but they had not yet believed. They would believe in the future – why? Because they already belonged to him, but they hadn’t heard yet. When they would hear in the future they will believe – why? Because they are his sheep.

     This is shown in the negative with the Pharisees:

     John 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

     Why did the Pharisees not believe? Because they were not his sheep. If they were his sheep they would believe. Being a sheep or not precedes whether you have faith or not. I basically equate this with election (the elect are sheep eternally, the non-elect are not sheep eternally).

     Ephesians 2:8-9

     I agree with your statement, “therefore, “gift” is not referring to either one of those specifically but to the whole concept: eternal life by grace through faith.” The fact that salvation is by grace is a gift and the fact that we have believed is also a gift. It’s all designed to create in us humility, like Paul said in 1 Cor. 4:7 “What hast thou that thou didst not receive?” In other words, every good thing that we have received from God is a gift. Faith is either earned or it is a gift. Saying that faith is purely self manifesting is opening the door for us to take pride in our salvation.

     I noticed that you did not comment on Philippians 1:29 which supports that our faith is a gift from God. Any comments on that verse?

     Calvinism

     I am not eager to promote “calvinism” per se, as some people are. Every tradition and theological system has weaknesses and presuppositions. I am most eager to just let the text speak for itself, surrender to the plain meaning, then deal with the fallout. I believe that Scripture is perfect, and that there are no contradictions, but I don’t believe that I am perfect and I do have contradictions. So I have to just be honest with what I see in each passage and hope that in time God will straighten it all out in my mind! Haha

     I appreciate your zeal and desire to go deep.

     I honestly often think that detailed debates like these about Calvinism often tend to be fruitless. I don’t engage in them much nor do I have a desire to win arguments. Like you strive to do, I think we should be jealous for God and to defend his nature. It just seems like sometimes we talk in circles. May the Lord help us to understand Him better and to defend him with the right spirit and proper balance.

     I believe God is totally loving. I believe he is totally sovereign. He is not a puppet master, but he can make anyone do anything he wants them to do – he is God. He is grieved when people don’t submit to him, yet he is pleased to manifest his wrath towards them as well. No one receives injustice from God – believers get what they want and unbelievers get what they want. God created a world in which he knew some people would not go to heaven.

     I have a couple of questions for you that I hope you would interact with?

     Before God created the world he knew who would ultimately believe and who would reject him. With this knowledge in mind God created the world.

     Was God under any kind of compulsion to create the world that he did? If so, what was the compulsion?

     If not, would you agree that in some sense God was “pleased” to make this world – a world in which he knew that only some would believe and the others would ultimately perish?

     It seems to me that non calvinists are sort of put into the same conundrum that calvinists are. Calvinists have to explain why God would only choose some people to grant mercy to while passing over others. Yet, the non calvinist has to explain why God would create people who he knew would never repent. It seems like the same problem to me. Any thoughts there? You can say that man has a free will, but don’t you believe that some people will never ever repent, so in some sense they cannot believe? If they did by some chance repent and believe they would contradict God’s omniscience.

     How do you define the Elect and the Reprobate? I think the Elect is the group made up of people that would be saved in time and the Reprobate is the group made up of people who would not be saved in time. Do you agree with that? If not, how would you define?

     Can the number of the Elect and the Reprobate fluctuate at all in time, or is the precise number that God knew before the foundation of the world still the same number eternally?

     God knew in eternity past the specific number of Elect and Reprobate. Then He said, “Let there be light.” Isn’t there at least some sense in which God is the one ultimately responsible for people’s eternal destiny? God could have chosen to not create this world. Or he could have chosen to only create the souls that he knew would respond positively to the Gospel. But he didn’t. He freely made those he knew would be destroyed. What’s your thoughts on that?

     How do you feel about relating to Calvinists in the church? Should they be separated from? I believe that we should preach the Gospel to everyone. Everyone should be told to repent and believe in Christ. Forgiveness is only promised if people repent and believe. Do you think we should seek to be unified or do you think God wants Christians to separate from calvinists? I desire to worship together with non calvinists and calvinists alike. What’s your thoughts there?

     Blessings, Lee

     LikeLike

     Reply

2. [I tried sending this by email, but it said there was an error delivering it. So I’ll leave it as a comment here too.]

   Hello Lee, Thank you for your thoughtful reply.  I can tell that you’ve come by your Calvinist/reformed views sincerely, after a lot of thought.  And I give you credit for that.  And you seem to be able to match my long-windedness.  I’m impressed!😀  And thank you for engaging in conversation about this respectfully.  You seem to be a Calvinist that would be easier to talk to than some.  And I hope I come across respectfully too, even though my natural tendency is to be blunt and sarcastic.😉

        I agree with you that “detailed debates like these about Calvinism often tend to be fruitless. I don’t engage in them much nor do I have a desire to win arguments… It just seems like sometimes we talk in circles.”  [This is partly why I don’t allow comments on my blog.]  So I will respond as briefly as I can to some things you wrote.  But there are 23 points in this, so tell me if your website cuts off any.  Plus, this is too long for one comment, so I will break it up into a bunch of pieces (I’m trying for 8).  

        Sorry for how long this reply is, but you asked a lot of good honest questions worthy of honest answers.  Some of this is copied from my blog, since I already addressed it there, so the font might be different and it might sound a little harsher than I intend when talking directly to a person.  And I tried to make the spacing easier to read, but I don’t know how it will look until it’s published.  The spacing and italics seems to show up different from the way I typed it.   Hopefully it’s not a mess.  And then you can have the last word, because it is your blog.  So I won’t comment after this. 🙂

        1. You said that 2 Thess. 2:13-14 explicitly says that they were chosen for salvation (Calvinist election/predestination).  I suggested it’s about God choosing that generation to be the first to be saved through faith in Jesus.  However, I want to add something I left out (I kept my first comment briefer because I didn’t know if you’d even really read it or care about it).  According to Strong’s concordance with Vine’s expository dictionary, the word ‘saved” in that verse isn’t even about eternal soul salvation, but it’s about believers being spared from the end-times’ wrath that God pours out on unrepentant mankind.  And as Dr./Pastor Tony Evans says in his Bible commentary: “Paul tells the believers, ‘God has chosen you.’… The surrounding context makes it clear that this choosing does not refer to personal salvation but to deliverance from the tribulation through the rapture.”  This fits the theme of 2 Thess., which is about the rapture, end times, and the second coming of Christ.  So essentially, through our belief in Jesus (and that was the first generation to be able to do it), we are eternally saved AND we will be spared/saved from the tribulation, which is what 2 Thess. 2:13-14 is promising.

        2. You said “They were ‘in him’ before the foundations of the world (1:4). This is Election.”  If they were “in him” before the foundation of the world, why does Ephesians 1:13 say “And you were also included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.  Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.”?  To me, this clearly shows that people are not “in Him” until after they believe.  

        But Calvinists believe that the elect are saved (are “in Him”) from the beginning of time, and then God eventually regenerates His elect (brings them to life spiritually, makes them born again, gives them saving faith), and then, lastly, they believe in Jesus.  But this is a reverse of the order that’s clearly and repeatedly presented in the Bible, as seen in Eph. 1:13 and in these:

        John 20:31: “… by believing you may have life in his name.”  

        John 3:16,36: “… whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life… Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life…”  

        Romans 10:9: “… if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

        Acts 16:31: “… Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved …”

        John 5:24: “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”  

        John 1:12: “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.”

        Contrary to Calvinism which says that we are saved, born again, “in Him,” and given the Holy Spirit first – before believing, in order to make us believe – the Bible teaches that first we believe, and then we are given the Holy Spirit, born again, given eternal life, saved.  

        The thing is, Calvinists confuse being born again with believing, thinking that if the Holy Spirit makes us born again, it must mean He makes us believe too.  But that’s not the case.  God gave us the one job of believing in Jesus: John 6:28-29: “Then they asked him, ‘What must we do to do the works God requires?’  Jesus answered, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'”  

        Our job is to believe, and then the Spirit will make us born again and regenerate us in response to our belief, Acts 2:38: “… Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.  And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”  And Ephesians 1:13:”… Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.”  [Can Calvinists find even one verse that just as clearly says that we are given the Holy Spirit first, brought to life first, saved first, before believing and in order to make us believe?]

        Also, you said that I concluded “He chose those who would become in him…”  I don’t think I said that anywhere, unless I made a typo.  I said that God doesn’t choose who becomes in Him, but that “God decided from the beginning that any people who became ‘in Him’ would become holy and blameless.  The ‘in Him’ is key.  He didn’t choose which individuals to save, but He promises to save anyone and make holy anyone who becomes ‘in Him.’  And we become ‘in Him’ through our decision to believe in Jesus (and anyone can).” 

       3. You asked this about my beliefs: “In eternity past God made a decision: that whoever would believe (in time and history) in Jesus would become ‘in him’ and would as a result receive the spiritual benefit of becoming God’s child and ultimately becoming holy. This decision is Election and Predestination. Is that correct?”

        I believe that God predetermined that anyone who believes in Jesus would be saved, and I believe that anyone can believe.  But this is not election or predestination.  Predestination is about what God planned for anyone who believes in Him, and election is about God’s right to use people how He wants.  Neither has to do with God choosing who gets saved. 

        Calvinists define election as God choosing who gets saved.  But I’ll share Dr. Tony Evans’ definition of election (and I agree with him) on page 15 of his Bible commentary: “The sovereign prerogative of God to choose individuals, families, groups, and nations to serve his kingdom purposes as he so wills.  Election is specifically related to service, usefulness, and blessings – not individual salvation.  Jesus died for all human beings without exception and desires for all to be saved.” 

        And here’s his commentary on Ephesians 1:5-6 (since we’re talking about Ephesians): “… The focus of the book of Ephesians is on the corporate church, not on individual Christian salvation… Therefore, the choosing and election to which Paul refers is not for individuals to eternal life but regards God’s choice to establish a group of people (that is, the body of Christ) in the Beloved One whose purpose is to live godly lives and reflect his holy character in a sinful world.  This election defines the corporate identity believers share because of their relationship to Christ… Election is for service and spiritual benefit, not for individual, personal salvation.”

   LikeLike

   Reply

   • Hi Heather. You have given me a big job to respond to all of this :). I may take it little by little, but hopefully some bored soul out there will read these comments and find them useful. My main concern in conversations like these is to fervently point out that we agree on the essentials of the faith, so this is an in-house discussion, one between brethren. So, I’m glad to have met you here, and I rejoice in your worship of Jesus and desire to serve him.
     Same with me – everything replied here is in a respectful spirit and a kind, sweet tone (unless otherwise noted haha).

     1. Your follow up response (2 thess) to me looks like a wet fish trying to wiggle out of the hands of it’s catcher. First, you say that these verses are dealing with eternal salvation, it’s just focusing on the “mode” of salvation. Now we move to quoting Tony Evans about how these verses aren’t dealing with eternal salvation at all. Your conclusion is that it is dealing with eternal salvation and that it is not dealing with eternal salvation at all! It is a lot more natural to let Paul speak for himself when he says that God had chosen these Thessalonians to salvation. Why eternal salvation? Because the follow up talks about sanctification, belief and being called by the Gospel. These are terms relating to the salvation of our souls, not being saved from the destruction of the body.

     Side note – – – I’ve read all of your comments. You heavily rely on Tony Evans material in these replies to explain your views. One of my observations is that non-calvinists tend to criticize how much calvinists rely on material written by man to explain their views. I don’t have a problem with anyone quoting someone else to explain their views (we’re not here reinventing the wheel, and much more articulate people have gone before us to lay out these views). I’m just calling for consistency. Don’t promote the idea that people would only come to the convictions of the TULIP by learning it from a calvinist as opposed to reading it from the Bible, and THEN go and explain your views by quoting other people.

     For the first 15 years or so of me being a Christian I was almost exclusively influenced by dispensational, premillennial, fundamental, baptistic, non-reformed views. ALL of my initial questions on verses relating to Calvinism were inspired by personal Bible reading. We were admonished very much to stay away from influences outside of our circle, but we were heavily challenged to be saturated in the scriptures. So, my opinion is that people do not need a calvinist scholar to arrive at those conclusions. I believed dispensationalism firmly for a long time, but always had questions. It was the only hermeneutical position I was aware of relating to Israel and prophecy. Very few people would come up with that system on their own reading of the Bible. It has to be explained with elaborate charts and big books. Anyways, I just think it is most helpful for the church for everyone to be honest that we are all biased and we all lean heavily on those who have gone before us.

     2. Eph. 1:4 says that God “chose us in him before the foundation of the world.” So, yes the Bible teaches that God placed certain people “in Christ” before the world was created. Eph. 1:13 doesn’t say that we were placed “in him” after we believed. It is saying that when we believed in Christ were were sealed with the Holy Spirit. Now that I look, I think you’re using the NIV, which is a version to emphasized readability over being technically literal. It does sound more like that by the NIV, but not by the greek. Even if we assumed that people came “into Christ” when they were saved, I still wouldn’t be concerned about that. If that’s what it meant I would think, “The scriptures say we are “in Christ” before creation and it also says that we become “in Christ” when we believe. It must mean something along the lines of ‘we are eternally in him, but then we also experientially become in him when we believe.”

     3. Ok. So your view is that Election and Predestination have nothing to do with salvation, but rather is about God determining what would happen to believers. I think we can show sufficiently from the Scriptures that that is not the case, but let’s just assume for now that it is … It seems very strange to me that God would be so free to “arbitrarily” pick what would happen to believers – irrespective of personal merit or choice – including their levels of blessing and usefulness – but that God would exert no prerogative or influence over the eternal destinies of man. God determines (fixes, ordains) what will happen to man on the earth, but is wholly uninvolved in what happens to them in eternity? If God has the right to dictate our lives, why not our eternities? If God is to be trusted over man to make the wisest choices for who is blessed in the earth, wouldn’t it makes sense to trust God over man to make the decision for whose blessed in eternity? Either God is totally sovereign (in heaven and earth, in eternity and in time) or he’s not sovereign at all.

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply

3.      4. About Philippians 1:29 (I skipped some things in my first comment because I was only hitting highlights).  But quickly, I would say that being given an opportunity to do something (to believe in Jesus) isn’t the same thing as being caused to believe in Him, as Calvinists would say. 

        5. You said that I was adding to the text when I said that 2 Tim. 1:9 is about anyone who chooses to put their faith in Jesus.  But I would say that Calvinists are adding to the text – reading their presuppositions into the text – when they say that God saves people by first predestining certain individuals to believe and then causing them to believe.  This is not in the text either.  

        As you wrote, the text says “ ‘Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.’… It says that he saved us…according to his own purpose and grace.”  

        Yes, this is the why He saves (He saves people because of His reasons and grace), but Calvinists read into it the how He saves (claiming that it must mean that He pre-chooses who gets saved and causes them to believe, and no one else can believe or be saved).  This verse is simply saying that salvation is from God, which it is.  Salvation is fully God’s idea and plan and offer, by His grace and for His purposes, but that doesn’t have to mean that He predetermined/causes who gets saved.  Salvation can still be fully His idea and plan, while at the same time being truly offered to all people, giving everyone the chance to believe, and saving anyone who does believe.

        6. I already commented on Acts 13:48 – that it’s about the God opening the door of salvation up to the Gentiles too, granting them the ability to obtain eternal life, and that the Gentiles positioned themselves for eternal life by their eagerness to hear the Gospel and their willingness to accept it.  But I will add this: The same Greek word for “ordained/appointed” is also used in 1 Corinthians 16:15, saying that some of the first converts in Achaia had “devoted” (“addicted”) themselves to the service of the saints.  This is clearly a self-chosen devotion.  They were not predetermined to be devoted or “forced” to be devoted.  They chose to be devoted.  They addicted themselves to the saints.  Like the Gentiles positioning themselves for eternal life.

        7.  You quoted me: “You’re saying (as all Calvinists do) that we’re not saved because we believe, but that we believe because we were first saved.”  And then you said that you “don’t like the way this is worded.”  But I am simply sharing the order that Calvinists themselves have said, that the elect repent/believe/have faith in Jesus because they were first saved/born again/regenerated/given saving faith by God:

        Loraine Boettner in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination: “A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved.”

        My ex-pastor in February 2024 “the unmistakable sign that someone has been born again is that they have the ability to repent and believe the gospel.”

         R.C. Sproul (Chosen by God, pg 10,72): “The Reformed view … teaches that before a person can choose Christ … he must be born again … one does not first believe and then become reborn… A cardinal doctrine of Reformed theology is the maxim, ‘Regeneration precedes faith’.”

        Arthur Pink (The Sovereignty of God): “A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, but he believes in Christ because has been regenerated.”

        Edwin Palmer (The Five Points of Calvinism, pg 18-19): “Then, once he is born again, he can for the first time turn to Jesus, expressing sorrow for his sins and asking Jesus to save him.”

        Boice and Ryken (The Doctrines of Grace, pg 74): “Like a spiritual corpse, he is unable to make a single move toward God, think a right thought about God, or even respond to God – unless God first brings this spiritually dead corpse to life.”

        John Piper (Five Points: Towards a Deeper Experience of God’s Grace, pg 35): “He cannot make himself new, or create new life in himself. He must be born of God. Then, with the new nature of God, he sees Christ for who he really is, and freely receives Christ for all that he is.”  [I agree that we cannot make ourselves born again, that it’s the Spirit’s job.  But He does it in response to what we can do – believe – the one job God gave us to do.]

        John MacArthur (Faith Works, pg 62): “… Regeneration logically must initiate faith.”

        Tom Wells (Faith: The Gift of God, pg 58): “A man must be born again in order to exercise faith.”

        R.C. Sproul (Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will, pg 23): “The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also that it must precede faith. Because of the moral bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration’s fruit, not its cause.”

        From a Heidelberg Theological Seminary article called “The Doctrine of Limited Atonement,” quoting Rev. Paul Trieck’s book Faith of our Fathers, Living Still: Study of the Five Points of Calvinism: “It is inaccurate to say that we ‘offer’ salvation to all men. The preaching of the gospel is not an offer, but a ‘command’ to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.  The non-elect person will never have ears to hear this and obey.  Yet, the call of the gospel must be sincerely given, allowing God to gather his people by the power of His Holy Spirit [my note: According to Calvinists, they are already His people, before believing]… When we say that we ‘freely proclaim’ the gospel we must not think that all men are equally capable of receiving it in faith.  The unregenerate man is not ‘free’ to believe – not until and unless the Holy Spirit has brought new life and freedom into his heart… [and] works faith in his heart.”

        In Calvinism, being saved/born-again/regenerated come first.  They come before – and lead to – believing in Jesus. 

   LikeLike

   Reply

   • 4. Phil. 1:29 – Your interpretation is that Paul was saying that the Philippians were being given the opportunity to believe in Jesus. The verse says, “Philippians 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;” This verse is for those who have already believed in Jesus (believers). Their faith was a gift, but this gift comes with some responsibilities, namely that they would also have to suffer with him.

     5. Paul is encouraging Timothy because he apparently was often fearful. To encourage him he reminds him that he had a calling from God – a calling rooted in the eternal plans of God. This wonderful and powerful calling is contrasted to his struggles here on earth. My summary would be, “Timothy, God has a great plan for your life; a plan that includes salvation and the calling to be a preacher. You didn’t earn this calling. It was God’s idea for YOU in his great plans. So be encouraged. You’re doing what your supposed to be doing. Keep doing it. Don’t be afraid. Stand up and speak up for your Lord.” These verses are not dealing with “how” God saves. We have Romans for that. But I guess you admit that you were adding to the text so this one is solved anyways. The text does include the fact that Timothy’s salvation and calling were given to him before the foundation of the world.

     6. Acts 13:48 – – – I would just point back to my previous response. Stephanas – Yes, their decision to serve the saints was willing, not forced, but why are we trying to insert a calvinism/non calvinism debate into this verse. It has nothing at all to do with election/salvation. The point here is just to define this word “tasso.” Stephanas stedfastly “determined” to serve the believers, just like God stedfastly determined or appointed the salvation of certain people. There was a list of other verses that I referenced (I believe all of the other NT appearances). You didn’t mention those – maybe because they support my view 🙂 ?

     7. My article was not interested in defending calvinism. Neither am I jealous to be in agreement with all of the calvinists that you quoted here (although that is a pretty impressive list of soldiers. I’ll gladly be bunched in with them). I think you’re more interested in making me a calvinist than I am interested in being one. In fact, one of the impulses behind this particular article was to try to escape the heavy fog of debate on this subject and focus on the glory of Election. I hope most readers see that.

     The elect will always come to faith (not one person more, or one person less).
     The elect are always elect before they are saved.
     The elect are certainly taught by God and influenced to one degree or another by God before they are saved. If not, they would never come to Christ.
     We love him because he first loved us.

     LikeLike

     Reply

4.      8. I absolutely disagree that Romans 9 (I’ll focus on chapter 9 because that is the linchpin for Calvinism) is about “personal salvation.”  Calvinists use Jacob vs. Esau, “God hardens whom He wants to harden, “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” the Potter and the clay, etc., to support Calvinist predestination/election, to “prove” that God creates some people for heaven and some for hell, and that it’s okay for Him to do it.

        But Romans 9 is about God’s plan for the Israelites vs. the Gentiles.  God gave the Israelites the role of bringing Jesus into the world and the job of spreading the gospel, but they rejected it, and so God punished them and gave the gospel to the Gentiles instead.  This is what Romans 9 is about.

        “Jacob and Esau” is not about God choosing people for heaven or hell, but it’s about God choosing one brother over the other to be the bloodline for the Messiah.  I’ll quote Tony Evans here also, his section on Romans 9:10-13: “God’s election is not for personal, eternal salvation, but for blessing, service, and usefulness.  Abraham was called not so that God would save him, but because God would use him to bless all the families of the earth (see Gen. 12:3).  That line of blessing skipped over Isaac’s older son Esau, even though he had not been born yet, passing to the younger, Jacob.  Why?  Not because they had ‘done anything good or bad, but that God’s purpose according to election might stand’ (9:11).  By withholding the blessing from Esau, God effectively ‘hated Esau’ (9:13) – not out of preference or from an emotional motivation, but in order to display his sovereignty in going against the cultural norms so that ‘the older [would] serve the younger’ (9:12).  Paul clearly states that this election was about service, not eternal salvation.  Jacob – not Esau – was chosen to be the Messiah’s ancestor even though both were Abraham’s descendants…. The concepts of love and hate refer to God’s decision to bestow inheritance, blessings, and kingdom responsibility on Jacob’s descendants rather than Esau’s… God has the sovereign right to choose whom he will use to accomplish his kingdom purposes.”

        And according to the concordance (with Vine’s), the “hardens” in Romans 9:18 (which Calvinists use to “prove” that God chooses who to harden for hell, the non-elect) is a retributive hardening, a punishment for the people first hardening their own hearts even after God has been patient and longsuffering with them.  Once again, Dr. Evan on Romans 9:17-18: “Pharoah’s actions prove a perfect picture of God’s sovereign plan at work… Importantly, God does not harden the hearts of people until they reject him.  It was only after Pharaoh hardened his own heart (see Exod. 7:22, 8:15,32) that God hardened it further (Exod. 9:12)… This hardening is not predestination to damnation; it’s an expression of God’s prerogative to choose whom he will use to serve his purposes and how he will use them (see Jer. 18:1-13)…”

   And regarding the “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”: In the KJV, it’s “fitted for destruction,” and the Greek word for “fitted” in this verse is about the people’s destiny being tied to their character.  And it’s in the middle voice, meaning that the people fitted themselves to destruction by how they chose to be.

        Dr. Evans says this about Romans 9:19-24: “… The example of Pharoah is still fresh in his mind when Paul mentions ‘objects of wrath’ (9:22) and ‘objects of mercy’ (9:23).  ‘Wrath’ refers to the present consequences of sin (as we’ve seen earlier in the writing of Paul), not to eternal destiny.  And that wrath is tied to rejection or acceptance of the will of God.  But whether God is acting in wrath or in mercy, he is accomplishing his plan.  The big difference is in how we experience that plan – as willing sons and daughters, or as unwilling slaves.”

       So not only do the people fit themselves for destruction, but he’s saying that the “wrath” in this passage isn’t even about our eternal destinies, about hell, but it’s about whether or not people experience the wrathful consequences of sin on this earth, based on whether or not they obey God.  Paul is telling the Jews that they fit themselves for destruction by choosing to reject God’s truth about Jesus and the gospel.  It has nothing to do with God choosing who gets eternally saved or not.

        And about the “Potter and the clay,” which Calvinists use to say that God gets to decide whether He makes us for heaven or hell: There are at least two other places in the Bible that talk about the potter and the clay or about vessels for noble or ignoble use – and neither have to do with God predestining people’s eternal destinations.  In fact, both show that God relates to us and uses us based on how we choose to be.

        Jeremiah 18: God shows Jeremiah a potter who was shaping a pot, but the clay was marred (notice that the potter didn’t mar the clay) and so he shaped it into a different pot that would better fit the clay’s condition.  Likewise, God says that He can plan something for people, but then He can change His plans for people based on what they do or don’t do.  It’s about what kind of service we are fit for, about how God will use us, based on our self-chosen condition.

        2 Timothy 2:20-21: Like Romans 9:21, this also talks about some vessels in a house being for noble purposes and some being for ignoble purposes.  And it says “If a man cleanses himself from [being ignoble], he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy…” This shows that our decision about what type of person we are determines how God uses us.  And if we want to be used for noble purposes, we must cleanse ourselves so that God can use us for great things.  God doesn’t determine what kind of person we are or what decisions we make, but He does determine how to use us and what roles/responsibilities to give us, based on how we choose to be.

   This backs up the Bible’s whole message that election is about service, about how we decide what kind of people we are and what decisions we make, and about how God chooses to use us in His plans according to our decisions.  It’s not about personal salvation or Calvinist predestination.  

        So although Calvinists use Romans 9 to support their doctrine of election/predestination, those verses aren’t about God predestining eternal salvation at all, but they’re about God’s right to use different people for different purposes to further His kingdom plans, particularly based on their response to Him.  So for Calvinists to make it about individual salvation is very much inserting their own presuppositions into the text.

        9. You asked: “Do we become sheep because we believe, or do we believe because we are already sheep?”  And then you used John 10 to prove that the elect believe because they are His sheep.  But I don’t think John 10 is saying that God predetermined who His sheep are, or that we are His sheep first and then we believe.  

        It’s basically saying “If anyone comes through Me (the gate), they will be saved (will become one of His sheep).”  If they were on the outside of the sheep pen at first, they were not yet one of Jesus’s sheep.  They had to enter the sheep pen – through faith in Jesus – to become one of the sheep.  Anyone can become a sheep – Jew or Gentile – by believing in Jesus, and then we will be saved.  This is what John 10 is about, about the offer of salvation being for both Jews and Gentiles – He’s bringing the two groups together into one – and that anyone can be saved through belief in Jesus.

        10. You said that you believe God is totally loving.  I’m sure you do.  But what does “totally loving” mean if He created people to be non-elect because He chose to hate them and damn them before time began, for His glory… but then He commands them to believe, while preventing them from being able to believe… and then He punishes them for not believing, even though they are only doing – and can only do – exactly what He predestined for them?  If that’s “love,” I’d hate to see “hate.”

        The thing is, God Himself tells us how He shows His love: Romans 5:8: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”  We are all sinners, and God says He shows His love by sending Jesus to the cross to die for sinners.  Can Calvinists can find even one verse where God says He also shows His love by predestining people to hell?

       The Bible says He shows kindness to everyone, even wicked people.  But it also tells us why He shows them kindness: “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?” (Romans 2:4). 

        Calvinists say that God is kind to the “non-elect” to show them a little pseudo-love and pseudo-grace before sending them to their predestined damnation.  But God says that He intends for His kindness to lead stubborn, unrepentant, storing-up-wrath-against-themselves sinners (verse 5) to repentance, to salvation.  He intends for unrepentant people to see His kindness and, consequently, to turn to Him, repent, believe in Him, and be saved.  That is His intention for all sinners, all unrepentant people.  He does not intend for anyone to go to hell.  He has not predestined anyone to hell.  He desires that we – all of us sinners – see His goodness, seek Him, turn to Him, and be saved, not that most people burn in hell for all of eternity because He only really loved the elect enough to save them.  [And I bet Calvinists wouldn’t be so quick to call Calvinism’s God “totally loving” if they thought they were one of the non-elect.]

   LikeLike

   Reply

   • 8. You say that Romans 9 is about God punishing Israel because they rejected the Gospel. If that’s what it’s about then I would assume that the illustration of Jacob and Esau would be also making that point. But the whole point of the Jacob and Esau illustration is to make this point, “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;” The point is that they were not in their place in life because of their own merit, but because of Him that calls and the purpose of God.
     Romans 9 is about who the children of God are – the true children of God are not the physical seed of Abraham, but rather his spiritual seed (verses 6-8). The true children are believers who are called by God, not being Jewish and keeping the law.

     Again, you’re relying quite heavily on Tony Evans. I don’t have a problem with someone being a close follower of someone else’s teaching, but just make sure that you don’t critice Calvinists for doing the same thing you’re doing with Evans.

     The point of my article is simple: Our election is not based on anything meritorious in ourselves. Do you disagree? If so, then it seems that it would follow that God chooses to save people who deserve it (who merit salvation).

     9. You don’t think people are sheep before they believe, but Jesus said that he had other sheep that he would also bring in the future. We all have presuppositions. Yours doesn’t allow for people to be sheep before they believe – so you won’t see it in the passage (or you won’t want to see it in the passage). I have presuppositions as well. Our challenge is to try as much as we can to subject our preconceptions to the text and then deal with the fallout later. It’s ok to not be sure about everything and to not feel like we need to fit every detail of the Scriptures into our nice little system. The Bible true, but it’s true meaning is not always abundantly clear. There are paradoxes and seeming contradictions in the Bible. If our theology is faithful it will also contain statements that do the same thing- we have to be ok with that.

     Just as another side note – be careful of the danger of the pendulum swing. It sounds like you had a bad experience with Calvinism and your previous church. Guard your heart and make sure that you don’t attack calvinism and calvinists out of revenge for what happened at your church. I know of calvinists who led churches who resigned from their church out of respect for the church. There are some calvinists who are wolves, but that is the rarity.

     10. Yes, I definitely believe that God is totally loving. 1 John says, “God is Love.” God is the essence of love itself. Love is exactly like God because it gets its definition from God’s nature. God is the kind of God who would knowingly create people who would end up in Hell. You believe that, don’t you? Does that sound loving? No it doesn’t sound loving, because we are fallen, finite, selfish humans. But God knows what he is doing. He didn’t have to send his Son to die for us, but he did. He doesn’t have to plead with sinners (who he knows will ultimately reject him), but he does. God’s nature desires for people – all people – to be saved, but God also knows that all people will not be saved. How do we reconcile this? He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, yet it was his good pleasure to make those souls who he knew would be evil and perish eternally.
     I think what makes the most sense out of all of this is to just admit that there are no soul who deserve anything good from God. We didn’t deserve to be created and we definitely don’t deserve God’s grace. So any person should be totally grateful for any good thing that we get in this life. God is under no obligation to give any good thing to anyone. If God did make a soul in order to destroy it that would be his prerogative. Are we seriously going to tell God what he can and cannot do with the things that he freely made?
     Also, the non-elect don’t care about the love of God. They mock and scorn it. There are no non elect who are wishing they were elect. They love their sin and don’t want God in their life, nevermind in their afterlife.

     LikeLike

     Reply

5.      11. You said that you believe God is totally sovereign.  I do too, but we have different definitions of “sovereign.”  In Calvinism, to be sovereign, God must preplan, control, cause everything that happens, even sin and evil and unbelief.  Essentially, Calvinists have decided how God must act as sovereign God.  But non-Calvinists say that sovereign is about the position of power/authority God is in (the dictionary definition of sovereign is also about position, not about how one must act in that position) – and as the highest authority there is, He gets to decide how to act in the position, even if it means He decides to voluntarily restrain His use of power and control in order to give people the right to make real free-will decisions.

        Here are some comments from Calvinists to show that they really do think that sovereignty means that God preplans/causes/controls everything, even sin and evil and every speck of dust:

        R.C. Sproul (Does God Control Everything?): “If God is not sovereign, God is not God.  If there is even one maverick molecule in the universe – one molecule running loose outside the scope of God’s sovereign ordination – we cannot have the slightest confidence that any promise God has ever made about the future will come to pass.”  

        From my ex-pastor’s August 2022 sermon on suffering and God’s love: “[Atheists] argue that the sheer amount of suffering, brutality, carnage, violence, and misery on our planet rule out a loving God… [But God] is good and even what He does is good, even when cancer strikes, even when I’m lied about, even when we lose a child, lose a job, lose a dream, tragedy strikes, we lose somebody we love…. [God’s] providence means His sovereign, wise leading and active directing of all things for His glory, and of all events, everything, the good, the bad, and the ugly… for my good and His glory…”

        From his March 2014 sermon about finding hope in hard times: “Random evil doesn’t just happen to people… God is in control of each aspect of every detail… We’ve had people betray, lie, steal, vilify, slander, and do unspeakable things to us.  Some of us have undergone horrific abuse at the hands of parents or aunts or uncles or brothers.  God is sovereign over those who seek to harm us…. That means, friends, that there is no such thing as random evil or random acts of tragedy…. John Flavel in The Mystery of God’s Providence says ‘… In all the sad and afflictive providences that befall you, eye God as the author…’” 

        From his December 8, 2024 sermon about evil leaders: “[The early church believers] knew [God] was in control of even over the choices of evil leaders.  He was guiding them to do His Will…. you might wonder ‘How can these people be guilty when it says right here that all the evil things they did, it was God’s plan.’  [Martin] Luther says ‘God is good and cannot do evil, but He uses evil men who cannot escape the impulse and movement of His power.  [My note: And yet Calvinists cry “But we don’t say people are robots controlled by God!”]  And yet when they do the very evil they’re planning after being moved by God, it’s their fault, not His.'”  [My note: But biblically, God didn’t plan to make them be evil or do evil.  He just foreknew they would be evil people who wanted to do evil things, and He planned to put it to good use, incorporating their self-chosen evil into His plans.  But Calvinists redefine “foreknow” to mean not just “knowing beforehand” but “planning beforehand.”  In Calvinism, God only foreknows what will happen because He first planned it.  This is not the proper definition of foreknowledge, but it’s Calvinists reading their presuppositions into it.]

        From his June 2022 sermon about Joseph and forgiveness: “Some of you have been horrifically abused and treated horribly by somebody….intentionally targeted, treated unjustly, someone has been cruel to us….  Any time we’re physically abused, verbally abused, emotionally abused, lied about, oppressed, taken advantage of, wrongly blamed… it was God who brought these circumstances into our lives in the first place, painful as they may be… [God] arranged [it].”

        And here’s a quote from Mark Talbot/John Piper (from Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, page 42-44, 70-77) which should clear up any doubt about what Calvinism really believes: “God brings about all things in accordance with his will.  It isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects… This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Nadar and even the sexual abuse of a young child… God speaks and then brings his word to pass; he purposes and then does what he has planned.  Nothing that exists falls outside of God’s ordaining will.  Nothing, including no evil person or thing or event or deed.  God’s foreordination is the ultimate reason why everything comes about, including the existence of all evil persons and things and the occurrence of any evil acts or events.  And so it is not inappropriate to take God to be the creator, the sender, the permitter, and sometimes even the instigator of evil. 

   … God has sovereignly ordained, from before the world began, everything that happens in our world… It should be beyond all doubt that no one suffers anything at anyone else’s hand without God having ordained that suffering.

   … [Jospeh] Mengele [a Nazi officer who sent people to the gas chambers and conducted horrible experiments on other people]… [was] a very evil man whom, nevertheless, God was actively sustaining and governing, nanosecond by nanosecond, through his evil existence.  And we can be sure that, from before time began, God had ordained that at that place those moments would be filled with just those persons, doing and suffering exactly as they did… that he actually brought the whole situation about, guiding and governing and carrying it by his all-powerful and ever-effectual word to where it would accomplish exactly what he wanted it to do.  

   … We can be sure, as Scripture confirms, that God has made everything for its purpose, even evil persons like Joseph Mengele or Dennis Rader.  We can be sure that God has made our lives’ most evil moments as well as their best…. 

   … I myself find it very difficult to understand how [God can ordain evil for our good] with some of the worst things that human beings do, like sexually abusing young children or raping or torturing someone mercilessly.  And, of course, something much less horrible than these sorts of things can happen to us and still leave us wondering how God could be ordaining it for our good.  I have seen marriages break apart after thirty-five years and felt to some degree the grief and utter discombobulation of the abandoned spouse.  I have watched tragedies unfold that seem to remove all chance for any more earthly happiness…. Many of us have tasted such grief….Yet these griefs have been God’s gifts…. [And in the end, when we see Jesus face-to-face] we will see that God has indeed done all that he pleased and has done it all perfectly, both for his glory and our good…”

        Calvinists really are saying that God does not just allow evil or allow people to make their own bad decisions or allow nature to run its course to a certain degree, but they’re saying that God alone ultimately preplans and causes all evil, sin, abuse, tragedy, sickness, etc., just like He wanted it to be.  This is what it means that God is sovereign, in Calvinism.

        Jeff Durbin [from a YouTube video called The Madness of Calvinism], talking to a woman about evils like gang rape: “God actually has a morally sufficient reason for all the evil He plans… nothing happens in the universe apart from His will… He actually decrees all things.”

        John MacArthur (from “Why does God allow so much suffering?”): “[God] controls everything… He is governing history in every minute detail.  There’s not one molecule in the universe that’s out of line with His purposes…. He’s content to leave the responsibility for evil’s existence and even its action, with Himself… God wills evil to exist…. Again, and again, God takes full responsibility for the existence of evil unfolding in this world…. Let God be God and worship Him for the sovereign that he is [as defined by Calvinists], unfolding the glory of his own nature through wrath and mercy, which necessitates evil.  This is our God… You either believe in the God who is in complete control of evil, or you believe evil is in control of God.”  [It’s a false dichotomy to claim that either God must control evil or else evil would control Him, as if those are the only two ways it can work.]

        James White in answer to the question “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?”: “If He didn’t then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose… Yes, [He decreed it] because if not, then it’s meaningless and purposeless.” 

        Theodore Zachariades: “God works all things after the counsel of His will, even keeping those kings who want to commit adultery from committing so… and when He wants to, He orders those to commit adultery when HE WANTS TO!”

        Gordon H. Clark (Religion, Reason, and Revelation): “I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it… Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything…”

        And so in Calvinism, we must do – and can only do – what God predetermined we’d do.  And I can’t understand how Calvinists think this doesn’t turn God into a puppet master. 

        You said that “[God] can make anyone do anything he wants them to do – he is God.”  But what Calvinists really mean is not just that God can make people do what He wants them to do, but that everything we do (even all evil) is because God wanted it and caused it.  That’s very different.

        12. Given a Calvinist definition of “sovereign” – that God essentially preplans/causes/controls everything – how can Calvinism explain verses like these without making God into a contradictory, divided, self-opposing, two-faced God:

        “All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations – people who continually provoke me to my very face …” (Isaiah 65:2-3)

        “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” (Matthew 23:37)

        “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears.  They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or [the Lord].  So the Lord Almighty was very angry.  ‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the Lord Almighty.” (Zechariah 7:11-13) 

        “They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval.” (Hosea 8:4) 

        “‘Woe to the obstinate children,’ declares the Lord, ‘to those who carry out plans that are not mine…'” (Isaiah 30:1)

        “He said to the king, ‘This is what the Lord says: ‘You have set free a man I had determined should die.”” (1 Kings 20:42) 

        “They have built the high places to Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal – something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” (Jeremiah 19:5) 

        “Because you have disheartened the righteous person with lies (when I intended no distress)…” (Ezekiel 13:22, CSB)

        “In the past, [God] let nations go their own way.” (Acts 14:16) 

        “When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country.  For God said ‘If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.” (Exodus 13:17)

        “Again David asked, ‘Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?’  And the Lord said, ‘They will.’  So David and his men…left Keilah and kept moving from place to place.”  (1 Samuel 23:12-13.  In this case, God knew what would happen if David made a particular decision, and so David made the opposite decision.  But how is this possible – and what do these verses mean – if Calvinists define “sovereignty” and “God’s foreknowledge” as “God predetermines and then causes everything that happens exactly as it happens, and nothing different could have happened”?)

   Along the same lines: “‘You acted foolishly,’ Samuel said. ‘You have not kept the command the Lord your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time.” (1 Samuel 13:13.  If Calvinism is true that God preplans/causes all that happens, then He preplanned/caused that Saul would disobey and lose the kingdom – because that’s what happened – and so it would be a lie to say that something different could have, would have, happened, that there was an alternative path that hinged on Saul’s choice.  So was Samuel and God lying?  Or is Calvinism wrong?)

        “If you [Cain] do what is right, will you not be accepted?  But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.” (Genesis 4:7. If Calvinism’s version of sovereignty is true, then it’s a total lie that Cain could have chosen any differently.) 

        I would say that true free-will – the ability to make our own real decisions among real options, instead of God preplanning and causing our decisions for us – is the only way to adequately explain verses like these without nonsensical contradictions that destroy God’s character.

   LikeLike

   Reply

6.      13. You say “No one receives injustice from God – believers get what they want and unbelievers get what they want.”  But in Calvinism – and what Calvinists often hide or sugarcoat – is that unbelievers/non-elect can only want to reject God and only have the ability to reject God, because that’s the only desire/option God allowed them to have.  And so how is it not injustice for Calvinism’s God to first cause them to be unbelievers – giving them only the desire/ability to reject Him – and then to punish them for it?

        I do not believe the God of the Bible is unjust (because I believe that if people end up in hell, it was their choice, that they rejected the offer of salvation that they could have accepted instead), but Calvinism makes Him unjust because it says that God first ordained their unbelief and made it impossible for them to believe, and then He punishes them for it.  Punishing someone for something they had no choice about – for doing what Calvinism’s God caused them to do – is not justice, but injustice.

        And the reply Calvinists usually give to this is that humans see things different than God does, that our view of justice may be different from His, that what we call injustice/bad/evil is actually justice/good in God’s eyes, because He sees things differently.  But this is essentially erasing the line between good and evil, between justice and injustice, trying to convince us that they can be one and the same, that there might not really be a difference between the two.  

        But if evil and good, justice and injustice, are essentially the same to God – if we can’t really know the difference because there might not really be one in God’s eyes – then how in the world can we obey all the verses that tell us to do good and seek/apply justice!?!

        Isaiah 1:16-17: “… Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!  Seek justice …”

        Micah 6:8: “He has showed you, O man, what is good.  And what does the Lord require of you?  To act justly …”

        Psalm 106:3: “Blessed are they who maintain justice, who constantly do what is right.”

        Jer. 22:3: “This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right…” 

        Prov. 31:9: “Speak up and judge fairly…” 

        Psalm 37:27: “Turn from evil and do good…”

        Amos 5:15: “Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts…”

        Zec. 7:9: “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice…'”

        And these are just a few.  All of these verses mean nothing if we are to believe that we can’t know what real good or real justice is, that there’s ultimately no real dividing line between evil and good, between injustice and justice, at least as far as we can tell.

        Lev. 19:15: “Do not pervert justice…”  

        Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” 

        I hate to say it, but this is exactly what Calvinism does.  [And Is. 5:20 means nothing if, as Calvinists say, we can’t even really know the difference between good and evil because there might not really be one.]

        [And interestingly, Proverbs 28:5 tells us “Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it fully.”  And Proverbs 2:6,9 says “For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding… Then you will understand what is right and just and fair – every good path.”  And Hebrews 5:14 tells us “But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.”  And so if Calvinists say we can’t really tell the difference between good and evil, between justice and injustice, because there may not ultimately be one, then what does this tell us about Calvinists!?!]

        14.  You said “It seems to me that non calvinists are sort of put into the same conundrum that calvinists are. Calvinists have to explain why God would only choose some people to grant mercy to while passing over others. Yet, the non calvinist has to explain why God would create people who he knew would never repent. It seems like the same problem to me. Any thoughts there?”

        This is not the same conundrum at all.  The non-Calvinist God gave all people the ability to repent and believe because He truly wants all people saved, but He gave us the choice to accept Him or not.  And He did this because He wanted an eternal family of people who truly want to be with Him and who choose to love Him, of their own free-will.  And so He had to allow free-will and the right to reject Him.  And this is why there are people in hell – not because God predestined them to go there, but because they rejected the offer of eternal life when they could have accepted it instead.

        But in Calvinism, the conundrum they need to explain is how God can pre-decide who gets saved and who doesn’t and what our sins are… and then He claims that He wants all people to believe and be saved and to obey Him… while at the same time, He prevents most people from being able to believe in Him and He causes us to do the sins He commanded us not to do, for His glory… and then He punishes us for it, acting like we had a choice about it.  And in light of this, they have to explain how God can still be a righteous, just, trustworthy God.

        Non-Calvinists don’t have to explain that because it’s nowhere near the same problem as God creating people He knew wouldn’t repent of their own free-will even though they could have repented because they were truly offered eternal life.

        Another Calvinist once asked a similar question on a post at Soteriology 101: “If God destines something to an end or permits it and sustains it to the same end, what is the difference?”  (What he’s asking is “What’s the difference between God causing something or God simply letting it happen?”  But Calvinists don’t ask this because they really want to know the difference.  They ask it rhetorically, as in “There is no difference because it doesn’t change what happened.”)

        This was my reply to him: “What’s the difference between a God who allows someone to make their own decision to rape and kill, and who punishes them for their choice … and a God who causes someone to rape and kill, with no option to do anything different, but who then punishes that person for raping and killing?  What’s the difference between a God who genuinely offers salvation to all people, but who lets us make our own choice about if we want Him in our lives or not, and allows us to face the consequences of our choice … and a God who predestines our eternities and choices, who causes unbelievers to be unbelievers, who never gives unbelievers a chance to seek/find Him or to find salvation, and who then punishes unbelievers in hell for being the unbelievers He caused them to be?  If you can’t see a difference, what does that say about your view of God and the Gospel?  Either that, or you’re just not thinking about it carefully enough.”

   LikeLike

   Reply

7.       15.  You said: “You can say that man has a free will, but don’t you believe that some people will never ever repent, so in some sense they cannot believe?”  The difference is that I believe all people have the ability/option to choose to believe.  So it’s not that they cannot believe; it’s that they won’t believe, they choose to not believe.  But Calvinists think the non-elect never had the option/ability to believe because they were predestined to hell from the beginning, created to be non-believers who bring God glory by their damnation.  This is very different!

        16. You said: “If they did by some chance repent and believe they would contradict God’s omniscience.”  No, because if they had chosen to believe, then God would have foreknown that they would have chosen to believe.  But in Calvinism, God first preplans what happens and then foreknows it, meaning that God knew the non-elect would never believe because He predetermined they would never believe and prevented them from believing.  Very different!

        17. You asked: “How do you define the Elect and the Reprobate? I think the Elect is the group made up of people that would be saved in time and the Reprobate is the group made up of people who would not be saved in time. Do you agree with that? If not, how would you define?”  The difference is that Calvinists think God decides who’s in which group, whereas I think He lets us decide which group we are in, based on whether we choose for ourselves to put our faith in Jesus or not.

        18. You asked: “Can the number of the Elect and the Reprobate fluctuate at all in time, or is the precise number that God knew before the foundation of the world still the same number eternally?”  Once again, God foreknowing who would believe and who wouldn’t is far different than God predetermining who would believe and who wouldn’t.

        19. You said: “God knew in eternity past the specific number of Elect and Reprobate… Isn’t there at least some sense in which God is the one ultimately responsible for people’s eternal destiny? God could have chosen to not create this world. Or he could have chosen to only create the souls that he knew would respond positively to the Gospel. But he didn’t. He freely made those he knew would be destroyed. What’s your thoughts on that?”

        My thoughts on that are that, sure, God could have created things differently if He wanted to.  But Him knowing the number of who would believe and who wouldn’t doesn’t mean He preplanned or picked who would believe and who wouldn’t.  

        And there’s a huge difference between a God who gives all people a genuine offer of salvation and allows us to decide for ourselves and then allows us to go to hell if we chose to reject His offer of salvation… and God who created people to be unbelievers who never had the chance or ability to believe and be saved, and who then commands them to repent and believe while knowing that He created them to be unable to do it, and who then punishes them for being the unbelievers He predestined them to be (and who gets glory for their damnation and for all the sin and evil in the world, not just in spite of it, but by it, by causing it).  The first God can still be trusted, the second one (Calvinism’s God) cannot.

        20.  You asked “How do you feel about relating to Calvinists in the church? Should they be separated from?”  If Calvinists or non-Calvinists want to attend each other’s churches, that’s up to them.  But after watching our non-Calvinist church get taken over by stealth Calvinism (as many are) – and knowing how different the non-Calvinist and Calvinist theologies/gospels are – I want, most of all, for churches and pastors to be upfront about their theology, so that the people can make fully informed decisions about which church they attend.  I have no respect for or tolerance of Calvinist pastors secretly hijacking non-Calvinist churches.  But if a Calvinist wants to attend a non-Calvinist church (or vice versa), that’s up to them, as long as churches/pastors are upfront about their theology.  But for the record, because these theologies are so different, I do not think these two theologies can coexist in harmony, side by side.  We must pick one or the other.  [It only appears to coexist peacefully when the church/pastor is covert about their theology and the people aren’t fully aware of what’s really being taught.]

   LikeLike

   Reply

8.      21. You said “I believe that we should preach the Gospel to everyone. Everyone should be told to repent and believe in Christ.”  Yes, Calvinists think this.  But what they also think – and often hide – is that only “the elect” who are predestined to heaven can repent and believe.  So this command is not really for everyone.  The offer of salvation is not for everyone.  Telling people to repent and believe is not to save anyone and everyone from hell – to offer them salvation – it’s merely the way to help the Calvinist elect realize that they are elect.

        Calvinists themselves say the gospel/evangelism is really just for the elect (while often trying to hide it, to sound like they mean it’s for all people).

   R.C. Sproul (in Chosen by God): “The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (people from every tribe and nation)….”  [Translation: “Jesus is only for the elect.”] 

        A.W. Pink (Doctrine of Election): “It is to call the elect that the Scriptures are given, that ministers are sent, that the gospel is preached, and the Holy Spirit is here… the preaching of the gospel is the appointed instrument in the hands of the Holy Spirit whereby the elect are brought to Christ… The gospel, then, is God’s great winnowing fan, separating the wheat from the chaff. [“The gospel is only for the elect.”] … it is unmistakably evident that the ‘all men’ God wills to be saved and for whom Christ died are all men without regard to national distinctions.”  [“Jesus is only for the elect from all nations.”]

        John MacArthur (Answering Big Questions About the Sovereignty of God): “Since we don’t know who [the elect] are, we are called to fulfill the Great Commission and to proclaim the gospel to every creature.”  [“The gospel is only for the elect.”]

        John MacArthur (2010 Shepherd’s conference), about why Calvinists should evangelize if God’s already elected who would be saved: “I will not resolve the problem of the lost other than to do what the Scripture tells me to do… and that is that the Bible affirms to me that God loves the world, the specific people in the world, the specific human beings.  [“Only the elect.”]  I don’t know who they are.  Spurgeon said ‘if you’ll pull up their shirts and show me an ‘E” stamped on their back and I know the elect, then I’ll limit my work to them.’  [“The gospel is only for the elect.”]  But since there is no such stamp, I am committed to obey the command to preach the gospel to every creature… But I don’t think it’s a good solution to diminish the nature of the atonement and have Jesus dying for everybody…” [“Jesus is only for the elect.”  And methinks someone thinks too highly of his own opinions.]

        Steven Lawson (“Salvation is of the Lord”): “As a sin-bearing sacrifice, Jesus died a substitutionary death in the place of God’s elect.  On the cross, He propitiated the righteous anger of God toward the elect. [“Jesus is only for the elect.”]… Jesus’ death did not merely make all mankind potentially savable.  Nor did His death simply achieve a hypothetical benefit that may or may not be accepted.  Neither did His death merely make all mankind redeemable.  Instead, Jesus actually redeemed a specific people through His death, securing and guaranteeing their salvation.  Not a drop of Jesus’ blood was shed in vain.  He truly saved all for whom He died… With oneness of purpose, the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world to apply this salvation to those chosen and redeemed.”  [“Jesus and the gospel are only for the elect.”]

        If we really think about it, Calvinist evangelism rescues no one from hell because the elect were never on their way to hell and the non-elect can never be saved from hell.  Calvinist evangelism is merely to wake up the elect, to make them realize that they were always saved and on their way to heaven and that they are born again, without ever having to make a decision to believe in Jesus.

        And even worse than that, but in Calvinism, the goal of evangelism is not really to win anyone and everyone to Christ, but that it’s to draw the elect to Christ [those who were always destined to believe and be saved] and to bring condemnation to the non-elect (everyone else) when they reject the gospel as Calvi-god predestined.  Calvinists call it “successful evangelism” – they call it good and God-glorifying – when the non-elect reject Christ and compound their guilt.  Examples:

        a. From a Calvinist article called “If God predestines people, why evangelize?”: “If God is Sovereign, Our Evangelism Has a 100% Success Rate: In a culture where evangelism may lead people to walk away and even scoff at our words, we can have confidence in our preaching efforts. Because God is the Author of salvation (and not our evangelistic proficiency or presentation), our faithful proclamation of the Gospel will yield the exact result the Lord has willed.”  [Translation: “If someone rejects Christ, it’s because God planned/wanted it to happen exactly that way, and so your evangelism efforts were ‘successful’.”]

   b. An atheist (Godless Granny) asks a Calvinist named Joe this question [Watch this conversation in Soteriology 101’s YouTube video called “Warning: This may be the CRINGIEST video you watch about Calvinism”]: “What is the purpose of telling people about God if the only way they can come to believe is if God chooses to come and move them?”

        Joe answers “Because any kind of evangelistic efforts, I have a 100% success rate for the kingdom of God.  So either it is going to add to the condemnation of vessels prepared for wrath, for destruction, that God will use to glorify Himself – so it will be adding to the condemnation of unbelievers where God will be just in destroying them for eternity – or He will use the preaching of the gospel…[to] draw the elect to Himself.  So I have a 100% success rate with whatever I’m doing because I’m accomplishing God’s purpose either way.”  [It’s “success” to bring people more condemnation in hell?  And it’s “for God’s glory”?  Sick and disturbing.]

        Godless Granny then asks, “If you found out that God chose not to save one or more of your children, how would you feel about that?”

        Joe answers “It means He’s God.  You see, God is a bigger being than I am.  He’s higher than I am.  And I sure hope that God has chosen my children…but if God chooses not to save my children, that is His prerogative because He is God and I am not God.  He decides who’s in His heaven.  He decides who’s in His hell.”

        Godless Granny then points out that the odds are that at least one of Joe’s children is predestined to eternal torment in hell, and she asks “And you don’t have a problem with that?”

        And Joe responds “Okay, we’ve got two ways to look at this.  This is a glass half-full or half-empty.  Either I can rejoice that God chose a wretched sinner for salvation, which is me, or I can worry about God’s choices with other wretched sinners.”  [Translation: “So don’t worry about the damnation of others.  Just be thankful you’re elect.”]

   c. From Jenny Manley’s article “Evangelists, let the doctrine of predestination batter your heart”: “[God] sovereignly reigns over people and their eternal destinies as well… Some people were created to be a display of God’s glory as recipients of his grace, and some were created to display his glory and holiness through judgment… The doctrine of double predestination corrects the faulty assumption that the goal of evangelism is always conversion or that the highest good to come from sharing the gospel is the salvation of sinners.  Something better and more important is at stake—God’s glory.  If God is glorified both in showing mercy to sinners and in the just judgment of their sin, then every time the gospel is faithfully shared, it’s a success.”

   d. And as my ex-pastor preached in April 7, 2019: “God is the one who opens eyes.  God is the one who closes eyes.  To God be the glory.  And this should bring a freedom in our evangelism [and] in our mission endeavors.  Otherwise, someone like [a missionary who had no converts] would come home and feel like an utter failure.  But the reason he didn’t – and the reason he doesn’t have to – is because he understood the sovereignty of God.  And it’s God who gives the results… J.I. Packer, in his classic Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, writes this: ‘It’s a Christian’s job to share the gospel.  It is God’s job to open people’s hearts.’  Meaning that whether someone ends up believing or not, that’s God’s call.  And what many miss is this is a very liberating thing when you share the gospel… God sovereignly opens some regions and hearts to the gospel, and He sovereignly closes some hearts and regions to the gospel.  And ladies and gentlemen, that is needed tonic to the Western church which has become so man-centered.… It is God only who gives results.  And that is something the Western church needs to embrace, remember, and rejoice in as the gospel goes out.” 

        And even worse than that is that some Calvinists actually rejoice at the destruction of “the non-elect”:

   Matthew McMahon (The Two Wills of God): “The saints should delight in the reprobation of the wicked… We come to understand and praise God concerning the damnation of other people.  We understand that we could have been what they are.  We contemplate their eternal destiny, and bow before the throne to praise the Creator and the Father we have.  How awesome is that grace which He bestowed upon us in His Son!”

   Paul Washer (“The Gospel is only Good News to a needy man”): “If you reject Christ, then the moment when you take your first step through the gates of hell, the only thing you will hear is all of creation standing to its feet and applauding and praising God because God has rid the earth of you.  That’s how not good you are.”  

   Robert Golding [Themelios, Vol 46, Issue 1, “Making Sense of Hell”.]: “… Jonathan Edwards taught that the saints in heaven will rejoice over the damnation of their unbelieving family members in hell because they will be witnessing the justice of God in glorious display… If the persons in hell are devoid of God’s goodness, they are as evil as possible.  So much so that we should not even use the term ‘human’ to describe them… Therefore, we should imagine a repugnant distillation of evil in hell, not an amalgamation of lost souls and poor misled Buddhists, etc.  If we think of the former as opposed to the latter, it seems we can intuitively agree with God’s wrath upon it.… The more they [that is, the saints in heaven] shall see of the justice of God, the more will they prize and rejoice in his love.’…. I have sought to show that the reprobate are so hellish that any fond feelings for them (as the universalists seek to evoke) are misplaced….” 

   R.C. Sproul (in an Idol Killer video called “James White Responds – Infant Salvation?”): “Don’t you know that when you’re in heaven, you’ll be so sanctified that you’ll be able to see your own mother in hell and rejoice in that, knowing that God’s perfect justice is being carried out.”

   Vincent Cheung (The Author of Sin): “All that God does is intrinsically good and righteous, so it is also good and righteous for him to create the reprobates… Some would be horrified by this because they are more concerned about man’s dignity and comfort than God’s purpose and glory., but those who have the mind of Christ would erupt in gratitude and reverence, and affirm that God is righteous, and that he does all things well.” 

        Jonathan Edwards (“The End of the Wicked Contemplated by the Righteous”, section 2): “… the sufferings of the damned will be no occasion of grief to the heavenly inhabitant, as they will have no love nor pity to the damned as such…. the heavenly inhabitants will know that it is not fit that they should love them, because they will know then, that God has no love to them, nor pity for them; but that they are the objects of God’s eternal hatred [my note: And the Calvinist non-elect always were, from even before the foundation of the world, before they ever did anything good or bad]… God glorifies himself in the eternal damnation of the ungodly men.  God glorifies himself in all that he doth; but he glorifies himself principally in his eternal disposal of his intelligent creatures, some are appointed to everlasting life, and others left to everlasting death…. To see the majesty, and greatness, and terribleness of God, appearing in the destruction of his enemies, will cause the saints to rejoice; and when they shall see how great and terrible a being God is, how will they prize his favour! how will they rejoice that they are the objects of his love! how will they praise him the more joyfully, that, he should choose them to be his children, and to live in the enjoyment of him!”  

   David Mathis, 9Marks (“Hallelujah over hell? How God’s people rejoice while their enemies perish”): “Yet [in the end]… we will rejoice in his power on display in the destruction of the wicked [my note: who were wicked by Calvi-god’s decree].  Even now, we can shape our hearts to rejoice appropriately in those truths… Some Christians today may reluctantly think about hell, ‘Well, God said it. I’ll believe it, but I don’t like it’…  While we might admirably profess to hold to God’s Word, our ‘not liking it’ is no evidence of maturity.  In fact, it’s an expression of moral immaturity, if not error or sin…. We want to mature in this by meditating on the happiness of God’s people not despite but because of God’s destruction of the wicked [“whom He predestined to be wicked”]… Divine judgments against the wicked are for you.”

   Rejoicing that God supposedly causes people to reject the gospel so that they can burn eternally in hell for His glory!?!  Calling it “successful evangelism”!?!  

        And yet Luke 15:10 says that angels rejoice when even one person is saved.  And God says: “… ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live…'” (Ezekiel 33:11) and “… He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)

   LikeLike

   Reply

9.      22.  You say that you “desire to worship together with non calvinists and calvinists alike.”  That would be nice, except for the fact that they both have very different gospels, different views of God’s character and Jesus’s sacrifice and how people are saved.  And I think these are significant differences that should be addressed and not swept under the rug for the sake of unity.  (It wouldn’t be such a problem if stealth Calvinism wasn’t taking over churches, if Calvinists didn’t think it was their duty to convert churches to Calvinism and weren’t being trained in it.) 

        Calvinists think that Calvinism is “the gospel/Christianity itself,” but non-/anti-Calvinists (those who’ve studied enough to know) believe that Calvinism is a massive corruption of the gospel and Christianity.  Do you think these two theologies can or should peacefully coexist side-by-side, without either side raising concerns about the other side?  

        And considering the totally opposing ideas of Calvinism and anti-/non-Calvinism, do you think anti-/non-Calvinists can be truly saved, truly elect?  If you think they are truly elect, then why would God ordain that many of His elect are deceived and believe lies and fight against Calvinism?  

        And if it’s possible for truly elect people to be deceived – ordained by Calvinism’s God – then can any Calvinist have any confidence that they have the truth and are on the right side, when they could be the one being deceived by God?  

        Also, Calvin taught the idea of evanescent grace, that God sometimes gives non-elect people a temporary grace that makes them truly feel elect – so much so that they themselves can’t tell the difference between those who are truly elect and those who only got fake temporary grace that makes them just think they’re elect – but then God eventually takes away this fake grace so that He can damn them more severely in hell.  Given this, how can any Calvinist ever be certain of and secure in their elect status?  No Calvinist can know for sure if they’re truly elect – or if they just got evanescent grace – until they die.

        John Calvin in Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 3, Chapter 2, Section 11: “I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. … by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to [the reprobate]. … the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. … there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith.… God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed … that [their salvation] may be sure and steadfast.  But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate….  We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use.  …the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them [favorable to them, giving them a chance of success], inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment, not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God.… God illumines [the reprobates’] minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but … the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition.  When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection.  He only gives them a manifestation [a glimpse] of his present mercy.  In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end…. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.”

        Calvin is saying that our God – who is supposed to be just, righteous, and trustworthy – sometimes tricks non-elect people into truly thinking they are elect and saved… but in reality, Calvinist-Christ gave them a temporary, fake version of faith (not a real faith that saves) that makes them just feel saved so that He can more strongly convict them in hell, for His purposes and glory.  And yet they themselves cannot tell the difference.

        And from Calvin’s Institutes book 3, chapter 24, section 8: “… there are two species of calling: for there is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation.  Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts.  Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness.“

        Calvin is saying (and all Calvinists do it) that God gives “two different calls,” that God gives a special salvation-call to the elect that He makes them accept … but He gives a different “universal call” to all people, even those whom He created for hell and whom He causes to reject it.  Therefore, this call is not a real invitation to eternal life for them, but it was designed by God to be a “savor of death” to them and to lead to “severer condemnation” for rejecting His call, even though that’s all they could do because He caused them to do it.  

        So it’s not enough for Calvinism’s God to predestine the non-elect to hell just because He wants to … but He has to pretend to offer them salvation that isn’t even available to them and He enlightens them for only a time, making them feel truly saved, just so that He can supposedly condemn them more severely, abandoning them and smiting them with greater blindness.

        Calvinists claim that they can be secure in their salvation because if God has chosen you, He can never lose you.  But that’s a big “IF”!  IF God chose you!?!  IF God keeps you in the faith all the way to the end of your life!  IF He isn’t tricking you into thinking you’re saved when you’re not!  If He didn’t choose you for evanescent grace just to punish you more!  IF!

        23. And lastly, I think it’s worth noting that famed Calvinist A.W. Pink (in The Doctrine of Election) admits that Calvinism is not clearly taught anywhere in the Bible: “Unless we are privileged to sit under the ministry of some Spirit-taught servant of God, who presents the truth [the doctrine of election] to us systematically, great pains and diligence are called for in the searching of the Scriptures, so that we may collect and tabulate their scattered statements on this subject. It has not pleased the Holy Spirit to give us one complete and orderly setting forth of the doctrine of election, but instead ‘here a little, there a little—… No novice is competent to present this subject in its scriptural perspective and proportions.” 

        He’s basically saying that the Calvinist doctrine of election is not clearly and obviously taught in any place in Scripture, that it has to be scraped together in bits and pieces, and that we would have a hard time finding it without the help of a Calvinist teacher systematically leading us through the Bible.  So it takes a highly educated expert to teach these things, because the average common Christian cannot understand or learn them on their own.  This is pretty revealing to me.  And something worth thinking about for Calvinists.

        Anyway, thank you, Lee, for taking the time to read and respond to my previous comment.  I am long-winded and go deep with my thoughts, but I can see that you do too. 🙂  And I can appreciate that.  It shows that you’re taking great care with what you think and say, and I commend you for that.  But I also respectfully challenge you to try reading the Bible with fresh eyes, without the Calvinist glasses on, to see if it’s as clearly taught in Scripture as you assume.  And thank you for the fun challenge of conversing about this.  And I admire the mature, respectful way you handle those who oppose what you’re saying.  And now I’ll leave you alone and let you have the last word to tear it up as you will.😁  I won’t comment after this.  God bless!

   – Heather

   (If all the pieces didn’t show up, let me know and I can resend them.)

   LikeLike

   Reply