Grappling with Calvinism

March 17, 2011 by Tim Prussic

Can you image Queen V gettin' jiggy with these guys?

Absolutely gorgeous!

One of my friends on Facebook pointed to this article from a brother named Peter. Peter’s article is short and helpful, as it demonstrates the humanistic mindset into which the Reformed faith consistently runs. Peter’s major difficulty is that he’s trying to understand Calvinism with a humanistic mindset. It’s like Queen Victoria and the Bee Gees… they just don’t go together. The humanistic mindset weighs God in the balance of human assessment. The Christian mindset weighs humanity (our thoughts and emotions) in the balance of God’s revelation in Scripture. When God asserts that he has mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardens, the Christian mindset says, “Amen and amen!” The humanistic mindset says, “Why does he still find fault, for who has resisted his will?” In our case, Peter says, “However, I don’t see how punishment is ever due to someone who genuinely had no choice in the matter. In the end, it’s REALLY all based on whether or not they were elected by God.” God explicitly asserts this in Scripture, but Peter thinks it “horrible.” I ask my reader to examine Peter’s mindset and then his own. We should pause often to assess if we are submitting to God’s word. We’re called to be subject to God’s word, not to subject it to us. Let’s take a look at Peter’s five-point summary of Calvinism as he sees it.

Peter’s first point:

After the Fall of Man, all men are afflicted with total inability to repent as a result of original sin. Calvinists disagree on whether or not Man was free to obey God in Eden or not. Regardless, this is “Total Depravity.”

This is fairly straight forward. Fallen humans are unable to repent and trust in Christ. They are capable, but unable. Further, fallen humans *know* that God rightfully requires worship of them, but they willfully suppress that knowledge. Later on, Peter says, “Then at the end, he judges these two groups entirely based on whether or not they were picked by him, sending those he didn’t pick into eternal, tormenting hellfire.” This is an obvious caricature, for God’s judgment is a judgement of SIN, not a judgment of non-election. God judges their WILLING rejection of him in the face of clear revelation. All of that is according to his will (to be sure), but it’s simply false to say that we’re judged for being non-elect.

Peter’s second point:

God does not need to consider free will in saving human beings – He intervenes and forcibly transforms an unwilling heart into a willing heart. (“Irresistible Grace”).

The first clause is sloppy, so it’s hard to know what Peter means. If he means that God doesn’t wait on fallen sinner to come to him, then he’s certainly right. Fallen people don’t (of themselves) seek God. He draws them and they come. This is what Jesus is talking about: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). As to God’s intervening – indeed, he takes out the heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh (Ez 36:26). By God’s saving grace, sinners are born again. God does that to them before they believe (1 John 5:1). Fallen sinner cannot even see the kingdom (John 3:3), and is unable to understand spiritual things without the new birth (1 Cor 2:14). By transforming us spiritually, God turns the unwilling into the willing. Thus, he does “consider” the free will of humans. He works with our nature, which drives our will.

Peter’s third point:

Hence, God would be able to save all by doing this to all, if He wanted to.

This comment really shows how Peter is considering these issues in a sub-biblical mindset. To round out his view, I want to present another of his comments: “The point is that God sees our supposedly utterly and completely lost state, and chooses to only do something about it to some of his lost creation.” Our brother presents God as merely reacting to what’s going on. God has DECREED all that comes to pass. He doesn’t notice creation and then decide to do something. He’s not gawking down at a fallen creation picking and choosing. Election is eternal, not temporal (whether it logically precedes the decree of the fall or not). With regard to God’s ability to save all, who doubts it? The issue is that God has TOLD us that he’s chosen not to redeem every single person. He’s TOLD us that he has vessels of shame made for destruction.

Peter’s penultimate point:

However, God chooses to only pick some people to be saved, entirely arbitrarily. (“Unconditional Election”).

The temporal issue is still at play in Peter’s thinking, but let’s focus on his accusation of God being “arbitrary.” At the bottom of Peter’s post, he again says, ”God arbitrarily chooses to love a few.” Everything God does appears “arbitrary” to us. Does God conform his decisions to some other being? Further, is there something outside of God to which he must give account? Must God give account to our emotions? Will God be hauled before the court of our morals? This charge of arbitrariness mistakes ALL of reality. Everything God does is “arbitrary” in the sense that he wants to do it and he’s GOD. God is not arbitrary in the sense that he’s picking willy-nilly or that he’s capricious (which seems to be Peter’s point). He is arbitrary in that he does all his holy will and only his holy will. In short, he does *exactly* what he wants. That’s, like, what it is to be God.

Finally:

God does all of this for his glory. In fact, the ultimate point of Creation is to glorify God. Everything else is unimportant in comparison.

God is infinitely and unchangeably glorified. He merely manifests his glory (along with his other attributes) in creation. So, in the final analysis, I think this fifth point is misleading. God created to manifest his power in the reprobate and his glory in the gracious redemption of the elect. Peter balks at this: “Calvinists claim that the reasons for God choosing not to save is ‘for his glory’. First of all, when was eternal suffering considered glorious? What messed up picture of God assumes that God considers eternal torment and punishment for sins committed by a person who had no choice in the matter to start with, displays His glory?” To this we simply say: “Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (Rom 9:21-23). Peter simply DOES NOT want to submit to what God says here. He says, “So what am I to say? I cannot help but be disgusted by this.” What can I say, Peter? I cannot help but be impressed that you will not take God as his word. You seem to want (to use Lewis’s phrase) to put God in the dock. You want to try him by your sense of morality and justice. You’ll never win at that.

One final criticism: Peter supposes that the Calvinistic position entails that “God arbitrarily chooses to love a few.” THIS Calvinist (and a great many other ones) says that God’s chosen to save the world. God’s under no obligation to save a single sinner, but in his infinite grace, he saves the world! An innumerable company from every kindred, tribe, tongue and nation will be saved. Christ’s design for this fallen world is that Christ should (from heaven) rule it, dispensing salvation and justice liberally, drawing all the nations to him (Pss 67; 72; Matt 28:18-20). The scope of God’s redemptive plan are simply staggering… he’s not after but “a few.”

Final word of advice for anyone seeking to understand Calvinism: STOP READING BLOGS AND LITTLE ONLINE POSTS. Do what our fathers did, get and read big thick books. Read historic presentations of the doctrines that are troublesome. Online Calvinism is very thin. Historic Calvinism is rich and wonderful.

Like this:

Be the first to like this post.

Posted in Arminianism, Bible, Calvinism, Eschatology, Personal Development, Positive Attitude, Relationships, Soteriology, Theology | Tagged Arminianism, Calvinism, Historical theology, Personal Development, Postmillennialism, Reformed, Reformed Catholicism, Salvation, Scripture, theology | 78 Comments

78 Responses

on March 17, 2011 at 6:35 pm | Reply Mark D Ketchum

I appreciate you, Tim, I really do. But what it all comes down to is that election and free will have to go hand in hand. It is what the Bible truly reveals. And although God elects those He elects… the word elect or choice in the original text is really the word “quality.” “Many are called, few are quality”.

God’s grace is sufficient to cover the whole world… the Bible clearly states this. The whole world has the ability to see God through this grace… it is the one’s that respond that find salvation… that are elect (quality).

I have actually come to this conclusion via the top theological minds in my community, Church, and radio… some are Calvinists and some are semi-Calvinists… and they all agree that God gives everybody the opportunity via His grace that covers the whole world… not limited to select individuals.

But, alas, we are saved and how we got there is not as important as where we are.
on March 17, 2011 at 6:48 pm | Reply Jason Anspach

What lexicon do you have that treats εκλεκτοι from Matthew 22:14 as “quality”? I’ve always seen the word to be “chosen”, “select choice” — never heard “quality” until just now.

Do you understand 1 Peter 2:4 to be better translated “coming to him, a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but quality by God, precious.” ?

I think the premise of your argument is very shaky. Full disclosure, I’m also a Calvinistic in my theology, so there’s that too.
on March 17, 2011 at 7:11 pm | Reply Peter Berntsson

Okay, I posted that first comment immediately when I got the pingback. I’ve read your entire response now.

Your first criticism seems to be this:

- Human emotions or thoughts have no value when interpreting Scripture, and since I use emotions and thoughts, I do not understand Scripture, which of course automatically agrees with Calvinist doctrines because Calvinist doctrines are Scriptural.

- You say that God doesn’t judge based on non-election, but rather judges sin. Of course, if God predestined all that happens, God is responsible for making that sin happen in the first place. The Calvinist response to that has, as I’ve understood it, generally been “No, God found a loophole because he’s God and he can do that.”

- You seem confused about my mention of God ignoring Free will in election. What I meant is simply that Calvinism does not believe human beings have any say in the matter of whether or not they want to be saved, so we should simply ignore that as a factor.

- As for my “sub-biblical mindset” when viewing God’s choice to only save some, your objection is pointless and besides the point I was trying to make. The Bible certainly speaks a LOT of God with anthropomorphic language, and Christianity is an anthropomorphic religion (heard of the Incarnation), so I feel entirely comfortable about using human language about God’s way of looking at things, especially when I’m not actually making a point of how God views things in/outside time.

- You seem to say that we can see no pattern or logic whatsoever in how God deals with the world, and hence all is arbitrary, because there is nothing we can know for sure about God’s character or motivation, except that he does things to show his glory. That seems to be the only things we can know about the Calvinist view of God: He’s sovereign and he likes to show off his glory.

—

A couple of comments, then. You make a whole lot of assumptions here. I am not “accusing God” like Paul’s imaginary opponent in Romans 9, but I’m rather saying that the Calvinist interpretation of all this is false.

Yes, I have feelings about this. And so do you. We’ve both got things invested in our respective theologies, let’s just admit that. It’s not a theological judgement, it’s a psychological statement of facts.

You assume that just because I am morally outraged by the Calvinist view, that’s my only reason for rejecting it. I should’ve known Calvinists would think that, since that’s their usual defense against ANY accusation – “humanism”.

My post was not intended to refute Calvinism. It was simply an explanation to people who have not understood what I find uniquely scary about it. Thankfully, almost no one in my home country has heard of Calvinism, so I’m enlightening them before the Neo-Calvinism hits here.

I don’t pretend to read the Bible without presuppositions, because no one does. We all have to start with something. The center of my faith and interpretation is Jesus dying for sinners on Calvary, praying for his enemies. I also believe God has higher moral standards than human beings ever can, and yet according to Calvinism, God doesn’t have to love everyone, even though we do. Unless it’s somehow not a moral category to love… Either way, I do believe God loves everyone, and wishes all men to be saved /I Jn 4:8; Deut 10:17-19; 2 Chron 19:7; Ezek 18:25; Mk 12:14; Jn 3:16; Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:10-11; Eph 6:9; I Tim 2:4; I Pet 1:17; 2 Pet. 3:9).

Anyways, your entire post seems predicated on the belief that Romans 9 has to do with Paul arguing about the election to salvation and reprobation of individual sinners. That is definitely not the only interpretation. I view it as being about Israel and Gentiles, and election is corporate.

Because I don’t pretend to be better at articulating this than people already have, especially at 3 am in the morning, I’ll quote Greg Boyd here:

“The expressed issue Paul is addressing is whether or not “the word of God had failed” (Rom 9:6). That is, had God’s promise to be the God of the Jews and to have them as his covenant people been rescinded?”

This is the question Paul is addressing in Romans 9 (as well as in chapters 10 and 11). It’s a question of God’s fidelity to Israel as a nation and the basis by which God makes anyone a covenant partner. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how God elects individuals to salvation. We are misguided if we try to use this passage to answer this question.”

Actually, just read his article and respond if you wish: http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-predestination-free-will/how-do-you-respond-to-romans-9/

There are of course other examples of people dealing with the passage, but I went with this one because it’s short and accessible. I’m not an exegete, though. All I can say is that I haven’t heard of any convincing responses that don’t substitute the clear Jewish/Israel focus of Rom 9-11 for a modern, western, individualistic focus that could very well be called, yes, a “humanistic reading”.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post, even though you managed to forget my name somewhere after the 2-3rd mention of my name

Grace and Peace!
on March 17, 2011 at 7:26 pm | Reply Peter Berntsson

I just peeked at your previous post “Individual Election is Biblical”. There you claim that Romans 9 prove that election is not corporate, because verse 6 shows how “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”.

All I can say to that is this:

“For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.”
(Rom 11:21-24)

God elected the tree. We are branches that are grafted in and cut off again, depending on whether or not we believe.
on March 17, 2011 at 8:42 pm | Reply JephRBNY

Nailed it, Tim.
on March 17, 2011 at 10:26 pm | Reply Tim Prussic

Peter, (sorry, again, about the Jason thing) I say this with 100% sincerity, if you want to protect your homeland against historic Protestantism (that is, Calvinism), you will want to understand it far better. If you end up presenting a caricature (to whatever degree) of Calvinism, it won’t be long before your countrymen do some deeper reading and recognize the disparity.

Here’s an example of that disparity. You wrote:

‘You say that God doesn’t judge based on non-election, but rather judges sin. Of course, if God predestined all that happens, God is responsible for making that sin happen in the first place. The Calvinist response to that has, as I’ve understood it, generally been “No, God found a loophole because he’s God and he can do that.”’

God is the first cause of all things. This is classic Christianity (not Calvinism specifically). God is not “responsible” for sin as he does not sin. Humans sin and are thus “responsible,” meaning culpable and liable to judgement. That’s not your caricature of “God found a loophole,” it’s a simple and consistent definition.
on March 18, 2011 at 5:19 am | Reply Mark D Ketchum

Here is a quote from “Serious Mistranslations of the Bible”…

Serious Mistranslations of the Bible is an examination of up to 52 Bible passages as affected by various Greek words from the New Testament identified as incorrectly understood by their use in the Septuagint – the Bible Jesus and the apostles quoted (the Old Testament translated into the Greek of their day) – as well as other discoveries in research in the Greek language. The Septuagint as a source for the meaning of words in the Greek of the New Testament has largely been by-passed, but Jesus and the apostles’ quotes of this source shows the words used in it have the same meaning as the New Testament Greek.

When Pharaoh had a dream which Joseph interpreted he saw fat cows coming out of the Nile and these are called eklektos in the Septuagint. As are the plump kernels of wheat he dreamed of. And so is choice silver, pleasant land, highest branches, young men [warriors in their prime], rich apparel, and so on: quality is the prominent meaning for eklektos.

When Jesus says “Many are called, few eklektos” he is saying few are fit for the calling, few are quality. He is not saying “many are called, few are chosen”!

Also, here are some other articles worth reading…

http://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/exposition/romans/romans_11_4-6.pdf

http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism_election.htm

I really like what Peter wrote and I see that you have a classic misunderstanding of what he was trying to put across… by “classic” I mean bias, not quality

I believe the election of the tree allegory (metaphor?) is right on.
on March 18, 2011 at 5:20 am | Reply Mark D Ketchum

And I see that my comments are back to “waiting moderation”. Did I do something wrong to fall back into this camp?
on March 18, 2011 at 9:25 am | Reply Tim Prussic

Rom 11 says nothing about the tree being elect. Peter’s mixing up the two concepts at play: covenant and election. The members are elect and are brought INTO the covenant. The non-elect individuals are cut out of the covenant. Even if we want to call the tree elect, that does not discount that the election and reprobation of God are INDIVIDUAL in Romans 9 (a post that seemed to get little or no response from Arminians, funny enough).
on March 18, 2011 at 4:56 pm | Reply Brandon

Pointing to the election of the tree is a necessary move if one wants to emphasize corporate in place of individual election. The problem is that corporate election, while a Biblical concept, doesn’t get one very far.

“But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” (Romans 9:6-8)

Romans 11 refers to the 7000 reserved out of Baal worship and the remnant according to the election of grace. Paul’s point is that being under the umbrella of corporate election alone is to be among those branches cut off because unfaithfulness. Their election was merely national and external. In other words, the force of Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 is that God reserves his own special people out of an unfaithful nation. To say that Paul’s point is “God’s fidelity to Israel as a nation” makes nonsense of the passage. He is faithful by electing a remnant by grace in contrast to the national election from which many fall.
on March 18, 2011 at 8:38 pm | Reply Tim Prussic

Brandon, excellent. We (Reformed) don’t deny corporate election (something hinging on covenant). But we find that individual election cuts across covenant. The Arminian has to invert Romans 9-11 to avoid individual election and reprobation.
- on March 18, 2011 at 8:46 pm | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  And the calvinist has to redefine John 3:16 to defend limited atonement.
on March 18, 2011 at 9:10 pm | Reply Tim Prussic

Mark, not at all. “For God loved the world in this way, that he sent his one and only Son..” God’s love for the world is in the sent One, that is, in Christ.

That said, you’re changing the focus from Romans 9-11, the passage that ensures that the Arminian position will always be in error.
- on March 19, 2011 at 7:00 am | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  Good, so we agree that God loved the world enough to send His Son. Most calvanists have the humanist view that God only loved a select few enough to send His son and that His son then only died for those select few… and this is how they redefine John 3:16.
  
  As for Romans 9:11 I find the following…
  
  Yes, God made a choice concerning who would be saved and who would be lost before the world began. However, we should take the time to properly define these words, as provided by the Scriptural context – and not rush to assume a loaded definition. This diligence is key to realizing the truth and resolving our differences on these points.
  
  There is an old saying about debates, logic, and reasoning that goes something like this, “He who defines uncontested, wins.” … This is a case where many of us have accepted a prejudiced definition that inherently accepts the Calvinistic conclusions. We must be careful not to blindly accept any man’s definitions without comparing them to their Scriptural usage. Let each compare his definition with the other’s definitions to make sure that we are “speaking the same thing” (I Corinthians 1:10), and let us be sure not to “load” our definitions with our conclusions merely restated, so that our conclusions invariably arise from our “premises” without thorough examination. As we study Romans 9 in its context, we will repeatedly need to make application of this point.
  
  It is ironic that a passage, designed to exemplify God’s right to choose who will be saved and by what means, has been used to mandate an election and calling defined by a man! Calvinism, and so called “orthodoxy”, have philosophically defined God’s sovereignty, such that it is impossible for God to choose who will be saved, at least outside of Calvin’s choice. Free-will, man’s choices, and an individual’s character are theoretically prohibited from serving as a basis of God’s choice, even though this passage was designed to vindicate God’s right to choose who would be saved. However, if we look closely at Romans 9 and its referenced passages, we can observe where God has manipulated nations in His grand scheme, or judicially hardened rebellious individuals. Yet, He still allowed the ultimate fate of both nation and individual to be chosen through either penitent obedience or stubborn disobedience.
  
  Yes, Romans 9 clearly teaches God’s sovereignty and the immutability of God’s election. However, we have learned to be careful and not to interject our prejudices into the context. By exercising diligence (II Timothy 2:15; II Peter 3:14-18), we have examined the context of the Old Testament passages quoted by Paul, so we could clearly see that God’s unconditional election only applied to the role of nations in producing the Messiah, not the salvation of individuals (Genesis 25:22-23; Malachi 1:1-4). Although God may judicially harden an individual, it only occurs after an individual demonstrates himself to be opposed to redemption through his rejection of God’s message, God’s discipline, and God’s mercy (Exodus 3:19-20; 4:21-23; 5:1-2; 9:22-28). Finally, God may certainly fashion either a nation or an individual for salvation or condemnation, but God will modify His plans based on the subject’s response (Jeremiah 18:5-11). Only through one’s cleansing himself of evil works may he be fashioned and prepared for salvation, good works, and use by the Master (II Timothy 2:20-21). Yes, God has made an irrevocable choice, and His choice is to save those who humbly trust in His Son, repent, and obey (Proverbs 28:13; Isaiah 55:7; I Peter 5:5; Matthew 7:21-23). The gospel is designed to invite, touch, and draw these people, and it will by no means fail, because God is its Author (Isaiah 55:11).
  
  From http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/romans_9.html
on March 19, 2011 at 9:28 am | Reply Tim Prussic

Mark, Jn 3:16 literally says: “For God loved the world in this way, that he gave his only Son…” God’s love for the world IS THAT he sent his Son. It does not say that God’s love for the world was so much that he sent his Son. The text doesn’t teach some general or nebulous love, but a very specific love found only in the Son.

As to Romans 9-11, the text SAYS that God chose Isaac and Jacob. It says that he hates Esau – all individuals. Further, God says that he raised up Pharaoh specifically for the purpose of hardening and condemning him. This passage places all of this in God’s sovereign purpose. Mark, you want to turn that around and say God’s sovereign purpose is actually determined by humans. God says, “I’ll have mercy on whom I WILL, and whom I WILL I’ll harden.” Somehow this is turned around to mean, “I will to have mercy on the person that wants mercy, and I’ll harden those who deserve it (unless they repent).” Can’t you see that you have the tail wagging the dog? This passage puts the sovereign and unchangeable purposes of salvation and damnation of both individuals and nations in God’s hands. You seem to keep wanting to take it out of his hands and put it in human hands.

Essentially, Mark, you haven’t interacted with the text of Rom 9-11, you’ve just put a gloss of your theology over the top of it.
- on March 19, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  Tim,
  I am not comprehending the difference in your John 3:16 comparison… please explain how God loving the world via sending His son changes the fact that God loved the world. Either way He loves the world and He sends His son. God is not a God of confusion and anybody reading this verse would be confused via your interpretation and then saying that your interpretation still means that Jesus only came for some, not the whole world.
  
  How is Esau all individuals?
  
  Why did God have to harden Pharoah? Pharoah was already “totally depraved” right? We can’t chose God without intervention, therefore, God would not have had to harden Pharoah’s heart… He would have chosen anything but God anyway, unless God intervened. Apparently Pharoah could have chosen a different choice than God predestined from the beginning… or else God wouldn’t have had to have hardened his heart.
  
  I have never met a soul who interpreted the Bible as a Calvinist does unless a Calvinist had either intervened or they had read about it somewhere… the logical conclusion that all come to when reading the Bible with earnest prayer and the Holy Spirit, is that God loves everybody and He wants everybody to come to Him via Jesus. The Calvinist view is a humanist view that you can only obtain by reading what another human’s interpretation of the Bible is.
  - on March 19, 2011 at 8:10 pm Brandon
    
    Mark,
    
    The irony of your bigoted-sounding scheme in which Calvinists are actually the humanists foisting a dastardly construct on the Scriptures and unsuspecting victims is that it commits the crime which it denounces. Why not just drop these thinly veiled insults and stay close to Scripture?
    
    Please start with this: Jesus said, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain” John 15:16
    
    Nothing there about men doing the real choosing.
  - on March 19, 2011 at 8:15 pm Mark D Ketchum
    
    Brandon, your insult leaves you out of the debate altogether.
on March 19, 2011 at 9:10 pm | Reply Brandon

Mark,

What insult? You offer your readers the fallacy of poisoning the well. To do so is to engage in something other than reasoning from the Scriptures. Is it now an insult to simply call you on your repeated arguments about Calvinist motivations and conspiracies?

Sorry, but I am still very much in the debate.
- on March 20, 2011 at 9:28 am | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  Since it is you who offer the humanist false doctrine that implies that our Lord only died for a select few…it is you who is poisoning the well. It is quite evident that election is Biblical… it is just your interpretation of the mechanism of election that is false doctrine. Jesus chooses us for sure, but we can choose not to follow. If I choose you to play on my basketball team, you can choose to play on my team or not. Jesus chooses us all… it is up to us to answer His call.
  - on March 22, 2011 at 7:12 pm stegokitty
    
    “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” John 10:14-16
    
    Christ laid down his life for the SHEEP. He KNOWS them, and they KNOW Him, and they LISTEN to his voice.
    
    “All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them” John 10:8
    
    The SHEEP listen only to the voice of the Shepherd.
    
    “but you do not believe BECAUSE you are not my SHEEP.” John 10:26.
    
    Those who are not Christ’s sheep do not believe BECAUSE they are not His sheep. Christ didn’t say “you aren’t my sheep because you don’t believe”. No. He said “You do not believe because you are not my sheep.”
    
    No one can (that is no one has the ability) to come to Me, UNLESS the Father draws him, and I WILL RAISE HIM UP ON THE LAST DAY; ALL who HEAR and LEARN from My Father COME to me, and I WILL RAISE HIM UP ON THE LAST DAY; ALL that the Father GIVES Me WILL COME to me and I WILL RAISE HIM UP ON THE LAST DAY.” John 6
  - on March 22, 2011 at 7:35 pm Tim Prussic
    
    Stegokitty, thanks for the comment and welcome to my blog! BTW, what is your name?
    
    There was also another comment you left that I have not approved. The concept in the comment was very important, but the tone wasn’t quite up to my standards. It’s too easy to let our emotions get the better of us. Remember that the doctrines of grace fill us with humility… God’s hidden spiritual things from the wise and the understanding and revealed them to little children, for such was his gracious will. Let us address each other with humility. If you’d please repost that comment, I think it would make a valuable contribution to our discussion. Thanks!
on March 21, 2011 at 12:26 am | Reply Brandon

By the standard of Mark Ketchum, the following teachings are humanist and unbiblical:

And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.

For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life

I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.
- on March 21, 2011 at 5:22 am | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  Nope, as I said before… it is your interpretation of those verses that are unBiblical… not the verses themselves. Your view is based on Calvin’s teachings, whereas a view of the entire Bible without preconceived bias shows a God who loves the world in that He sent His son…
on March 21, 2011 at 9:36 am | Reply Tim Prussic

Mark, again, you shift the focus from the texts that Brandon offers to his “interpretive scheme.” This does nothing and takes the conversation no where. You’ve accused Calvinists of devising a “humanist false doctrine that implies that our Lord only died for a select few,” so Brandon offered *a few* of the BIBLICAL texts from which many Christians have drawn the doctrine of Particular Redemption. Instead of interacting with those texts, you turn around and dismiss this by way of an hominem: “You’ve just following Calvin; if you the Bible in an unbiased manner (like me) you’d be correct.”

I hope you see that you’ve left off rational or Biblical argumentation and moved into argumentative fallacy, thus rendering the debate useless.

As to Jn 3.16: The text does NOT say that out of God’s great and general love for the kosmos, he sent his Son. The text does say that God’s love for the kosmos IS that he sent his Son. This means that God’s love for the kosmos is in his Son, which is very much what the Reformed faith teaches. You, Mark, are introducing the idea of some form of potential universalism. I’m saying that the grammar Jn 3.16 doesn’t teach a potential universalism. The only reason that people have thought so is the bad rendering of the word “hutos” as “so” instead of “thusly” or “in this way.” Jn 3.16 CANNOT bear the weight you want to put on it.
- on March 21, 2011 at 6:01 pm | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  Come on, Tim… let us be fair. I made an observation about John 3:16 followed by an insult from Brandon… this changed the debate to defense of who insulted who with a little, “answer these verses” tagged on at the end of the argument. He then presented some verses as if I would call them humanist and unbiblical. I responded that I wouldn’t, that I would just interpret them correctly as opposed to with a bias.
  
  So to answer your questions, which I am sure have been answered many times before.
  
  John 3:16 is very clear… whether you interpret as a Calvinist or as a traditional orthodox Christian… it states that God loves the world… not just the elect… and He either sent His son because He loved the world, or His sending His son was His love of the world… but both ways, He sent His son and He loved the world.
  
  I guess I don’t understand how your view of this verse and surrounding verses, stipulates that God has a love for everybody, not just a few.
  
  And it seems that you don’t understand the view or definition of universalism to make this statement. Since I don’t believe everybody gets into heaven and that the only way to heaven is through faith, repentance, belief, trust and a life in Christ… the idea that I am introducing a from of potential universalism doesn’t hold water.
  
  Jesus died for all… for the whole world… it is up to us to accept this free gift and turn from our sin and repent. The Scripture teaches that nothing we do gains our salvation, but it is talking about works… things that we try to do to gain entrance into heaven… to earn our salvation… it is not talking about repentance here… repentance is not a work… it is not something we do to earn our salvation.
  
  If somebody gives you a check for 1000.00 and says it is yours and you have to do nothing to earn it… you still have to accept the check, and he is not talking about the acceptance as something you don’t have to do. Acceptance (repentance) is not earning, but accepting something that you did not earn.
- on March 21, 2011 at 10:23 pm | Reply Richard Barrett
  
  Just to point something out about the Greek text:
  
  Chiming in as a non-Calvinist who reads Greek –
  
  John 3:16 in Greek:
  
  Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
  
  A very literal reading would be:
  
  For in this way (οὕτως is the adverbial form of the demonstrative pronoun oὕτος) God loved the created order (κόσμος), with the result that (ὥστε marks a result clause) he gave his son, the only-begotten, in order that (ἵνα marks a purpose clause) everyone believing in him might not die (or possibly “be destroyed”) but have eternal life.
  
  In the Greek, anyway, God sending his son is the result, rather than the equivalence, of God’s love for the κόσμος (however you wish to translate that).
on March 21, 2011 at 6:46 pm | Reply Tim Prussic

Mark, your articulation of your theology over J 3:16 isn’t persuasive to me. I KNOW semi-Pelagian theology. But, on the other hand, I’ve read that text of J 3:16. I’ve studied that text. You ASSERT that God’s love is for every single individual, but that needs to be proved rather than asserted. J 3:16 speaks of God’s love for the KOSMOS in Jesus. Eph 1 tells us how the
“in Jesus” works… read it. To prove your bias and preconceptions, Mark, you have to prove that kosmos means “every single individual” and that “houtos” means something other than all the lexicons say is means.

In the final analysis, mark, J 3:16 won’t bear the weight you are (by your BIAS [which we all have]) trying to put upon it.
on March 21, 2011 at 10:31 pm | Reply Tim Prussic

Richard, so you think that the “hutos” indicates a result rather than an equivalence… why? The translation of “in this way” (which seems right down the middle) seems more like an equivalence to me: “For God thusly loved the kosmos…”
- on March 22, 2011 at 8:01 am | Reply Richard Barrett
  
  Not “houtos”/οὕτως — οὕτως means, most basically, “thus”, but it gets used in a variety of ways. Look here for its entry in the standard ancient Greek reference dictionary. “hoste”/ὥστε is the particle in Greek that indicates a result clause. Grammatically, there is nothing about the sentence that suggests that the manner being referred to by οὕτως is God sending his son. As I said, God sending his son is the result of the extent to which he loved the world, not the way in which he loved the world. That’s a force you can sort of get out of torturing the English, but it doesn’t hold up in Greek.
on March 22, 2011 at 5:38 am | Reply Mark D Ketchum

I agree with what Richard said… however, even if your assumption is correct of equivalence, how do you “prove” that kosmos means the elect? You state that I must “prove” that God loved the whole world. When it is evident in the words and context that He did, the proof lies on you to prove otherwise and you have not.

So you state that God loved only a select few (I too study the Bible and different unorthodox doctrines and know Calvanism very well), but that needs to be proved rather than asserted.

I find it very interesting that you state that one says ὥστε means “in this way” and another says it means “as a result”. Is God a God of confusion?

And why does every place I look (strong majority) claim a result and not an equivalence? Interesting that you assert “thusly”… this seems like you are attempting to find a translation out of the many that suits your bias belief.

The following website asserts that it is translated to a result meaning: http://www.laparola.net/greco/parola.php?p=%E1%BD%A5%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B5

Checking Greek, An Intensive Course pp.269-270, the following is written:

A result clause gives a result or consequence of the action of the main verb of the sentence and is introduced by the conjunction ὥστε, “so as, so that, with the result that.” The main clause introducing the subordinate result clause will often contain a demonstrative such as the demonstrative adverb οὕτω(ς).

Clauses of result are of two types:
(1) clauses of actual result, which have their verbs in the indicative mood.
(2) clauses of natural result, which have their verbs in the infinitive.
…
(2) Clauses of natural result state that one action (or state of being) tends to follow naturally upon another action. Clauses of natural result do not state that any action is actually occurring, has occurred, or will occur; instead, they describe the natural, usual, or expected consequence of the action of the main verb of the sentence…

So the interpretation and translation is yours to prove, not ours.

By the way, no arrogance or ill will is meant in any of my comments… I just haven’t seen how you come to your conclusions as of yet.
on March 22, 2011 at 3:51 pm | Reply Tim Prussic

Richard and Mark,

The issue is not the “hoste” in the subord. clause; I’m not and haven’t been arguing that “hoste” doesn’t introduce a result. I’m arguing that the “houtos” refers to manner in which God loved the kosmos. According to Bauer’s 2nd edition Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BAGD), “houtos” is first a correlative (referencing that which precedes) and second refers to that which follows, meaning “in this way”. So, the text would read something like:

“I this way (houtos) God loved the world, that (hoste) he sent his only Son with the result that (hina) whoever should believe….”

The theological argument (based upon the grammar of the passage) is that God’s love for the kosmos is in Christ. God’s love for the kosmos is not undefined or general, but is bound up in his Son. We have an extended explanation of *how* this works in Eph 1. Every spiritual blessing is in Christ (vs 3). God chose his people “in Christ” before the foundation of the world (vs 4). God predestined us to adoption and sonship through Jesus Christ (vs 5). All of his grace to us is “in the Beloved” (vs 6). I could go on and onwith the “in him” sections of Eph 1. Here’s the point: God’s purpose and execution of grace for the kosmos is IN JESUS. God’s love for the kosmos (as J 3:16 says) is IN JESUS. God’s eternal election and predestination are IN JESUS. Redemption, inheritance, and the seal of our salvation (the Spirit) are all in Jesus. Redemption is particular and planned IN THE SON, thus divine love for the kosmos is found only IN THE SON.
on March 22, 2011 at 10:57 pm | Reply Richard Barrett

“I this way (houtos) God loved the world, that (hoste) he sent his only Son with the result that (hina) whoever should believe….”

No, that’s not an accurate rendering of the Greek. Better:

“Thus (houtos) God loved the world, WITH THE RESULT THAT (hoste) he sent his only Son IN ORDER THAT (hina) whoever should believe….”

Looking at the 3rd edition Bauer-Danker Lexicon, I see that they give John 3:16 as an example of “houtos” meaning something like “in the manner that follows”, but I just don’t see how that makes any sense in context. “God loved the world in the following way, with the result that he sent his only son” etc. strikes me as very odd. I could somewhat see it as an example of the first usage (referring to the preceding material “And just as Moses raised the snake in the desert” etc.) but in context the force of “thus” seems to be more of a matter of connecting material, maybe with some of the “to such a great extent” emphasis that is usually captured by rendering it “For God SO loved the world” (III in Liddell-Scott, the link I posted earlier).

If we really wanted to have fun with Greek, we could talk about the ramifications of Augustine not understanding what Romans 5:12 actually said…
on March 22, 2011 at 11:42 pm | Reply Tim Prussic

That’s helpful, Richard.

I think Bauer makes the most sense of the flow of the context. If keeping the rending of houtos as “in this manner,” it would necessarily lessen the result aspect of hoste. That’s why I translated it as I did. Similarly, that is why no modern translation (that I’m aware of) *over-translates* the particles we’re talking about. All modern translations keep the “so” for houtos and the simple “that” for both hoste and hina. (This even seems to be the case as far back as the Geneva Bible and Wycliffe’s translation.)
on March 23, 2011 at 1:02 am | Reply Brandon

It’s not every day that a man comes along free of bias, who has access to the top theological minds in his community. But… we are privileged to live in such a time. Thanks to Mark Ketchum, we can now see that even ancient sources are just plain wrong, hopelessly distorted by humanist bias. You’d think that tyrant and manipulator John Calvin had a time machine or something.

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light

All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Shocking considering the source!

The bias and pollution of man-made philosophy doesn’t stop there. Thanks to Mark Ketchum (who is never biased and never assumes what needs to be proven) we have seen through a word study that what so many mistakenly translated as “chosen” should actually be rendered “quality.” I fear that we will now have to take a dim view of teachings like the following:

For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence.

Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

It seems humanism has crept into some of the most revered of ancient sources.
- on March 23, 2011 at 6:01 am | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  The problem with you, Brandon, is that you aren’t understanding what is being said here. Not only do you like to insult thos who disagree with you (very evident from your sarcastic post), but you don’t seem to bear the fruit of a mature Christian (I could be wrong).
  
  The verses you put forth in this last comment are from Scripture, and I love what they say. It is when you take what they say and try to reinvent the meaning behind them that I have a problem with. Humanism doesn’t just creep into them because you quote them in a comment.
  
  And I did not assume to think that chosen hinges on quality in every sense of Scripture… I was referring to a specific verse.
  
  Please refrain from over the top sarcasm when responding to me… I don’t do it to you. The original post assumes that those who don’t agree with Calvanism are grappling with Scripture with a humanist mind set. I just see it the other way around and have the right to set forth my opinion here without your sarcasm and insults.
on March 23, 2011 at 9:14 am | Reply Tim Prussic

Mark, Brandon’s over-the-top sarcasm should be taken for what it is: a silly refutation by showing the logical extent of your claim that Calvinists are simply biased and that you’re not (a notion every bit as silly as Brandon’s sarcasm… maybe more so, as your claim was not at all in jest).

As to elect, the “quality” definition was brush with which you were painting very broadly. Methinks that you are picking and choosing (not in the quality sense) the definitions that fit your theological agenda. Each word is finally defined by it usage in context. Thus, saying that “elect” really means “quality” (despite plenty of contrary evidence) is not enough to dismiss the whole Augustinian tradition (the very backbone of the Western church) including the magisterial Reformation.
- on March 23, 2011 at 6:35 pm | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  Sorry, Tim, but respect should be shown in a debate. I have said that I believe that Calvanistic belief is in ways biased and based on human assumption. You have said the same thing about the opposing belief. I never said in any of my posts that I am not bias… of course I am, but I believe my bias is based on truth whereas yours skirts the truth a bit… my belief. I never got sarcastic with either of you despite my opinion that your interpretation of God’s love is well below what it should be.
  
  As Christians, we should follow a common decency when speaking and debating each other… at least I believe we should… we have enough problems bringing the Good News to non-believers that our differences in Scriptural matters should be done in a way that doesn’t cause others to stumble should they read our debate. “They don’t even get along with each other.”
  
  Anyway, I am done here, as I will never believe that God didn’t die for the whole world… not logical and not Biblical and not in character for God.
  
  I like your mind and wish you well in all you do.
  
  All glory to God.
  
  Mark
  - on March 23, 2011 at 9:54 pm Tim Prussic
    
    Mark, simple sarcasm isn’t disrespectful. Sorry if you thought you were disrespected, but I don’t. (Remember, I already cut off one comment on this because I thought it was disrespectful.) In any event, I’ve appreciated your addition around these parts. Thanks, brother!
  - on March 24, 2011 at 6:05 am Mark D Ketchum
    
    I have replied… many times to those verses.
on March 23, 2011 at 12:10 pm | Reply Brandon

Okay Mark. I think now it’s time for you to step up to the plate and show how the Scriptures I cited fit into your scheme in which the choice of man is the deciding factor in salvation. You say that answering God’s call is as easy as deciding that one would like to play basketball. Or, it’s just like refusing $1000. Yet we usually don’t leave checks on graves or call out to the occupants of the morgue to join in on basketball.

So I will ask, explain these texts in light of your interpretation:

Salvation is of the LORD

I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.
- on March 23, 2011 at 7:05 pm | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  I never said it is as “easy” as choosing for basketball. You say I said that because it helps you feel lie you are better than I.
  
  Salvation is of the Lord.
  
  Sure is. I don’t debate that. The Lord offers salvation… it is from Him and of Him. We only have to respond.
  
  “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.”
  
  First, we need to remind ourselves that the Scriptures are the inspired word of God and that they do not contradict themselves; instead, they are perfectly harmonious (Dt. 32:4; 1 Cor. 14:33a). So if we come across a verse or passage that appears to conflict with plain-spoken texts contained elsewhere in Scripture, we must look carefully at the more obscure text and determine if there is a reasonable way to bring it into harmony with the other.
  
  Having said that, let us further emphasize this point. No sacred text must be viewed in any way that would negate the following fundamental truths.
  
  (1) Man has been granted free will (Mt. 23:37b; Jn. 5:39; 7:17; Rev. 22:17).
  
  (2) Man’s salvation requires personal acceptance of this gift of grace and he must be obediennt to the requirements of the gospel of Christ (2 Thes. 1:7-9; Heb. 5:8-9; 1 Pet. 4:17).
  
  To suggest that God, before the world’s foundation, chose certain ones to be saved, and others to be lost, independent of a personal understanding of truth, is a doctrine that cannot be sustained by the Scriptures — regardless of the number of sincere people like you, Brandon, who subscribe to it.
  
  There are several crucial questions that must be addressed in connection with John 6:37. When did the “giving” of certain people to the Son take place? In what sense does the Father “give” these people to his Son? What relationship does the “giving” bear to their “coming” to him? And, what is the significance of the promise, “I will in no wise cast out”? Let us take each of these in order.
  
  (3) When did the “giving” take place? The idea that believers were unconditionally “given” to Christ, in the eternal counsel of God before the foundation of the world, is negated by this very passage. The verb “gives” (didosin) is a present tense form, indicating action in progress; the Father, at that very time, was in the process of giving certain ones to his Son. This passage cannot possibly be employed, then, to establish a “done-deal” gift back in pre-world eternity. As Reynolds noted, “‘The giving’ implies a present activity of grace, not a foregone conclusion” (17, p. 201).
  
  (4) In what sense did God “give” people to his Son? The terms “gift” and “given” are frequently employed idiomatically in the Scriptures to denote divine favor as expressed in Heaven’s redemptive work on man’s behalf — without there being any inclination of an “unconditional election.”
  
  For example, David prophesied that Jehovah would “give” the “nations” (Gentiles) to Christ as an inheritance (Psa. 2:8; cf. Acts 4:25-26). Surely no one will contend that all Gentiles were unconditionally predestined to salvation irrespective of their response to divine truth. Even the most cursory examination of the book of Acts, from chapter 10 onward, reveals that the Gentiles were admitted into redemptive favor by yielding to the requirements of the gospel. Salvation was not as a consequence of an eternal decree independent of human obedience (cf. Acts 10:34-35,43; 11:14; 15:8-9; 1 Pet. 1:22-23).
  
  (5) What relationship is there between the “giving” and the “coming” in John 6:37? There is a significant connection. The “giving” represents what God has provided in the great plan of human salvation; the “coming” represents the acceptation of that plan as manifested in the sinner’s obedience.
  
  The subsequent context affords a wonderful illustration of this — with slightly different imagery, but with corresponding thought. Note the language of verses 44-45.
  
  “No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes unto me.”
  
  In this passage, God’s “drawing” is parallel to his “giving” of verse 37. And yet, clearly in vv. 44-45 the drawing is accomplished by hearing his word, learning, and coming to the Lord. Jehovah provides the redemptive information, but humanity must access it. By a comparison of these passages, therefore, one may logically conclude that this is how men are “given” to Christ as well. As Bloomfield once observed, “The term [gives] therefore (here and at ver. 39 and 65) must signify something compatible with the free agency of man” (I, p. 363).
  
  When former Baptist minister Robert Shank issued his book, Life in the Son, it produced shock waves among Calvinists. Professor William Adams of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary characterized the book as “one of the most arresting and disturbing books” he had ever read (p. xiii). In this instructive volume, Shank has a special Appendix, “Whom Does the Father Give to Jesus?” in which he discusses this very passage. Therein the author fires this parting blast:
  
  “There is nothing about God’s gift of believers to be the heritage of the Son who died for them which somehow transforms the Gospel’s ‘whosoever will’ into a ‘whosoever must’ and a ‘most of you shan’t.’ There is nothing about it which binds men in the strait jacket of an antecedent decree of positive unconditional election and reprobation, while insisting that they are ‘free’” (p. 339).
  
  (6) Our final question is this: “What is the meaning of the affirmation, ‘I will in no wise cast out’?” Some allege it suggests the dogma of the impossibility of apostasy, i.e., that no one “given” to Christ in the eternal scheme of things could ever be lost. The child of God, therefore, can never fall from grace — or so it is claimed.
  
  The passage does not even remotely suggest this pernicious doctrine. Even Albert Barnes, who subscribed to the Calvinistic doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy (see his comment at Matthew 7:23), conceded the following, with reference to John 6:37b. “This expression does not refer to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, but to the fact that Jesus will not reject or refuse any sinner who comes to him” (pp. 246-247).
  
  This admission, combined with the scriptural declarations that God wants all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9), and that “whosoever will” may come to Christ, are death blows to the theory that some were chosen by God for salvation, and others for damnation, before the world began. Perhaps no dogma has ever been so misguided.
- on March 23, 2011 at 7:19 pm | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
  
  This verse says nothing in regards to why God draws people to Jesus, only that He does. By reading the rest of Scripture we see that a requirement of repentance and recognition that we miss the mark (sin) is required.
  
  “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
  
  Exactly. It must be granted by the Father. This does nothing to argue against free will. Why does the Father grant one to come to Jesus? A heart of repentance and a recognition of personal sin.
on March 23, 2011 at 12:20 pm | Reply Brandon

And Mark… I get it. You think Calvinism is biased and humanist. Okay, but you said this:

The verses you put forth in this last comment are from Scripture, and I love what they say. It is when you take what they say and try to reinvent the meaning behind them that I have a problem with. Humanism doesn’t just creep into them because you quote them in a comment.

Your last sentence is interesting. I agree. In the same way, Calvinist interpretations aren’t humanist because you say they are.
- on March 23, 2011 at 7:21 pm | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  You are correct, Calvinist interpretations are not humanist because I say they are… they just are because they are, I believe. They are based on the interpretations of Calvin and are not in line with Scripture.
  - on March 28, 2011 at 2:51 pm Brandon
    
    False. Wrong. Unproven.
  - on March 28, 2011 at 3:02 pm Mark D Ketchum
    
    Of course…
on March 23, 2011 at 9:59 pm | Reply Tim Prussic

The *HUMANISTIC* mindset exalts humans. Calvinism humbles humans and exalts God saying that he sovereignly saves sinners. Arminianism says that God’s done everything he can do, the rest is up to you. Arminianism exalts the will of man as THE DECIDING FACTOR in his salvation. Now, which of these was humanistic, again?
- on March 24, 2011 at 6:10 am | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  Mankind is not exalted… God is… it is He that gives us free will. What a great gift. We are not to be exalted because of this gift… God is.
  
  Calvinism converts God into a being that cannot get His will done without controlling each and every situation. Not only is He controlling, but less moralistic that we are. He commands us to love everybody and put everybody before our selves… Calvinism suggests that God does not do this and only gives His love to the elect evidenced by their salvation via His grace. Nonsense… God is infinitely more moral than we are… His love is for each and every one of us and He desires that none should perish.
  
  God is so powerful and so sovereign that He doesn’t need to manipulate each and every situtation to obtain His end result. He is not restricted… He can give free will and allow us to want a relationship with Him before electing us. Our repentance and giving ourselves over to God is not exalting but rather humbling…
- on March 24, 2011 at 6:14 am | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  And it is not, “God has done everything He can do and now it is up to humans”. God’s allowing humans to make a choice is still something God is doing. Since He is sovereign, this ability to choose is from His doing. We are humbled because He allows this.
on March 24, 2011 at 6:13 pm | Reply Tim Prussic

Mark, nothing you’ve leveled against Calvinism has a lick to do with humanism. That is, unless you’ve redefined humanism to mean Calvinism!

Please explain to me, Mark, how is it “humbling” in the least that God limits himself to give humans freedom to decide their own eternal destiny? That EXALTS man. It makes man the deciding factor. It pushes God out *at the crucial point* and hangs the whole of salvation on a human factor. How does your view differ in principle from making our salvation turn on human work? Salvation stands for falls on the work of the human will. What’s more, that’s a moral work: Obviously you and I are better than the guy in hell, right? After all, WE chose God; he denied God. The difference is not in God, but in us. That exaltation of the human is a key element in humanism.
- on March 24, 2011 at 8:52 pm | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  “Mark, nothing you’ve leveled against Calvinism has a lick to do with humanism. That is, unless you’ve redefined humanism to mean Calvinism!”
  
  Of course you would say that and believe that… you are a Calvinist. You believe that your ideas on Scripture come from the Bible… and as a Calvinist, you cannot see the bias… I get that. I am just glad you are a saved, redeemed Christian.
  
  As to your last question… and my last answer… this is taking way too much of my time… LOL… I give you this answer and I hope it makes sense to you because it makes so much sense.
  
  God does not limit Himself… you limit God. You put a limit on God that states, “here is how God does everything and He cannot do less.” That is the limit.
  
  God is sovereign. God makes the rules. God has no limit and God answers to no one. To say that God allows mankind to freely choose Him does not put limits on God. It actually shows that God always does the right thing.
  
  God can raise my house from its very foundation and destroy it right now… but He chooses not to… does that limit God? God could destroy the entire universe with just one breath… He chooses not to… does that limit Him?
  
  God can force us into relationship with Himself with His irresitable grace while leaving others in the dust to fend for themselves… just because He chooses not to and gives us free will does not limit Him. He can still do it… He just doesn’t.
  
  Just because man has the ability to receive God doesn’t give man the freedom to decide their own eternal destiny… God still decides… still elects… He still has the ability to say, “no!” He just doesn’t because He is God and that is not His character. He lifts the veil and allows us to come into relationship with Him. Sure we make a decision to turn our lives over to Christ, but God is the one that allows us in to that relationship. He is the deciding factor. He promises us that He won’t cast us out, but that is His promise… His decision.
  
  Man is not EXALTED, but rather humbled to realize that the God of the universe has done this… has given the world a 2nd chance.
  
  “Obviously you and I are better than the guy in hell, right? After all, WE chose God; he denied God. The difference is not in God, but in us. That exaltation of the human is a key element in humanism.”
  
  No we are not better than the guy in hell. We are just as bad or maybe worse… we are just forgiven. If Hitler had turned to God in the end… would he be better than Gandi? By worldly standards, no, but by God’s standards, they are both sinners. Hitler would have been forgiven, while Gandi went to hell for not being obedient to God and entering into a right relationship with Christ.
  
  Our salvation always rests on Christ’s death, burial, and resurection. It doesn’t rest on anything we do. If Christ had never died for us, it wouldn’t matter whether we turn to Him or not… there is no salvation. So our turning to Him doesn’t give us salvation… should we boast. His work offers us salvation, which allows our turning to Him.
  
  Can I boast because my wife forgives of a trespass such as adultry? No… all praise to her for granting the forgiveness. So it is with Christ… we turn to Him for forgiveness, but cannot boast because it is Him who grants it. My repentance of sin is not a work, but rather an admission of guilt and a realization that works won’t work here, but rather Christ.
on March 25, 2011 at 10:51 am | Reply Tim Prussic

Mark, we’re just talking past each other. I’m talking about one aspect of a thing and you another. For the sake of our time and sanity, let’s focus in and not equivocate.

The term “humanism” actually means something. It doesn’t just mean “wrong.” Humanism is (at very least) the exaltation of humans. Again, even if all the charges you leveled at Calvinism are correct, Mark, they have NOTHING to do with humanism. It may have to do with Aristotelianism, Platonism, determinism, or something else, but not humanism.

You say that libertarian free will is humbling “to realize that the God of the universe has done this.” This is an entirely different sense of the word humble than I mean. I don’t mean humbling like: “Wow! God sure is amazing to do this.” I mean humble in the self-depletion and self-abasing sense. Your notion of free will may be humbling in the first sense, but it is absolutely not in the second sense. Just the opposite; its exalts man to the final decision maker.

You say that our salvation isn’t based upon our choice but upon Christ. I have a hard time thinking you’re not playing a shell game. OF COURSE IT’S BASED ON CHRIST! I wasn’t talking about that, Mark! What I was talking about the crucial point of applying Christ’s salvation at the point of decision. That’s YOUR part, right? That’s where God (as it were) steps back and you take the reigns. Again, that exalts the human.
on March 25, 2011 at 11:17 am | Reply Mark D Ketchum

You are correct… I was using humanism and meant to be using humanistic… from a human point of view as opposed to a Biblical point of view. Please forgive me.

You have not convinced me that having free will eliminates humility in your second sense because you haven’t made the point that free will EXALTS mankind.

The crucial point of applying Christ’s salvation at the point of decision is not our part… it is God’s and God’s alone. You continue to “pretend” that you don’t know what the other side of the argument is and you keep exaggerating or misrepresenting it. I know you have debated this before so you cannot believe that we think man’s decision is the final step… that man takes thes reigns… of course that would exalt the human… but that is not what we believe nor is that what the Bible says.

Man repents and turns to God for salvation.
God forgives and salvation is assured.

It is always God… and He never “steps back” and lets you take the reigns… we give Him the reigns of our life… hopefully… and let Him rule our lives. Or do you think that our allowing Him to rule our lives is exalting us as well? Or are we allowed to disobey and not listen?
on March 26, 2011 at 5:31 pm | Reply Tim Prussic

Mark, good. This is better.

You said, “I know you have debated this before so you cannot believe that we think man’s decision is the final step.” I don’t mean (and didn’t say) final step. I mean the *decisive* step. The step that, in the end, really matters as far as differentiation between those to whom the atonement of Christ works/applies and those to whom it does not.

Let me state it this way: God loves all individuals exactly the same. Christ died for all the same. God desires the salvation of all the same. Yet some are saved and some are not. At the end of the day, what makes the difference between these two groups? The difference is not in God, but in the decision of man, right? Am I misrepresenting you in that? If so, how? If not, then the deciding factor in salvation rests solely in the hands of man. God “leaves” man “free” to make that decision. (That’s what I meant by “steps back.”)

Now, brother, explain to me how that position does not exalt man? Also, how is making man’s will THE deciding factor in any way in line with what Paul teaches in Roman 9, where Paul says that God’s will is the deciding factor?
on March 26, 2011 at 6:24 pm | Reply Mark D Ketchum

Tim… I understand what you are asking… I don’t think you understand my answer… I will try a different approach.

You wrote the following… and I will respond to each comment.

Tim… I understand what you are asking… I don’t think you understand my answer… I will try a different approach.

You wrote the following… and I will respond to each comment.

God God loves all individuals exactly the same.
Yes

Christ died for all the same.
Yes

God desires the salvation of all the same.
Yes

Yet some are saved and some are not.
Yes

At the end of the day, what makes the difference between these two groups? The difference is not in God, but in the decision of man, right? Am I misrepresenting you in that? If so, how? If not, then the deciding factor in salvation rests solely in the hands of man. God “leaves” man “free” to make that decision.
No… the deciding factor in salvation rests solely in the hands of God. You can look at it this way.

Even if man turns to God in repentance… it only leads to salvation and is not salvation. God has to forgive and draw them to Jesus… this is the deciding factor and it is God’s also. Now we know God will not cast us aside, but it is still His choice not to… not ours.

Now, brother, explain to me how that position does not exalt man? Also, how is making man’s will THE deciding factor in any way in line with what Paul teaches in Roman 9, where Paul says that God’s will is the deciding factor?

God’s will is the deciding factor. If He doesn’t will for us to be saved, our repentance and asking for forgivness is in vain. But because God desires none should perish, His will is the deciding factor… not our repentance.

Exalting man is to promote, raise, elevate, intensify, boost, lift, praise, laud, acclaim, applaud, pay tribute to, extol, lionize, revere, sing the praises of … and this is not what is happening… man’s level is where it always was… with free will. The Calvinist disparages man when they take away God given free will.
on March 26, 2011 at 8:42 pm | Reply Mark D Ketchum

I was thinking before I went to bed tonight and wanted to elaborate a little more on “the deciding factor”.

God is sovereign… man is nothing in comparison.

Man’s free will is from God… His gift… His choice… His decision. So even free will is of God’s will, therefore, whatever man’s choice is… is of God’s will. God wills that man make a free choice… so God’s will remains the deciding factor, not man.
- on March 26, 2011 at 9:59 pm | Reply Tim Prussic
  
  God’s will is that man make a “free” choice… okay. So, God’s not choosing; he’s choosing to let man choose, right? In choosing to let man choose, God places the deciding factor of salvation in human hand. What am I missing? Just because man’s libertarian free will is a gift of God does not shift the “deciding factor” away from man.
  
  BTW, I do believe in free will, just not the notion of libertarian free will. I think the Bible denies *that* notion of free will to humanity a hundred times or more.
  
  Have a great Lord’s Day, brother. Let’s rest and worship… we’ll pick this up later.
  - on March 27, 2011 at 6:41 am Mark D Ketchum
    
    I already stated a few times that the deciding factor is God’s forgiveness… that man can not have salvation without this regardless of repentance.
    
    Please show me where free will is denied Biblically when you get a chance.
    
    Happy Worship Day.
on March 27, 2011 at 9:31 pm | Reply Tim Prussic

Mark, I’ll do a post on the biblical refutation of libertarian free will… hopefully this week.

As to the “deciding factor”: what *exactly* is the reason that you believe in Christ and enjoy his redemption eternally and another guy does not? Where exactly is the deciding factor located?
- on March 28, 2011 at 5:45 am | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  Well, if you change the question to why I believe from why I am saved…
  
  the answer to the 1st is because I choose to believe and I work at it daily to decrease doubt… the answer to the latter is because of Jesus Christ and the Father… they have the deciding factor there.
on March 28, 2011 at 8:37 am | Reply Tim Prussic

I’m not trying to switch the question. I’m trying to nail down the point at which (as I see it) God stops actively causing salvation and the active cause is switched to the the human. You believe because of God’s grace, but that doesn’t help because the same grace was given to the fellow that doesn’t believe. You believe based upon the work of Christ, but (again) that doesn’t help because Christ did just the same thing for you as for a guy in hell. So, what is the actual active cause of you believing and another not. I think your answer is what you just wrote: I choose to believe… or it maybe more clear with a tense change: I chose to believe and the other guy chose not to. Do you think this is fair?
on March 28, 2011 at 10:21 am | Reply Mark D Ketchum

This is fair… however the “choose” verb is pretty straight forward and it shouldn’t be. Just as somebody doesn’t “choose” to be a homosexual, I didn’t “choose” to believe in God… I believe in God because of a myriad of choices I made in life led me to my belief in God. God knew of this result before the foundation of the world, therefore I am elected (foreknowledge).

However, I think a mistake is made when you determine that God steps back and says, it’s up to you now. God is constantly striving to bring us into relationship with Him… He just chooses not to force us with “irrestistable” grace. The word compel doesn’t mean force, but rather intice or draw.
- on March 28, 2011 at 4:51 pm | Reply Tim Prussic
  
  Mark, very good. Talking about choosing God because of 1000 different choices in life is, again, I fear, blurring the issue. There is a point in time when one turns toward God in conversion, right? If that’s the case, then there’s a moment (indeed, the whole lifetime prior) before that point of turning or conversion. I want to get to the very heart of that point of turning to God and why that happens in your thought. God doesn’t do anything more for the guy who turns to him than for the guy that does not, correct? If that is so, then where do you locate the difference between the turns to God and the one who doesn’t? The difference must, simply MUST, be in the human. Is that correct?
on March 28, 2011 at 3:06 pm | Reply Brandon

Salvation is of the Lord.

Sure is. I don’t debate that. The Lord offers salvation… it is from Him and of Him. We only have to respond.

Mark,

Your revision of Jonah 2:9 hasn’t slipped by unnoticed. The text, summarizing a great deal of Biblical teaching says that salvation is of the Lord. You say, “the Lord offers salvation.” The meaning you pour into “offer” is that God has done his part and strives with people to be saved but no one will be saved unless they respond under their own power. I showed you how the Lord overthrows your scheme by saying that no one can come unless the Father draws him. Haven’t you read that people are dead in sins and trespasses until God makes them alive? See Ephesians 2:1. You have salvation turned upside down, with man’s choice at the head of it all– even before God’s eternal election which is absurd.

You are missing a crucial Biblical step. How can we respond unless the Lord effectually calls us? See Titus 3:3-7.
- on March 28, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  Brandon… come on… This is not from me, but I wanted to post this… this is one of the best articles written to refute 5 point Calvinism.
  
  If you spend any time at all reading the New Testament, you will eventually come across verses that use the words ‘called,’ ‘chosen,’ and ‘predestined’ as well as the phrase ‘the elect.’ If you then proceed to do any further study or research on the meaning of these verses, you will no doubt find that you have stumbled onto one of the most controversial subjects in all of Christianity.
  
  This subject is described in many ways. It is referred to as ‘the doctrine of election’ or ‘predestination.’ Some also refer to it as ‘selective salvation,’ ‘Calvinism,’ or ‘predetermined salvation.’ Regardless of how it is referred to, at the very heart of this subject is the question: Who can be saved?
  
  The most basic definition for the ‘doctrine of election’ is the belief that God chooses whom He will save and allow into Heaven and whom He will not save and send to Hell. This decision is based solely on God’s own sovereign will and purpose and is not influenced by any other person or by anything anyone does. That is to say that this choice is made apart from any action or belief on the part of the sinner. In other words, man has absolutely no role in his own salvation. If God wants a person to be saved, He will ultimately, through His sovereign control over all circumstances and His ability to open the heart and mind of the sinner, compel a person to believe. These people are then referred to as ‘the elect.’ The bottom line of the ‘doctrine of election’ is that God picks and chooses who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell for reasons we do not know.
  
  Before I go any further, let me just point out that there are many good, well educated, articulate, experienced, insightful, and faithful Christians on both sides of this issue and by no means do I believe that anyone’s stance on this subject affects or determines a person’s salvation in any way. I do believe, however, that there are some very big and undeniable problems with this particular teaching of the ‘doctrine of election.’
  
  The heart of the issue ultimately comes down to one question: Does God give man the choice to either accept or reject salvation? Does God allow man the choice whether or not to believe? Let’s first take a look at what we actually mean by having a choice. For those who believe in the ‘doctrine of election,’ belief is not a choice. It is imposed on people, believers are compelled or forced to believe. This teaching is clearly false. Jesus said, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16. Jesus didn’t say, ‘that whoever I compel to believe or whoever the Father compels to believe shall not perish but have eternal life.’ Obviously, believing in something of your own accord and being compelled or forced to believe are not the same thing! If they are, then we must rewrite the entire Bible itself to reflect this!
  
  If God gives us only one option, then there is no choice. If God gives us no choice, then we are simply ‘action figures’ or ‘programmable robots’ for God and in reality we have no relationship with Him at all. This is not what the Bible teaches. It is not how the Bible describes our relationship with God. He is our Father. We are His children. “So then, he is the father of all who believe” Romans 4:11.
  
  True love only exists when there is a choice not to love. For example, if we could choose anyone to be our spouse and we had the power to magically make that person love us unconditionally, would we believe that it was really love, knowing that the only reason this person showed any affection toward us is because they were being compelled to do so by our power? No, of course not. We are overjoyed when our spouse, who has the choice of anyone else, chooses us over everyone else. Was the father of the prodigal son, Luke 15:11-32, happy because he went and forced his son to return home? No, he rejoiced because his son returned by his own choice seeking his father’s love. If we don’t have the ability to reject God, then we don’t have the ability to express real love to Him by choosing Him. God does not compel us to love Him.
  
  The same principle is true concerning belief. If man is compelled to believe, then he does not believe at all. He simply reacts in the only way possible because he has no other choice. Why would Jesus call us to repent and believe if it really isn’t up to us at all, and it’s simply a matter of God exercising His power by making us repent and believe? Jesus said, “Repent and believe the good news!” Mark 1:15. Belief is our choice. Salvation is God’s gift and the result of His power. There is a difference between the process of salvation and the power of salvation. God does not compel us to believe.
  
  All the power required for a sinner to become saved is from God. This is clearly illustrated for us in John 3 when Jesus explains to Nicodemus how a person can see the kingdom of God. “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” John 3:3. Jesus goes on to explain that the power to be born again is found in the work of the Holy Spirit. “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” John 3:5. The power of salvation comes from God.
  
  Jesus then explains the sinner’s part in the process of salvation. How can I be born again? What can I do to have access to this saving power from God? “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” John 3:16, 18. These verses contain no hidden messages or deeply imbedded theological meanings that only the most highly educated Bible scholars can decipher. They are very simple. Anyone can understand them. Jesus makes it absolutely clear that we must believe in Him in order to receive eternal life. It is something we must do. It is not something that is done for us. It is our decision. It is our choice, plain and simple. Jesus said this is what separates those who are saved from those who are not saved.
  
  Jesus was consistent in teaching that part of the process of salvation is the responsibility of the individual. Look at His response to the rich young man in the book of Mark. “As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him, ‘Good teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Mark 10:17. Now, if no part of this man’s salvation is up to him, as is taught by the ‘doctrine of election,’ Jesus’ answer to the young man’s question should simply be, “nothing.” He could further explain, ‘No part of your salvation is up to you. If God has chosen you for salvation, He will eventually make you believe.’ Did Jesus explain this critical doctrine to this man? No. Did He take this perfect opportunity to clearly define for all time that man plays no part in his own salvation because that would rob God of His sovereignty? No, because that is not how the process works!
  
  We go on to read in the text how Jesus explained to the young man exactly what he, specifically, needed to do in order to ‘inherit eternal life.’ Basically, He asked the young man to give away what was most important to him, his possessions and riches, and make Jesus the most important thing in his life, his Lord and Savior. If he did that, Jesus said he could, “come, follow me.” Mark 10:21. This was the choice Jesus placed before the young man. Then we read, “At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!’ Mark 10:22-23.
  
  We gather from this passage that, in the end, this man was not saved. This raises another very important point. If we hold to the ‘doctrine of election’ as it is taught, that God has already chosen who will be saved and who won’t be saved, then Jesus would have known that this man was not one of ‘the elect.’ At the very least, Jesus would have known what the man’s decision was going to be in the next few minutes. And again, He would have told him that there was nothing he could do because he wasn’t one of ‘the elect.’ In fact, since we know from the Scriptures that this man was not saved, for Jesus to even suggest that there was anything even remotely possible that this man could do to be saved when in reality, according to the ‘doctrine of election,’ this decision had already been made for him, would make Jesus a liar.
  
  The truth of the matter is that this rich young man was a part of God’s sovereign plan just as everyone is. He had the ability to choose just as everyone does. His ability to choose did not rob God of His sovereignty or alter God’s sovereign plan in the least. Of course Jesus knew what the young man’s decision would be, but that doesn’t mean that God compelled him to decide one way or the other. If it did, then Jesus is a liar because He offered the young man a choice when no choice was available. In other words, why would Jesus tell this man what to do in order to be saved when He already knew, because of the ‘doctrine of election,’ that this man wasn’t going to be saved? The answer is simple. Knowing in advance what someone is going to do and making someone do something are not the same thing. The true reality of the situation is – in this passage we see Jesus clearly illustrating the process of salvation. Jesus is not a liar because the young man still had a choice. This same choice has been before all people since Jesus lived, died, and rose again.
  
  This admonition is consistent throughout the entire Bible. “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” Acts 16:31. Choices were also put before the people of the Old Testament. “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” Joshua 24:15. Why would Jesus and the Word of God tell us that believing in God is something we must decide to do when according to the ‘doctrine of election’ it’s something He makes us do? “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy has caused us to be born again” 1 Peter 1:3. (NASB) This is one of the verses often used to support the belief that God compels people to believe. The word ‘caused’ in this verse does not mean ‘compelled us to believe’ it refers to the power of God which allows a sinner to be born again. This is another example of the difference between the power of salvation and the process of salvation. This verse, 1 Peter 1:3, is making reference to the power of salvation.
  
  Another verse that is often used to support the teaching that God compels people to believe is Acts 13:48. “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.” In this verse the phrase, ‘all who were appointed’ clearly refers to eternal life, not belief. In other words, the verse doesn’t read, ‘all who were appointed to belief believed’ because God does not appoint us to belief or compel us to believe. He appoints us to eternal life based on who He already knows will believe. Now if we apply a little common sense it becomes clear.
  
  God already knows everyone who will believe. He knew this even before creation began and He has already appointed or ‘elected’ all whom He knew would believe to eternal life. He is omniscient. “He counts the stars and calls them all by name, how great is our Lord! His power is absolute! His understanding is beyond comprehension!” Psalms 147:4-5. (NLT) “For I am God – I alone! I am God, and there is no one else like me. Only I can tell you what is going to happen even before it happens” Isaiah 46:9-10. (NLT) The Scriptures also teach us that we are not born saved. “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Psalms 51:5. So for everyone who believes there is a day that they come to this belief, the day of salvation. “I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation.” 2 Corinthians 6:2. No one is saved before that day of salvation but God has already appointed all of those He knows will be saved to eternal life. So Acts 13:48 is referring to the fact that God already knew who would believe and that He has already appointed them for eternal life and that the day of salvation had arrived for the Gentiles mentioned in this verse.
  
  One of the tenets of the ‘doctrine of election’ is that we are compelled to believe because the Bible says that our faith comes from God. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Ephesians 2:8. This verse tells us that our faith is a gift given to us by God, and this is absolutely true! So the question now becomes: Are faith and belief the same thing? To find out the truth, let’s look at Romans 3:22, “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. This verse is incredibly significant. One of the remarkable things this verse teaches us is what most people who adhere to ‘the doctrine of election’ fail to understand or even recognize. That is, faith and belief are two different things! In this verse, faith is clearly defined here as the vehicle through which righteousness is bestowed upon us, while belief is the condition which is needed to receive faith. Faith and belief are not the same thing. These verses teach us that faith is indeed a gift from God to those who choose to believe!
  
  Another of the tenets of ‘the doctrine of election’ is ‘the total depravity of man.’ ‘The total depravity of man’ means that man is totally depraved because of his sinful nature, and that man’s free will is limited only to his choice of sin to commit. If this is true then certain questions must be answered. When did the total depravity of man begin? Was Adam created in total depravity or was man’s total depravity a result of Adam’s sin? If Adam was sinless before choosing to eat the fruit, how can a sinless being with no sinful nature, and being compelled by a sovereign God, sin? Obviously, before Adam sinned he wasn’t in a ‘totally depraved’ condition. That is not how he was created. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:27. He was able to choose sin because God, in his sovereignty, made man in His own image which involved giving man the ability to choose.
  
  Allowing mankind the ability to choose does not rob God of His Sovereignty because man’s choices are not unlimited and God controls all circumstances. We all have free will within the parameters set by God. God is omnipotent. “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.” Isaiah 46:9-10. “The Lord does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth” Psalms 135:6. He created man with the ability to choose, and He is perfectly capable of incorporating all the possible choices of mankind into his sovereign will and purpose because, before the world was created, He already knew what all those choices were going to be. He is the One who makes ‘known the end from the beginning.’
  
  How do we know Adam had the ability to choose? Well, the Bible says he did, and because we know that God is not a liar, and He is not a God of contradictions. In other words, He does not tell us what not to do and then turn right around and compel us to do the very thing He has forbidden us to do. Also, He does not tell us that we have a choice when in reality He compels us to act and in doing so removes any possibility of choice. “And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You are free (you have a choice) to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17. God did not forbid Adam to eat the fruit from the tree and then turn right around and compel him to do that very thing. Adam sinned because God in His sovereignty created man with free will. Adam could choose to obey God or disobey God. The choice was his. God did not compel him to do either because if He did, there would be no choice. God did not recreate man and remove his free will after his fall. “And the Lord God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:22.
  
  “The doctrine of depravity was never intended to convey the meaning that man is as bad as he possibly can be and that every trace of moral rectitude has been lost in fallen man. ‘Total depravity’ is intended to indicate that the evil principle… has invaded each part of human nature, that there is no part of it which can now invariably perform righteous acts or invariably think righteous thoughts. In other words, man’s total depravity means that every area of his life is blighted – not that everything about him is totally bad. His depravity is also total in that apart from God’s grace he is forever lost.” Paul E. Little.
  
  The ‘doctrine of election’ also teaches that mankind does not have the ability to choose salvation or righteousness. He has no ability or desire to choose Christ or God. Is this true? Absolutely. This is absolutely true for everyone before the process of salvation begins. Before salvation, all people are blinded to the message of the Gospel. “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age (Who is the god of this age? Satan.) has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2 Corinthians 4:3-4. This teaching is reaffirmed in 1 Corinthians 2:13-14. “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
  
  If all people are blinded to the Gospel, and living under a satanically imposed blindness, how then is it possible for anyone to understand the Gospel and be saved? Well, the answer lies in the fact that God gives us everything we need for salvation. He draws everyone to Himself. This is the beginning of the salvation process. Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” John 6:44. God also removes this blindness from our hearts. “One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshipper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.” Acts 16:14. Lydia was lost. She was just as spiritually blinded as anyone else, but the Lord opened her spiritual understanding. He opened her heart, but that in itself wasn’t enough. She had to ‘respond to Paul’s message.’ This is where the choice lies. At one time or another God draws everyone to Himself. He opens their eyes by removing the blindness from their hearts and allows them to make a choice.
  
  Now this is where people who teach the ‘doctrine of election’ get it wrong. They will point to this passage and say, “well, God opened her heart and made her believe.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Opening someone’s heart and compelling someone to believe something are two totally different things. Compelling someone eliminates belief or even the need for belief altogether. The very nature of belief implies that there is a choice not to believe. It was still Lydia’s choice to “respond to Paul’s message.” This is also where we are as believers. There is nothing we can do to win a lost person until the Lord opens their heart and gives them the ability to understand and choose. That is why we need to be there with the truth of Scripture.
  
  If we hold to the belief that God, for some unknown reason, chooses who goes to Heaven and who is eternally condemned, or that Jesus died only for ‘the elect’ and not for all of mankind, or that somehow God does not love all men but rather only ‘the elect,’ then we cannot read many of the verses in the Bible to a lost person without qualifying them. For example:
  
  “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone* to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9. *everyone does not actually mean everyone or all mankind; it only refers to ‘the elect,’ which have already been chosen. God only wants certain people to come to repentance.
  
  “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men* to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself for all men*” 1 Timothy 2:3-6. *all men does not really mean all men everywhere, it only refers to ‘the elect’ that God has already chosen. God does not really want all men to be saved and Jesus didn’t really give Himself for all men. Sorry.
  
  “For God so loved the world* that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16. *the world doesn’t actually mean all people in the entire world. God only loves those ‘elect’ that He has already chosen. So this verse should actually read, “For God so loved the elect….”
  
  “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world*!” John 1:29. *the world only refers to the few ‘elect’ of the world. God only takes away their sin. Why? We have no idea!
  
  “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world*.” 1 John 2:2. *again, whole world doesn’t really mean the whole world but the whole world of ‘the elect,’ Jesus died only for the sins of ‘the elect.’ This verse should read, ‘He is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the elect, and not only for the sins of the elect but also for the sins of the elect.’ That makes sense doesn’t it?
  
  “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us* and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins*.” 1 John 4:7. *loved us, and for our sins are only meant to include ‘the elect’ and no one else.
  
  “God is love*.” 1 John 4:16. *as unlikely as it sounds, God is love does not mean that God is love to everyone or that God really loves everyone. Even though God is actually love itself, He can be love to some people and then change who He is and not be love to other people.
  
  Is this how God intended for His Word to be read? Can it not simply be opened, read, and understood? Do we have to examine every verse and qualify each of them with hidden meanings? Are people required to have ‘inside information’ on what the Bible really means? Should everyone be required to read the ‘fine print’ on what then becomes ‘Christianity’s dirty little secret’ in order to understand that in spite of everything they read in the Bible and what Christians for centuries have been saying and continue to say to this day, God, in fact, does not love everyone, God does not want everyone to go to Heaven, Jesus did not die for everyone, salvation is not open to everyone? Does this sound like the message we should be spreading? Well, according to the ‘doctrine of election,’ this is all true.
  - on March 28, 2011 at 4:11 pm Brandon
    
    If this confused, internally inconsistent paean to free will is one of the best articles refuting five point Calvinism, five point Calvinism has little to fear from its opposition. This anonymous author has little to offer us because he is too busy attacking straw men and thus misrepresenting Calvinism. I did, however, like the section below:
    
    All the power required for a sinner to become saved is from God. This is clearly illustrated for us in John 3 when Jesus explains to Nicodemus how a person can see the kingdom of God. “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” John 3:3. Jesus goes on to explain that the power to be born again is found in the work of the Holy Spirit. “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” John 3:5. The power of salvation comes from God.
    
    Sadly, what our anonymous author giveth he also taketh away.
on March 28, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Reply Brandon

To suggest that God, before the world’s foundation, chose certain ones to be saved, and others to be lost, independent of a personal understanding of truth, is a doctrine that cannot be sustained by the Scriptures — regardless of the number of sincere people like you, Brandon, who subscribe to it.

Mark,
You are getting way ahead of yourself here. Let’s start with a basic concept of logic. Begging the question means assuming what one is trying to prove. The correctness or error of Calvinism is in dispute here. We have just scratched the surface of the discussion and yet you repeatedly jump ahead with question begging denunciations like the one above.

Besides, you misrepresent Calvinism by stating that God makes a choice of the elect and the reprobate “independent” of “personal understanding of the truth.” Happily, Calvinists teach no such thing. Instead, we recognize that faith is God’s gift to the elect and that the reprobate are condemned in Adam and their own sin and unbelief.

“We love Him because He first loved us” I John 4:19

What does Ephesians chapter 1 say?
- on March 28, 2011 at 3:54 pm | Reply Mark D Ketchum
  
  Your statement makes no sense… sorry. You say I misrepresent Calvinism and then you follow it up with a take on what I just said. Either I misrepresent you or I don’t.
  
  “… faith is God’s gift to the elect…” so do you believe that God chooses the elect prior to faith? Or prior to belief? If so, I don’t misrepresent at all… it is independent of personal understanding of the truth. Or do you think we have belief or faith (personal understanding of the truth” prior to God choosing us? If not, His choice, in your opinion, is indpendent of personal understanding of the truth.
  - on March 28, 2011 at 4:17 pm Brandon
    
    Or, unlike the poor choice you offer in your false dilemma, God gives us our personal understanding of the truth because He chose us according to His good pleasure. Exactly what Ephesians 1 and 2 teach.
on March 28, 2011 at 3:54 pm | Reply Brandon

Mark posted the following remarks:

Jesus chooses us for sure, but we can choose not to follow. If I choose you to play on my basketball team, you can choose to play on my team or not. Jesus chooses us all… it is up to us to answer His call.

I never said it is as “easy” as choosing for basketball. You say I said that because it helps you feel lie you are better than I.

The basketball analogy isn’t helpful for the purposes of our discussion. It is popular with anti-Calvinists in my experience, I’m afraid.

So is the one “if I give you alot of money, it can be yours, but you have to accept it. It isn’t yours until you accept it.” Not quite how union with Christ takes place.
on April 8, 2011 at 8:22 am | Reply gene

Wow, great discussion. I’m with Peter on this. It simply does not follow that he’s using human reasoning to figure out the bible. We all do for we’re all human and even God’s knowledge give, is given to human who reason. Defining what that knowledge is and if it’s correct is what has to be discussed. To the Calvinist, the logic of love is a human reason. To the Arminian the logic of determinism is human reason. So stating Peter is employing sub-biblical methods doesn’t help make the point.

Well done Peter.
on April 8, 2011 at 8:33 am | Reply Tim Prussic

Gene, I’m against (nor have I said anything against) human reason. I’m against humanISM. Peter’s approached the whole issue with some classic humanistic modes of thinking. This becomes painfully clear when he asks the questions that Paul puts in his adversary’s mouth in Romans 9.
on April 8, 2011 at 10:06 am | Reply gene

Tim,
what questions are those that Paul asks? Are you referring to “how can God blame us for those who resist his will?”
- on April 8, 2011 at 6:35 pm | Reply Tim Prussic
  
  Gene, as I recall, that’s exactly the question.
on April 8, 2011 at 10:30 pm | Reply gene

Why is it humanism to ask why “anyone” (including God”) would do something unjust?

Abraham questioned God in wiping out a city where there are any righteouss people. Does this mean that Abraham was deceived because there is no one rightouess, no not one? And therefore God could have destroyed the righteouss with the wicked?

But here Paul anticipates that people will ask a similar question. If God makes me resist his will, then why blame me. That’s not humanism. That’s a question regarding justice. As I understaand Humanism, it’s to elevate humans so high that God no longer is the object of his affection (resulting in sin such as abortion). But for one to ask God, Why would you make me with dark skin and then declare that you hate dark skinned people, is proper. So I don’t think Peter is appealing to humanism.

I think it appears that way to Calvinists because Calvinists think it’s what Paul teaches. But it’s totally normal and right to ask “what is just?” – if one cannot ask question regarding justice and love then it hardly follows that God is patient and merciful. But I believe God wants us to ask and even expects us to ask why.

Do you ever ask God questions? Is that humanist? Humans valuing their own destiny is not an evil thing. It’s why we even come to our kneeds before God – because we value ourselves. The commandment is to love others AS MUCH as we love ourselves – not that we have to no longer care about what God might do to us. If a Muslim tells me Allah is going to skin me alive, I’LL ASK WHY? He can call me a humanist if he likes, but I certainly don’t care. I know God gave me intelligence to ask why – and I will.

Just some thoughts and thanks again Tim.

Gene
on April 8, 2011 at 11:47 pm | Reply Tim Prussic

Gene, to ask God questions (in faith) is not a problem. To side with Paul’s opponent is a problem. To reject the idea that, at the end of the day, we are what God makes us to be, that he is the Potter and we are the clay is a problem, wouldn’t you agree?
on April 9, 2011 at 7:05 am | Reply gene

No, I would not agree. While I lean more (not fully) with the Calvinist rendering of Romans 9 – I do not believe that one must embrace that God is molding in a deterministic way.

If a person believes Jesus’ teachings and his life, death and ressurection then I would say he’s not in trouble. Even if he should not understand every doctrine or idea about God, he’s still saved.

I have more sympathy with you on church grounds. That is I don’t believe a person has to understand the trinity before they’re saved but I do believe a church has to teach it. Those are two different things.

If a state govt. issued a new law which ultimatley culminated that no matter what you do, you are guilty of breaking it – it’s unjust. Theres no two ways about it. So who could blame Arminians, Open Theists or Universalists who question the interpretation of the potter and the clay. And I’m one who thinks Tom Talbott utterly destroyed John Piper on Romans 9. I realize you won’t because you firmly believe your right regarding Romans 9. We’re all like this in some sense. Brother, all I can do is ask you to consider, could you be wrong?

I know there’s much to Calvinism, which I myself value and cherish, but I hardly think it’s perfect.

Comments RSS

	locirari on Maxwell on Christian Wors…
	Robert Murphy on Maxwell on Christian Wors…
	Tim Prussic on Maxwell on Christian Wors…
	Robert Murphy on Maxwell on Christian Wors…
	Brandon on Maxwell on Christian Wors…

Providence

Ruminations on Theology and Personal Development