Election and Predestination

[mark s]

Mark, as far as the drawing Jesus describes in John 6, that does appear to apply to all who come to Christ, who believe and will be raised on the last day- 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.' --'For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.'

'Everyone' who believes in the Son has eternal life and will be raised on the last day, and those raised on the last day, those who come to Christ, first had to be drawn by the Father, as no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him. The drawing by the Father appears to apply to all who come to Christ, those who believe, those raised on the last day, which would exclude all who do not come to Christ.

John 6:39-40
"And this is the will of the Father sending Me, that of all that He has given Me, I shall not lose any of it, but shall raise it up in the last day.
"And this is the will of the One sending Me, that everyone seeing the Son and believing into Him should have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

There are the disciples who were with Jesus, and there are those who believed upon the testimony of these who were with Him.

Before Jesus' death, the Father draws some to Christ, and Christ points to His twelve as those whom the Father gave to Him, of whom He will lose none, excepting Judas. After Jesus' death, Jesus draws all men to Himself.

Again, a careful reading of John 17 shows us this.

Those who come to Christ must be drawn by the Father, if the Father does not draw then one does not come to Christ. The majority does not come to Christ, the majority are not drawn, the majority will not be raised at the last day. Those who come to Christ are drawn, those who do not come are not drawn by the Father. God does something more for those who come to Christ which He does not do for those who do not come to Christ, God performs an addition act for those He has chosen.

I would simply point out again that this statement has a very particular context of large numbers of disciples leaving Jesus, while Jesus is affirming that the 12 would not leave Him, as He later remembers before the Father that those whom the Father gave to Him did not leave Him, even though all the others did.

Jesus stated that He would draw 'all men' to Himself. All men will not receive eternal life, all men will not be raised on the last day, so the drawing by Jesus of 'all men' is a different drawing than that which the Father does in John 6, the drawing by the Father results in a coming to Christ and eternal life and being raised on the last day, which does not occur for 'all men'.

I'm curious, what do you suppose this is? This "I will draw all men to myself"?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Rte66]

I have enjoyed reading some of this thread as I skimmed through..unfortunately that is about all the time I have.

A question (or more of a comment) I have about God's "foreknowledge".

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

"chosen according to the foreknowledge of God" I wonder why in God's sovereignty, to seemingly arbitrarily predetermine who the "chosen" are, would His foreknowledge have anything to do with it? Why that word?...foreknowledge? Why not just say..."According to the KNOWLEDGE of God"? Why would "the chosen" hinge on his "knowledge beforehand" and knowledge of what? He is sovereign. He knows everything inside and outside of time. He shouldn't have foreknowledge of anything simply by its definition...because from His perspective its just knowledge PERIOD. His choices don't depend on time as we are subjected to, because of course He lives outside of time or, as I see it,...is it that He has chosen to limit His sovereignty in that He gave us a free will to accept or not accept His Son? And since He put us in time..He has to work with us from our perspective being that we're in time. Because He can see ahead he has foreknowledge (according to our perspective of time being that we're in it) of who will accept His gift, has predetermined before time began, that those who do accept (during this age "of time") will be saved, aka "the chosen"...chosen according to the stipulation he also laid down before time, the stipulation being "faith in Jesus Christ".



As I see it,
Angie

[mark s]

Hi Angie,

I think we're on the same page here.

This is the same thing I see in Romans 8, "those He foreknew, He also predestined".

Love in Christ,
Mark

[1whowaits]

Mark, the context of John 6 is Jesus' response to the Jews not to His disciples. And Jesus refers to 'everyone' who believes on Him, 'all' that the Father gives me, 'whoever' comes to me, I shall lose none of 'all' that He has given me, if 'anyone' eats this bread, 'whoever' eats my flesh, etc., Jesus is not referring to the disciples alone but all believers, all who come to Him, all who come to Christ.

And John 17 does appear to confirm this, Jesus intially prays for His disciples but then refers to a larger group in vs 20- 'My prayer is not for them alone (the disciples). I pray also for those who will beleive in me through their message, that all of them (all believers) may be one....Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory..'

Those given to Christ did include the disciples but clearly later in the chapter Jesus refers to 'those you have given me' as being all believers, as the passage is referring to all believers, and all believers will see Jesus in His glory (2 Thess 1:10, Col 3:4). And Jesus also states in John 17- 'For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.' Describing having authority over 'all people' and then referring to giving eternal life to 'all' given to Christ would appear to be a reference to more believers than just the disciples.

And when Jesus describes 'all' that have been given to Him in John 6, He does appear to be referring to all believers as He does in the latter part of John 17, and Jesus will raise all believers, not just the disciples.

As far as Jesus' reference to 'drawing' in John 12:32- 'But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.', He may be describing a different drawing from that described in John 6. The 'drawing' in John 6 is done by the Father and results in eternal life for those who are drawn. The drawing in John 12 is done by the Son, and apparently does not result in eternal life as 'all men' do not receive eternal life, unless 'all men' is not a reference to all men that have lieved on the earth.

But if one wishes to state that the drawing of John 6 and 12 are the same drawing, then 'all men' would refer to something other than all the men that ever lived, as not all men receive eternal life. In this case 'all men' could refer to all ethnic groups and nationalities, not all individuals that have ever lived.

[bchandler]

I don't understand what is so difficult about this concept... The giving, is essentially predestination, those God chose. From the beginning of creation.

You will not get an argument from me about the fact that God chooses us first. But God's word clearly shows us that God's choice is predicated upon his foreknowledge of every man. God foreknows those who will come to him, and those who will not.

Think about it this way. We humans practice a kind of foreknowledge when we do something as simple as bake a cake. We have an end result in mind. We assemble the ingredients and we begin the process of creating with an intended result. Unfortunately our foreknowledge is not perfect, so we sometimes miss variables that will affect the outcome.

God's foreknowledge is perfect. He doesn't miss anything. Every T is crossed and every I is dotted. God's outcome is guaranteed. So God could perfectly know the result of Jesus sacrifice before it ever happened. He could perfectly know which of those would use his gifts of faith and the drawing of the Holy Spirit as he intended, and become his. He did this by perfect foreknowledge. He then predestined us for certain things based upon that foreknowledge.

Paul clearly shows that there is a clear order of dependence with the initiator being God's ability to foreknow.
In this case, even if we were predestined for salvation it is not due to a random, arbitrary, sovereign choosing. It is a choosing based upon foreknowledge! God created a dividing line for his choosing!! A dividing line that is completely fair and that can be obtained by all.

I personally believe that the scripture tells us that dividing line is our faith... our willingness to simply choose to believe God's word. Faith was imputed to Abraham as righteousness. Not piety, but right standing under a covenant or contract. Faith has been God's dividing criteria all throughout the scriptures, across 6000 years... it has been about faith.

This faith is not a work, it is a gift from God! Some choose to use the gift... some choose to throw it away!

This faith is not a merit, it is a criteria defined by God! This is where God exercised his sovereignty, in defining the line in the sand. He then asked people to choose which side of the line they would stand on. He foreknew who would stand on which side. He then prepared things in advance (predestined) for those he foreknew would accept and conform to his dividing line criteria.

God also exercised his sovereignty in REQUIRING that we all make a free will choice for or against him. That is the beauty of sovereignty, the ability to delegate authority of what you will to whom you will. God delegates authority, and we see examples of this in his word all the time. The father delegated authority to the son. The son delegated authority to his disciples. God delegates authority to his angels for specific purposes as well.

So... God delegating to us a free-will authority to choose to follow him or not does not destroy his sovereignty, it is in fact a deliberate exercise of his sovereignty.

God sovereignly chooses to leave the choice of how to use his gifts of grace, faith, and drawing up to us. Why? God's word (Jesus) told us that the Father seeks those who will worship him in spirit, and in truth. If God were to arbitrarily, randomly, and sovereignly choose out in advance who would respond to him then they would have been forced against their will to worship God, which breaks the scripture, which can not happen.

In fact your argument for God's sovereignly choosing whom he wills and "to hell with the rest" absolutely obliterates the concept of the spirit of liberty and the choosing of truth.

"Where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty." Note it doesn't say bondage!!! God denying us the free-will to choose would place us in hostile servile bondage to him. He wants our bonds to be bonds of love, as in marriage, not bonds of slavery! He desires that we choose to enter into his service and bind ourselves to him freely!! This is the law of liberty!

How else can I describe this... Think of God as a conquering king, for indeed he is. This king is waging a war against sin. This war was started by Lucifer. Lucifer robbed God of his property (his creation... Us!) and enslaved us which was an act of war. God chose to conquer his enemy and to redeem his property out of Lucifer's hand! Because we had no choice about being born into sin God made a way of escape for us. He also prepared the things we would need in advance once we became free again. God did all the work to conquer, and redeem, he then says to those he liberates... choose this day whom you will serve. Some choose to return to their cruel, subtle, deceitful, master because he satisfies the lusts of the flesh. Some choose to serve the righteous king. God sets all at liberty and asks them to chose whom they will be bound to. We are all slaves to sin, and our spiritual Father is Lucifer, prior to our liberation. But God is a righteous king, and he does not subjugate anyone against their will. His kingdom is built upon those who choose him as king.

Arbitrary predestination amounts to subjugation against our will, which would make God no different than Lucifer, because that is exactly what Lucifer did to us when he tempted Adam to fall!!! He not only subjugated Adam, but every other human born after that. So in effect we truly lost our free-will, because we lost the ability to choose to be perfect.

God's entire battle plan is to return us to a place of liberation where every man is free to choose and no one is condemned for another Man's (Adam's) choice. They are only condemned for their own choice.

Did you ever stop to consider that due to God's very nature and characteristics, it is impossible for him not to foreknow?

[mark s]

Hi 1WW,

So basically you are saying, when Jesus said, "all men", He meant, "some men, that is, some of every ethnicity and nationality".

Can you show the Scriptural support for this interpretation?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[1whowaits]

Mark, i am not saying that, i am pointing out that one who says that the drawing by Jesus in John 12 and the drawing by the Father in John 6 are the same drawing could come to that conclusion. As the 2 drawings are described differently, 1 by the Father only of those who come to Christ and receive eternal life, and the other by Jesus to 'all men' (who do not recieve eternal life), i believe 2 different drawings are being described.

As you appear to believe they are the same 'drawings', how do you account for the significant differences?

[mark s]

Hi 1WW,

I'm not saying that these are the same drawing.

I'm saying that the Father drew certain ones to be Jesus' disciples, but that this was not a statement about salvation in general affecting all people.

Scripture shows this in the context. Many disciples were leaving Jesus, but not the 12, the one's the Father gave Jesus. Later, in Jesus' prayer, He acknowledges that none the Father had given Him were lost, save Judas.

This was before regeneration, remember.

There were several things that changed in the way God dealt with humanity when Jesus died.

If you take the previous statement as intended for all people all time, Jesus' statement that He would draw all men to Himself becomes superfluous. You'd be saying, "Jesus draws everyone to Himself, but only those the Father draws will come to Him."

What then is the "drawing" that Jesus does, in your estimation?

What is its purpose? What does it accomplish?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[1whowaits]

Mark, if these are not the same drawings as you state, then there are 2 separate drawings, one by the Father and one by the Son. The language that Jesus uses in John 6 would be most consistent with Him referring to all who believe being invloved in the drawing by the Father, not just the disciples. John 17 also describes the disciples and includes references to all who will believe later in the passage, Jesus can clearly be referring to both the disciples and all who will believe in Him in the discussions in John 6 and 17.

As far as Jesus drawing all men to Himself in John 12, i believe there could be several different interpretations of what He meant. All men do not receive eternal life so either the drawing by Jesus is not necessarily accepting of Him as Savior, or all men refers to something other than every individual in the world.

Jesus stated that when He was lifted up, crucified, He would draw 'all' to Himself ( i believe the word used is translated 'all' not 'all men', according to the parallel Bible). By using 'all', was Jesus referring to all individuals, all men who have ever lived, all who will believe, all types of men (ethnic groups), or all nations?

And who is drawn to Christ as a result of the crucifixion? Has all the world been drawn to Christ? Have all individuals been drawn to Christ? Have all believers been drawn to Christ as a result of the crucifixion?

What would be the most logical interpretation of who 'all' is (who are drawn to Christ as a result of the crucifixion)?

[1whowaits]

BC, i don't believe anyone here is arguing arbitrary predestination, i would agree that God does have foreknowledge of who will accept Christ.

But if God has foreknowledge alone of who will accept Him, and He does nothing to bring that acceptance about, then He is not predestinating anyone, He has foreknowledge and nothing else, He is predestinating anyone.

If God has foreknowledge of who will accept Him and then offers the invitation to accept Christ and does nothing more, then He does nothing for the elect that He does not do for the non-elect, the destination is based on human choice alone, there is no pre-destination.

Scripture states that we are predestined to become sons through Christ, if we are predestined, if our destination is pre-determined, then God must do more for those pre-destined than He does for the rest of the world or there is no predestination. If our destination is based solely on our own free-will choice, then we are no more likely to accept Christ than anyone else in the world, and we are not predestined, our destiantion is determined only by our free-will, only by our choice.

And this is why there is such a discussion regarding predestination vs free-will, how can there be predestination (which the scripture states there is) when our destination is determined by free-will? How can there be free-will if our destination is pre-determined, if there is pre-destination?

I believe pre-destination and free-will choice can co-exist when the foreknowledge of God is taken into account, and that God can nudge (draw) those who are predestined toward accepting Christ without forcing them to do so and violating their free will.

If God 'draws' those who accept Christ, He is doing something more than what he has done for the rest of the world, so pre-destination does occur, the outcome is predetermined by God's action. But 'drawing' is not forcing a decision, it may be that the drawing can be rejected (blasphemeing the Holy Spirit?), so a free-will choice is still involved. But the possibility of any rejection of the 'drawing' of God is eliminated because only those that God foreknows will accept Christ are drawn. Any who would not accept Christ are not 'drawn', as those who will come to Christ are foreknown by God, God would also fore-know if one would reject Christ.

It may be that only those who come to Christ are drawn by the Father, as no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws Him. Only those who come to Christ are pre-destined, only those who come to Christ have eternal life, we are then predestined to eternal life, we are predestined to become sons through Christ.

In this interpretation predestination would be God 'drawing' only those who He knows through His foreknowledge will accept Christ, and He still allows a free-will choice on the part of the one who is drawn, one is 'drawn', he is not 'forced'. The destination is pre-determined because God draws the one chosen, but free will is maintained as the drawing does not force the choice, and foreknowledge guarantees the direction that choice will take.

[mark s]

What would be the most logical interpretation of who 'all' is (who are drawn to Christ as a result of the crucifixion)?

Perhaps in the words of a well-beloved hymn . . .

. . . and opened the lifegates that all may come in! Praise the Lord!

[1whowaits]

So do all come in the lifegates, do all receive eternal life? Jesus stated that He would raise on the last day those whom the Father drew to Him, does Jesus raise 'all men' on the last day, do 'all men' receive eternal life?

[bchandler]

1WW,

My point is you can have predestination, and God can still lead, draw, and grant faith mercy and grace to all equally. The difference is in who will stand on the right side of God's dividing line, and his foreknowledge of those people.

It is because of that foreknowledge he can predestine. Your statement about not arguing for an arbitrary predestination is precisely the problem. Calvinistic predestination argues precisely that God predestines people out of nothing but his own sovereign choice, and that his choice is arbitrary and has nothing to do with us. It argues that we have no free-will and can not abandon God, and that the lost have no free-will and can not accept him.

I don't know if that is what you were espousing, but there are others involved in this thread that seem to believe that at least in part, and such a belief renders God into something worse than lucifer! IMO

[Keeping Alert]

I don't know if that is what you were espousing, but there are others involved in this thread that seem to believe that at least in part, and such a belief renders God into something worse than lucifer! IMO

Hi bchandler,

I think you are refering to me? I have tried to show you above that that is not the case and just as I cannot see your point of view, you could not see mine. As a brotherly caution, I would advise that you do not keep throwing such phrases as "God is worse than lucifer" because you might really be cursing God just because you believe that your view is the right view which IMO is debatable.

Blessings,
KA

[mark s]

. . . just a loving reminder . . .


Let's all continue to be very careful to conduct this debate in Christian Charity . . . as you have been doing!

[bchandler]

For the record.. .i have never said God is worse than lucifer... I have said that certain points of view render him to be something worse than lucifer... which is why I will never allow such things to go unchallenged.

God didn't just want to save a few... he wanted to save as many as possible... but i see nowhere in scripture where he forces anyone to choose him... Not man, not the angels, not anyone. Even the angels had the ability to fall.

Through Adam's sin his descendants were rendered incapable of choosing God's way. We essentially lost our free will and became slaves to sin. From what God tells us about his nature in God's word... his entire plan was to restore our ability to choose, and to make a way of escape for those he foreknew would choose him.

That approach is the only one I have ever seen that preserves God's character as a righteous judge, and a holy God. Every other approach I have ever seen has to use God's sovereignty as an excuse for his behavior. While God is sovereign, there are some things he simply will not do, because to do them would destroy his Godhood.

KA, for the record.. I see your view point... I just consider it to be deeply flawed, and quite possibly even demeaning to God. Fortunately he doesn't seem to get to worked up about things like this. I on the other hand do have a tendency to get worked up when people say things about God's nature and character that could cause an unbeliever to possibly scorn him.

[AndCanItBe]

Through Adam's sin his descendants were rendered incapable of choosing God's way. We essentially lost our free will and became slaves to sin. From what God tells us about his nature in God's word... his entire plan was to restore our ability to choose, and to make a way of escape for those he foreknew would choose him.

So just to clarify, in your view, Christ's work on the Cross didn't just give all mankind a choice to make, an option other than hell, but actually restored all mankind's free will/ability to make the choice as well?

[bchandler]

ACIB,

From what the Word tells us, no man can come to the Father except the Spirit draw him. We also know that God does all the work to save us, and that there is nothing in us that would choose him if left to ourselves. The Word also says that if he was lifted up from the earth he would draw ALL men unto himself.

So...

• The work of faith and drawing is done by the Holy Spirit. He makes it possible for us to choose God, contrary to our nature. This first work (from our perspective in time) is what you might call an intervention via the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
• The work of the cross was for our redemption. He makes it possible for us to be spotless before God, washing us in his blood.
• The work of baptism is for our restoration. Water for freeing us from the old body of sin, and Spirit baptism for the renewing/restoration of our minds. The word also calls it putting on the mind of Christ.
• The work of sanctification is the ongoing, life-long process of our separation from the world and being set apart to his work, purpose and glory. This work is accomplished in us by the Holy Spirit, and the word.

So to simplify, first he intervenes, then he redeems, then he renews, then he sanctifies. It is 100% of God, by God, and for God that he has done this for us.

The real sticking point ACIB is that Calvinistic predestination takes away God's justice, honor and glory. I don't think that is intentional, rather it is the result of following a train of logic that allows God to violate what he tells us about his nature and character in an act of "sovereignty". What is not logically understood is that when we logically allow for this kind of behavior then we allow God to become a disrespecter, unjust, a deceiver, a torturer, and a tormentor of all of those he chose NOT to save. Calvinistic predestination denies our free-will and makes every being, good and evil, man and angel, a slave to God's will. Which would logically mean that come judgment day God would be condemning men and angels for doing what God made them to do. And somehow this flawed logic is justified by his sovereignty, and his desire to glorify himself. It ignores the predicate requirement of foreknowledge for predestination. It also makes the argument that God can do "anything he wants because he is sovereign". And while it may be true that God can do "anything he wants" he will not do so!!! He will never violate what he tells us about himself, his nature and his character in his word!!! He will never do anything that destroys his right to be worshiped and glorified!!! He will never break his promises, or deceive a man, or make a man evil, or enslave them against their will to either good or evil.

There is one who is an oath breaker, a father of lies, a murderer from the beginning, an enslaver of souls, a destroyer, and a deceiver who deceives men into ways that appear righteous but the end there of is destruction. His name is Lucifer, Satan, and the Devil. And I will in no way allow my God to be made equal with him, and Calvinistic predestination does exactly that when you extend it's logic to it's logical conclusions.

There is no doubt that this is tough meat to chew on... but to an unbeliever or someone struggling in their faith, coming across this form of teaching on predestination, could potentially cause them to reject God as unfair, unjust, evil, and to see him as the source of all that is wrong in the world, and an enemy to all of humanity that intends to forcefully enslave some of us to worship him for eternity, while he torments the remainder that weren't chosen to be his pets, but were used to do his will and to glorify himself, for eternity.

I don't wish to be harsh ACIB, but this kind of illogical logic about the nature of God is so deeply flawed and twisted that the God of the bible becomes equivalent to the God of the Koran. And I think most people here already recognize that the God of the Koran is really lucifer in disguise.

I for one will not allow such a perception, or even a potential for such a perception to go unchallenged. I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded of his love, mercy, grace, justice, kindness, long-suffering, righteousness, and of his judgments! There is no darkness in him at all! He is my rock and my fortress, because I have made him the love of my life. I will contend with anyone who would insult the character of my husband, my savior and my God... intentionally or otherwise. I would contend earnestly against any error in logical thinking that has the potential to turn even one soul away from him into eternal damnation.

[AndCanItBe]

bchandler, I asked a simple yes or no question about a certain aspect of your view, which I don't see the answer to in your post, btw. I appreciate that you would want to explain your "yes" or "no" and I appreciate that you want to repeat yourself for the lurkers, and I am aware some people have used truth to sell lies. I wouldn't say I fit in a box, but the view I've come to didn't lead me into sin, it lead me to a deeper faith. I am no more willing to worship a God that is unjust than you are. You believe predestination not based on a person's choice is unfair and makes God not God. Well, I get your view, mostly, I was taught that view from childhood, raised with it. It's not that I don't understand, it's that I just don't agree it makes God unfair. When I read about this subject in the Bible and struggled over this subject for myself I came to Romans 9 and basically got smacked over the head. He is God, how dare I judge Him based on MY sense of justice, when His is perfect. That's what I got out of it. Maybe it's not logical, and there is no doubt that my own experience and personality factors in here, just like it does for everyone. IMO, though, I've tried to understand His sense of justice rather than fit Him into mans. Maybe it's because I'm not a terribly logical person, but I just don't believe everything about God fits into man's logic, and I'm okay with that. I have no desire to debate you, I really only got involved because I thought my way of saying things might help some people understand that no one in this thread is believing or intending all of the evil things you are concerned about, and to seek clarification on something you said.

[mark s]

FWIW . . . I think its very logical to think that God has every right to do whatever He wants without our questioning Him, and that whatever He does is right, whether or not we agree, or even begin to understand.

I think that is solid Scriptural doctrine, found all over the Bible. God is Sovereign, all His ways are Righteous, and His ways are above our ways. We all know these verses.

While I think that there are doctrinal errors in the Calvinistic view of election/predestination, I don't think these errors are the equivalent of thinking that Allah is the true god, nor do I think that those errors make God somehow the same as Satan.

I do not believe that the correct understanding of election/predestination is required for one's salvation. We don't have to understand everything to be saved, just our need for Jesus, Who He is, what He did. Therefore, we need to treat this as an "in-house debate", between brothers and sisters who equally love God, who equally reverence and worship Him.

Rant over . . . for now . . .

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Swayde]

FWIW . . . I think its very logical to think that God has every right to do whatever He wants without our questioning Him, and that whatever He does is right, whether or not we agree, or even begin to understand.

I think that is solid Scriptural doctrine, found all over the Bible. God is Sovereign, all His ways are Righteous, and His ways are above our ways. We all know these verses.

While I think that there are doctrinal errors in the Calvinistic view of election/predestination, I don't think these errors are the equivalent of thinking that Allah is the true god, nor do I think that those errors make God somehow the same as Satan.

I do not believe that the correct understanding of election/predestination is required for one's salvation. We don't have to understand everything to be saved, just our need for Jesus, Who He is, what He did. Therefore, we need to treat this as an "in-house debate", between brothers and sisters who equally love God, who equally reverence and worship Him.

Rant over . . . for now . . .

Love in Christ,
Mark

Well said.

[AndCanItBe]

I do not believe that the correct understanding of election/predestination is required for one's salvation. We don't have to understand everything to be saved, just our need for Jesus, Who He is, what He did. Therefore, we need to treat this as an "in-house debate", between brothers and sisters who equally love God, who equally reverence and worship Him.

Agreed.

[bchandler]

bchandler, I asked a simple yes or no question about a certain aspect of your view, which I don't see the answer to in your post, btw. I appreciate that you would want to explain your "yes" or "no" and I appreciate that you want to repeat yourself for the lurkers, and I am aware some people have used truth to sell lies. I wouldn't say I fit in a box, but the view I've come to didn't lead me into sin, it lead me to a deeper faith. I am no more willing to worship a God that is unjust than you are. You believe predestination not based on a person's choice is unfair and makes God not God. Well, I get your view, mostly, I was taught that view from childhood, raised with it. It's not that I don't understand, it's that I just don't agree it makes God unfair. When I read about this subject in the Bible and struggled over this subject for myself I came to Romans 9 and basically got smacked over the head. He is God, how dare I judge Him based on MY sense of justice, when His is perfect. That's what I got out of it. Maybe it's not logical, and there is no doubt that my own experience and personality factors in here, just like it does for everyone. IMO, though, I've tried to understand His sense of justice rather than fit Him into mans. Maybe it's because I'm not a terribly logical person, but I just don't believe everything about God fits into man's logic, and I'm okay with that. I have no desire to debate you, I really only got involved because I thought my way of saying things might help some people understand that no one in this thread is believing or intending all of the evil things you are concerned about, and to seek clarification on something you said.

ACIB, I did answer your question in the bullet list. Then i explained my answers. That aside, it isn't about what I think is just or unjust... it is about what God says is just or unjust and the rules that he gave us to live by... rules that he will not violate himself. You say you got smacked over the head with Romans 9. I am almost to the point of wishing Paul had never written it...lol. I have repeatedly pointed people to the stories behind Romans 9. I have even provided all of the scriptural links so that people can read the stories being referenced in Paul's treatise on the faith.

I have repeatedly shown how every one of those stories shows how God behaves in relationship to OUR choices and OUR behavior.

You may not believe that it is our choice that allows God to choose us... that's fine... but... whatever it is that causes him to choose us, there must be a fair criteria attainable by all men or God becomes a respecter of persons. And we know he isn't that, because he tells us he isn't. But once you allow for such a thing out of God's sovereignty, you run great risks of greatly damaging people's ability to understand God's nature, and even for people to hate him for such a misunderstanding.

[bchandler]

FWIW . . . I think its very logical to think that God has every right to do whatever He wants without our questioning Him, and that whatever He does is right, whether or not we agree, or even begin to understand.

I think that is solid Scriptural doctrine, found all over the Bible. God is Sovereign, all His ways are Righteous, and His ways are above our ways. We all know these verses.

While I think that there are doctrinal errors in the Calvinistic view of election/predestination, I don't think these errors are the equivalent of thinking that Allah is the true god, nor do I think that those errors make God somehow the same as Satan.

I do not believe that the correct understanding of election/predestination is required for one's salvation. We don't have to understand everything to be saved, just our need for Jesus, Who He is, what He did. Therefore, we need to treat this as an "in-house debate", between brothers and sisters who equally love God, who equally reverence and worship Him.

Rant over . . . for now . . .

Love in Christ,
Mark

Well said.

For what it's worth Mark, I agree with you. The only issue with your comment is that you do not address the fact, that there are some things that God absolutely will not do, and can not do and continue to remain God!

Since God is indeed sovereign and can do anything he wants, without answering to anyone, he could choose to do things that would put his status as God, and his worthiness to be worshiped in jeopardy, but he won't. Some would even say that he can not, but is a self-imposed limit, not a limit on his being. How many times have you heard that God CAN NOT sin?

So... If i can trust God at his word, he tells me he draws all, that he desires to save all. So.. if not all are saved... then there is a self-imposed limiting factor that God has decided that he will not violate. So, by his own sovereign will he has determined that there are some things he CAN NOT do, and maintain his glory, and Godhood.

[bchandler]

ACIB,

to just give you a simple straight forward answer.

I think the first thing God restores to every man is the ability to believe and choose him. That singular, all important free-will choice is given to us be the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

IMO, when we really get our total complete free-will back is when we are Baptized with the Holy Spirit. Once our mind has been renewed, and we have put on the mind of Christ our free will is completely restored. I also think that putting our old sin nature to death in water baptism is part of that process of restoration.

Every picture we see in the word of baptism after Pentecost and the 2 initial outpourings on the Jews and Gentiles is one of immediate urgency for the believer to be baptised in water ASAP and then to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit immediately there after.

This is why I get so worried when a "believer" tells me they have never been baptized.

[AndCanItBe]

Thanks, bchandler!

[mark s]

.

In the interest of full disclosure, here is where Dr. John MacArthur discusses God's love in relation to the non-elect:

Does God So Love the World?

Love is the best known but least understood of all God's attributes. Almost everyone who believes in God these days sees Him as a God of love. I have even met agnostics who are quite certain that if God exists, He must be benevolent, compassionate, and loving.

All those things are infinitely true about God, of course, but ...

More at link, above.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I missed this post the first time through.

I had in mind what I read in MacArthur’s book, The Love of God, chapter 7, “The Love of God for the Elect”:

So while there is a genuine sense in which God’s love is universal in its extent, there is another sense in which it is limited in degree. The love of God for all humanity is not the sort of love that guarantees everyones salvation. It is not a love that nullifies His holy abhorrence of sin. It is not a saving love.

The Magnitude of God’s Saving Love

There is an even greater love of God, however, that does accomplish the salvation of sinners. It is a special love, bestowed from all eternity on those whom He has chosen as His own. God’s love for those who believe – His love for the elect – is infinitely greater in degree than his love for humanity in general.

Page 129

Love in Christ,
Mark

[mark s]

Brandon wrote:

One of the verses that always bothered me as an Arminianist was the following one from Acts, where Luke gives a little commentary to the Gentiles receiving grace:

48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Hi Brandon,

Finally getting a chance to respond!

I had wondered about this verse myself. On the face of it, it seems to support the Calvinistic view of election.

This isn’t the same word as “predestined”, nor it is the same as “foreordained”, not using the prefix indicating this was done in advance.

But if Luke were writing with the notion that their salvation was foreordained, then isn’t this self-evident, that those pre-appointed to eternal live believed? That is, unless you are bringing in the idea that some might not be appointed to believe yet. Of course, we do know that not everyone responds to the Gospel the first time they hear it, so I imagine that you must have this in mind already, that people are appointed to believe at different times, and these happened to believe the first time.

All in all, this passage gives a descriptive clause in an historical narrative. There is no statement of who appointed these to eternal life, how they were appointed, or when they were appointed.

Acts 13:46-48
(46) And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
(47) For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, "'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'"
(48) And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Commentators are split over the intended meaning of this verse. But being that “appointed” lacks the prefix “pro” – in advance – then I don’t see how this distinguishes between the Calvinist view of pre-selection, and the Arminianist view of prevenient grace, and that as they rejoiced at the good news that salvation was for them too, God gave them the ability to believe and receive, and as many as God gave this to believed.

Albert Barnes, who agrees with your point of view, I believe, even so, wrote:

(3) It does not properly refer to an eternal decree, or directly to the doctrine of election - though that may be inferred from it; but it refers to their being then in fact disposed to embrace eternal life. They were then inclined by an influence from without themselves, or so disposed as to embrace eternal life.

There is nothing in this passage that tells us whether or not this could have been resisted, or whether is was resisted in other people at other times. This isn’t expressing the sort of “eternal decree” that some people make it out to be.

That Luke makes the statement could imply that at other times it was in fact resisted, and so this occasion was noteworthy.

OK, I’ll have to continue later . . .

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Keeping Alert]

For the record.. .i have never said God is worse than lucifer... I have said that certain points of view render him to be something worse than lucifer... which is why I will never allow such things to go unchallenged.

God didn't just want to save a few... he wanted to save as many as possible... but i see nowhere in scripture where he forces anyone to choose him... Not man, not the angels, not anyone. Even the angels had the ability to fall.

Through Adam's sin his descendants were rendered incapable of choosing God's way. We essentially lost our free will and became slaves to sin. From what God tells us about his nature in God's word... his entire plan was to restore our ability to choose, and to make a way of escape for those he foreknew would choose him.

That approach is the only one I have ever seen that preserves God's character as a righteous judge, and a holy God. Every other approach I have ever seen has to use God's sovereignty as an excuse for his behavior. While God is sovereign, there are some things he simply will not do, because to do them would destroy his Godhood.

KA, for the record.. I see your view point... I just consider it to be deeply flawed, and quite possibly even demeaning to God. Fortunately he doesn't seem to get to worked up about things like this. I on the other hand do have a tendency to get worked up when people say things about God's nature and character that could cause an unbeliever to possibly scorn him.

Hi bchandler,

I was wondering whether I should reply or let it pass. But let me speak my thoughts.

I see this debate which dates back at least 500 years to be unresolvable because we are not God and we really do not know how He functions. You may think that the Calvinism (by the way I am not a full TULIP Calvinist) undermines God's character, but I can assure you that there are lots of Godly people out there and in history who are Calvinists who understand the bible and God more than us and find that Calvinist's views do not in anyway dishonor God.

And this being so, I think we should be careful with our words. You may debate with all your heart that your view is right and indeed I respect that. But when you repeatedly say that the Calvinist's view is making God to be worse than a Lucifer, is that a little uncalled for? I don't know about the rest, but when you say this to a Calvinist, would it not generate unhappiness that you are calling his God a Lucifer? Would it not cause a schism within the body of Chirst - one that worships God and one who worships God who is worse than a Lucifer in the minds of those are taught under you? And if you say this to an unbeliever, does he not take a step back rather than a step forward towards God (for he thinks in his heart - hmmm, there are 2 groups of Christians - one who thinks they worship God, and another who thinks they worship God but who is actually worse than Lucifer)

You are doing a great job defending your stance regarding election but IF you could just leave out the unnecessary comment, it would be perfect!

btw - an unbeliever would scorn anything about God. It is not because we paint an "acceptable" picture of God that the unbeliever accepts God (that is what the churches now try to do - come to God and he will give you "Your Best Life Now"!). It is because of his sin and his need to repent of it. Deeper still, it is because he loves Christ who loved him first... And I think that is all that is needed for the unbeliever to grapple and me thinks that the Holy Spirit needs to specifically help such a one at such a time...

Blessings,
KA

[bchandler]

Well said KA, and I agree with you in principle. I just have a very hard time allowing people to espouse views, though not a salvation issue, that would give anyone cause to accuse God. Or would potentally give them a nudge the wrong way.

Some people are so hardly won to Christ, and are so sensitive to having their perception of God damage their faith, I think it could very well be serious enough as to cause some to fall-away.

But then Calvinists don't believe that is possible either because they believe OSAS, and anyone who falls-away was a false convert.

So, yes, I wish I could be more gentle about it. But I don't know how to do so, and still be true to what God has shown me.

When a particular point of view, when carried to it's logical conclusion, makes God the source, actuator, initiator of every evil thing that has ever happened. If God made Lucifer for destruction, and the 3rd of the angels that fell with him, then the fall of man was planned and instigated by God, for his own glory. If God planned/created evil beings, then he is responsible for their evil. If God planned the fall of man, then he is responsible for it. If we have no free-will then every person perfectly fulfills God's will. If none of the preceding is true, and God only chooses people he likes to be saved, without any particular criteria, he becomes a respecter of persons, which is a sin. If he is in any way arbitrary about who is saved and who burns, he would have sinned... which is not possible. If he in any way judged those he arbitrarily chose not to save, he would have sinned, and been unjust in his judgments... which is not possible.

This is why I grieve so greatly when people say these things, and why I marvel that learned men of God could so completely fail to understand the implications of their views. A view point about God that says he can violate his own rules, instantly makes him responsible for all sin. That's a big problem. Because it means his sin would be greater than lucifers. This is a huge deal, and I admit I don't know how to deal with this gently... I don't know if you can deal with it gently. Sometimes I think it is simply necessary to boldly declare, stand, and contend for truth, and realize that some are always going to be offended by it.

I am going to say something here that may shock a lot of people, and trust me, i am not trying to be sensationalist or shocking... just as bluntly honest as I can be.

If I get before God and find that the Calvinist view of predestination and OSAS are true, and my interpretation of God's character and nature both expressed and implied in his word is wrong... I don't know how I could ever spend eternity loving or worshiping such a God. It would be such a betrayal of everything I have come to believe about him that I don't think I could ever abide it.

[Abiding in His Word]

Wow, bchandler..... what does that say about the wisdom of God?

[AndCanItBe]

If I get before God and find that the Calvinist view of predestination and OSAS are true, and my interpretation of God's character and nature both expressed and implied in his word is wrong... I don't know how I could ever spend eternity loving or worshiping such a God. It would be such a betrayal of everything I have come to believe about him that I don't think I could ever abide it.

Yeah, wow, bchandler. If the Calvinists have it right, then that makes you more righteous than God and you're going to judge Him and reject Him?? Be careful here, bchandler. Is our faith supposed to be in our interpretation of God, or in God Himself? He said He is just, therefore He is. Period. No matter our understanding or non-understanding of it.

[Keeping Alert]

Hi bchandler,

I personally think it is good that you had honestly expressed yourself. I believe that everyone has a picture of what a perfect God we worship. Those qualities like love, mercy, righteousness, holiness, etc are not disputed among us. However, in each of our mind (and while in the flesh, tainted by sin no matter how renewed our thinking be) we have a slightly different definition of what that love, mercy, righteousness, holiness, mean. God is Love. No one disputes that - but what that means - is debatable.

And so I constantly keep in mind that while I strive to study as much as I can about God and His Word, I am still fallable. So what I do is that I major on the major such as salvation matters; and minor on the minors. Which does not mean that I do not make stands on "minor" issues. For example, I am basically a Pre-tribber, OSAS Calvinist. And since I recognise they are not major issues, I tell those who want to know, my reason for my belief but would not hesitate to say that I am not 100% sure.

So I would encourage humility in our thinking. I personally suspect that all of us do not have the last say on this issue -only God knows what He is doing and as ACIB said - He is just, period. And as you also rightly believe, that while God could do anything, He will not contradict His character. So rest in the thought that the God that you worship, deserves your full worship and MORE, whatever the truth on this matter may be. And when you finally meet God in heaven, prepare to continue worshiping and glorifying Him, because I believe that the truth on this matter will leave each and everyone here totally glorifying Him even more.

So hold on to your views on this matter. You may be right but as we comprehend our own humanity which we know to be fallable, give a little room to say that I am willing to accept that I can be wrong and if it turns out to be the case, this God that I worship rather than falling below my standard, is actually far greater and glorious than what I previously thought.

Blessings,
KA

P.S. When I meet you in heaven, I believe we will patting each other back quite a bit - haha, to think that you thought that, and you will say to me - haha, to think that you thought that too - and we will have a good laugh while at the same time glorifying our God who is immensely better than we can think Him to be now.

[mark s]

Another passage critical to the understanding of salvation is in John:

49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. 50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Hi Brandon,

I’m not following you here. How does this verse (above) teach Calvinistic election and predestination?

In our tremendously individualistic culture, we ascribe any reference to salvation to individuals, but this also applies to people-groups and nations. In two of the Synoptic Gospels, the Great Commission is said to be done to all nations, or peoples. I think, therefore, that it is a valid interpretation of those passages that talk about "All men" is to apply that to people groups (since God has clearly stated that members of all people groups and nations will be present among God's people) as opposed to individuals (because clearly the majority of people will be condemned). One could also say the term "all men" is referring to mankind as a whole; not every single person, but our race in general.

Are you asserting that there can be “national salvation”? I know that this will happen for Israel when Jesus returns, however, is this taught for any other nation?

Matthew 28:18-20
(18) And coming up Jesus talked with them, saying, All authority in Heaven and on earth was given to Me.
(19) Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(20) teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen.

Mark 16:15-16
(15) And He said to them, Going into all the world, preach the gospel to all the creation.
(16) The one believing and being baptized will be saved. And the one not believing will be condemned.

Luke 24:47
(47) And repentance and remission of sins must be preached on His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Acts 1:7-8
(7) And He said to them, It is not yours to know times or seasons which the Father placed in His own authority;
(8) but you will receive power, the Holy Spirit coming upon you, and you will be witnesses of Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.

These are the places that Jesus gave instructions to the Apostles concerning their apostleship.

“Disciple all nations, baptizing them . . .”

“Go into all the world, preaching the gospel to all creation . . .”

“. . . must be preached in His Name to all the nations . . .”

“. . . you will be witnesses of Me both in Jerusalem . . . to the end of the earth.”

So the question is here, what was Jesus telling His Apostles to do? Was it to disciple and baptize nations, or individuals in all nations? Can literal nations be baptized? I don’t see how that’s possible.

So the idea is that when Jesus said “disciple all nations”, He was saying, “go to all the nations, and disciple the people of those nations.

Does this give us the authority to substitute “men of all ethnicities” for “all men”?

Following are some passages that speak of “all men”, concerning sin and salvation. Which of these should be understood as actually “all men”, and which of these should be understood as not actually “all men”?

Acts 17:30 “Truly, then, God overlooking the times of ignorance, now strictly commands all men everywhere to repent,”

Romans 5:12 “Because of this, even as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned.”

Romans 5:18 “So then, as through one deviation it was toward all men to condemnation, so also through one righteous act toward all men to justification of life.”

1 Timothy 2:3-4 “For this is good and acceptable before God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of truth.”

1 Timothy 4:9-10 “Faithful is the Word and worthy of all acceptance; for to this we also labor and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Savior of all men, especially of believers.”

Titus 2:11 “For the saving grace of God has appeared to all men,”

Does God command “all men” to repent? Or “some men of all nations” to repent?

Did death pass to “all men”, or “some men of all nations”?

Are “all men” condemned, or “some men of all nations”?

Does God desire “all men” to be saved, or “some men of all nations”?

Why “yes” to some of these, but “no” to others? Does that use a consistent hermeneutic?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[mark s]

Brandon wrote:

And of course, it all comes back to Romans 9, one of the most devastating passages of scripture I've ever read. Every argument against God's sovereign choice in the matter of election is utterly defeated by this one passage.

Hi Brandon,

Without yet getting into a detailed exegesis of Romans 9, I’ll repeat that I don’t for one moment question whether or not God is completely and independently sovereign, making whatever choices He wishes to, and that His choices, above all others, stand.

God is perfectly righteous and justified in choosing whatever it is He wants to choose. He can and does choose whom to regenerate, and whom to reprobate. It is His choice alone, and no one can countermand what He chooses. I have absolutely zero argument against that doctrine.

In your words, God has the right to do what He wants with His creation.

So then, if your presentation concerning Romans 9 is to demonstrate that fact, I am already in complete agreement with you.

Where we disagree, I think, is concerning the criteria God uses for His choosing.

I am asserting that God has published His criteria for choosing one person and not choosing another, and that criteria being whether or not a person will receive His Son Jesus, whether or not a person will believe what God says or not. I believe that you are asserting that this is not God’s criteria, and that His criteria is in fact unknown by us.

One place this is seen is in John:

John 12:37-40
(37) But though He had done so many miraculous signs before them, they did not believe into Him,
(38) so that the Word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he said, Lord, who has believed our report? And the arm of the Lord, to whom was it revealed?
(39) Because of this they could not believe, because Isaiah said again,
(40) He has blinded their eyes and has hardened their heart, that they might not see with the eyes and understand with the heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

They did not believe, then they could not believe.

The same thing will be true at the end of the age:

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
(9) His coming is according to the working of Satan in all power and miraculous signs and lying wonders,
(10) and in all deceit of unrighteousness in those being lost, because they did not receive the love of the truth in order for them to be saved.
(11) And because of this, God will send to them a working of error, for them to believe the lie,
(12) that all may be judged, those not believing the truth, but who have delighted in unrighteousness.

You see the same activity being true of Pharaoh when you study his story. God confirmed Pharaoh’s chosen position against Him. God raised up Pharaoh (in Exodus 9:16, “made you stand”, that is, subsist through the previous plagues) for two reasons, that he would see God’s power, and to declare His Name in all the land. Nothing in either Exodus or Romans declares it was for eternal salvation or condemnation.

Following the story of Pharaoh in Exodus, after God said He would harden Pharaoh’s heart, 6 times Pharaoh hardened his own heart, until finally the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart. After that, once more it says that Pharaoh hardened his heart, and 7 times the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

God chooses whomever His will, but He tells us what His criteria is:

John 1:12-13
(12) But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name,
(13) who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Keeping Alert]

John 1:12-13
(12) But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name,
(13) who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

doesn't verse 13 confirm that man cannot find anything within himself to believe in Jesus Christ? You cannot find it in his blood, nor in his flesh not in his will to do this act.

My thoughts on "did not" and then "could not" - that is exactly what a righteous judge would do. You see, God had to wait for their action before prescribing a punishment on them. God knew Adam would sin but had to wait for Adam to commit the sin before he punished him.

So yes, all of us "did not" believe at one time and God in His sovereignty, could and should have punish us with the "could not" but out of his sovereign mercy, he chose to have mercy on those He would have mercy, and changed that "could not" into a "could" and here we are calling ourselves children of God, born truly of God.

[Swayde]

John 1:12-13
(12) But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name,
(13) who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

doesn't verse 13 confirm that man cannot find anything within himself to believe in Jesus Christ? You cannot find it in his blood, nor in his flesh not in his will to do this act.

My thoughts on "did not" and then "could not" - that is exactly what a righteous judge would do. You see, God had to wait for their action before prescribing a punishment on them. God knew Adam would sin but had to wait for Adam to commit the sin before he punished him.

So yes, all of us "did not" believe at one time and God in His sovereignty, could and should have punish us with the "could not" but out of his sovereign mercy, he chose to have mercy on those He would have mercy, and changed that "could not" into a "could" and here we are calling ourselves children of God, born truly of God.

In my opinion that is just a matter of God, in all of His Magnificent Wisdom, knowing how to tell the difference between fertile soil and un-fertile soil.

[mark s]

John 1:12-13
(12) But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name,
(13) who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

doesn't verse 13 confirm that man cannot find anything within himself to believe in Jesus Christ? You cannot find it in his blood, nor in his flesh not in his will to do this act.

Hi KA,

Not if we stay with what the passage is actually saying.

They were born of God. They were not born of human descent, nor by the choosing of the flesh, nor by any human choice, but born because God gave them rebirth. They did not obtain rebirth by any of these other means.

The statement made in verse 13 concerns being born of God, not believing in Jesus.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Keeping Alert]

Hi Mark,

This "born of God" seems to relate to what Paul is saying in Galatians 1:15, 16

But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles,

Seems the dice has been thrown for Paul while he was a fetus in his mother's womb... set apart, called, revealed...

Blessings,
KA

[mark s]

Hi Mark,

This "born of God" seems to relate to what Paul is saying in Galatians 1:15, 16

But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles,

Seems the dice has been thrown for Paul while he was a fetus in his mother's womb... set apart, called, revealed...

Blessings,
KA

Are you saying that Paul was "born of God" before he was born?

How is this not addressed in Romans 8? God predestined those He knew in advance.

BTW, you are arguing from the particular to the general. John 1:12 gives the general principle. This does not change when applied to Paul's particular example. Especially when we consider predestination.

Foreknowledge comes first, then predestination, then calling, justifying, and glorifying.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Keeping Alert]

Hi Mark,

Therefore, our understanding of "foreknowledge" differs. For God to preview history in order to discern our response to the gospel, and then act accordingly, would make the creature sovereign over the Creator.

To understand Romans 8:29,30, I think we have to go up a verse up.

And we know that all things work together, for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

2 things I would like to point out:
1) In verses 28-30 - the key word here is the word PURPOSE. All the others (foreknowledge, predestination, etc) arise out of the purpose of God and our understanding of them must be in consort with God's eternal purpose.

2) Notice the term "THE CALLED". It is not in the general sense of "many are called but few are chosen" but in a specific sense of those who comprise the family of God. By extension, since there are "The Called", then there are the "NOT CALLED" in this world. There is a general calling but there is also a specific calling that we have to recognise.

My understanding of foreknowledge of His people is more than just a basic understanding of them. It is the knowledge a father has of his child. God knows and loves the world, but His foreknowledge of His own is an intimate knowledge that results in an abiding love for us that draws us to Him in Salvation.

And therefore, verse 28 continues on to the end of the chapter - that nothing can stand against us because we are in-Christ. Why? Because we are THE CALLED according to HIS (not our) PURPOSE.

Blessings,
KA

[mark s]

Hi Mark,

Therefore, our understanding of "foreknowledge" differs. For God to preview history in order to discern our response to the gospel, and then act accordingly, would make the creature sovereign over the Creator.

Hi KA,

This is where I see a presupposition coming in. How exactly does this make the creature sovereign over the Creator?

Let's say, for the sake of the argument . . .

God created everything and everybody, for the purpose of having a family made up of only those who are willing to be in His family.

This is His creation, and if that's the way He wants it, that's the way it's going to be. God is completely sovereign.

By God's sovereign decree, you must be willing to receive Jesus, or you will not be saved.

Now, naturally, God knows in advance who those will be who will agree with Him about sin, and believe in Him, and so God engineers their lives to make them like Jesus.

Personally, I don't see any conflict with God's sovereignty. This was His choice of how it was going to be.

For those He did foreknow, He also did predestine . . .

Love in Christ,
Mark

[mark s]

btw . . . my understanding of the definition of foreknowledge,

prognosko - foreknow - is "to know in advance", to know beforehand

Of the two primary words for "knowledge", gnosko and epignosko, the latter is the greater degree of knowledge, the former a more simple form. Prognosko is, of course, from the former.

[Keeping Alert]

Now, naturally, God knows in advance who those will be who will agree with Him about sin, and believe in Him, and so God engineers their lives to make them like Jesus.

Hi Mark,

I do see this as God revolving Himself around us. I know that He loves the world and wants all to be saved etc. But He is God. My understanding of how God functions and works is that we are created to revolve around Him and not the other way round.

Yes, we can say that He set the rules and that is what makes Him sovereign and that God comes around to serve those who will turn to Him through His foreknowledge. That to me seems a little less sovereign than I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.

And back to the term "The Called" Ho Kletos. I think this is quite significant. I may be wrong but it speaks to me a specific calling. It is not a general calling that man responds to. It is to me a calling to man that did not and will not respond and therefore, such are called "The Called".

Blessings,
KA

[Keeping Alert]

Now, naturally, God knows in advance who those will be who will agree with Him about sin, and believe in Him, and so God engineers their lives to make them like Jesus.

btw, I think this is a presupposition that perhaps you can help to address?

As natural man,

We are dead in trespasses and children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3; Col 2:13)
Cannot receive nor know the things of the Spirit of God (2Cor 2:14)
Without strength and enemies of God (Romans 5:6-10)
Bondage to the flesh (1Cor 2;11)
Cannot please God (Rom 8:8)
All under sin and under bondage of sin (Rom 3:9-12)
and many more...

How can natural man "agree with Him about sin, and believe in Him"? I see not...

Blessings,
KA

[mark s]

Now, naturally, God knows in advance who those will be who will agree with Him about sin, and believe in Him, and so God engineers their lives to make them like Jesus.

Hi Mark,

I do see this as God revolving Himself around us.

Hi KA,

I don't see that. Its all about conforming us to what He wants us to be, and He has to do it, because we can't.

I know that He loves the world and wants all to be saved etc.

Really?

Does God actually want all to be saved? Does He want everyone to be saved to the same extent, in the same way, as real for the one who will ultimately reject Him as for the one who will receive Him?

But He is God. My understanding of how God functions and works is that we are created to revolve around Him and not the other way round.

Of course! Its His way or the highway, as the saying goes . . .

Yes, we can say that He set the rules and that is what makes Him sovereign and that God comes around to serve those who will turn to Him through His foreknowledge. That to me seems a little less sovereign than I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.

IN what way? Because in the one case, His criteria is revealed, and in the other case, it is hidden? Unless, of course, you are considering that His choice is purely random.

He's simply telling us who it is He will have mercy upon, that's how I see it.

And back to the term "The Called" Ho Kletos. I think this is quite significant. I may be wrong but it speaks to me a specific calling. It is not a general calling that man responds to. It is to me a calling to man that did not and will not respond and therefore, such are called "The Called".

However, as this is a part of what has been predestined according to foreknowledge, it follows from "for those He did foreknow, He also did predestine". Just as being justified is a special, specific and certain action, it follows from "for those He did foreknow, He also did predestine".

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Keeping Alert]

Unless, of course, you are considering that His choice is purely random.

Hi Mark,

Nope. His choice is not purely random and perhaps in the process of this discussion, this is perhaps most important to clarify because it does appear that the Calvinist view supports that.

God does not do anything without wisdom and justly. As all of us will agree, God is morally pure and high and cannot be faulted in any of his dealings. Therefore, predestination is not random. There is a morally sound reason for God to specifically call one and not the other. The fact of the matter is that it is not due to our actions in time. There is nothing within us that we had done, are doing or will do that makes one man better than the other for God to choose that way. So if it is not due to our "blood, flesh or will", it is the "will of God" and "born of God" and that reason is SECRET and not revealed. It therefore, appears random because we do not know the reason. It is very different from saying it is random which means there is no reason. There is a reason but we do not know it and it is pointless IMO to peer into it.

Therefore, I hold on to this view and considers God totally righteous even though I do not know His reasons for choosing me. On the other hand, I see the total deprivity of man and cannot in any way see how God could have foreknown any who would have chosen God and not his own selfish will...

Blessings,
KA

[bchandler]

I am so tired of seeing that "He will have mercy on whom he wills" horse beaten to death. It is such an abused, misused, and misunderstood passage.

Again, the idea BEHIND that statement that Paul makes is that God chose to have mercy upon Moses because of his earnest desire for intimate relationship with God. Go read the scripture... that's what it shows... and please stop abusing the statement without using in the correct context... the context of the story Paul was referencing...

God's Hardening of Pharaoh was a direct response from God to the works of him and his kingdom, and their rejection of God and their abuse of Israel. It was a direct response to the national choices and works of Egypt.

God's mercy shown upon Moses was a direct response to the choices and works of Moses, and the desires of his heart.

It is not random or arbitrary or capricious as people keep making it out to be when they throw around that "He will have mercy on whom he wills." quote in such an irresponsible manner.

[mark s]

Unless, of course, you are considering that His choice is purely random.

Hi Mark,

Nope. His choice is not purely random and perhaps in the process of this discussion, this is perhaps most important to clarify because it does appear that the Calvinist view supports that.

Hi KA,

Where do you find this teaching in Scripture, what God's criteria is for how He chooses? How do you know its not random?

God does not do anything without wisdom and justly.

Is randomness intrinsically unjust?

Doesn't the concept of justice involve, intrinsically, the idea that the result of that justice is fitting to the object of that justice?

As all of us will agree, God is morally pure and high and cannot be faulted in any of his dealings. Therefore, predestination is not random. There is a morally sound reason for God to specifically call one and not the other. The fact of the matter is that it is not due to our actions in time. There is nothing within us that we had done, are doing or will do that makes one man better than the other for God to choose that way. So if it is not due to our "blood, flesh or will", it is the "will of God" and "born of God" and that reason is SECRET and not revealed. It therefore, appears random because we do not know the reason. It is very different from saying it is random which means there is no reason. There is a reason but we do not know it and it is pointless IMO to peer into it.

Again, I return to some very clear Scriptures telling us God's criteria. This is no secret. As many as received Him (Jesus), to them He gave authority to become children of God. Whosoever believes on Him shall not perish.

But I think you are taking this bolded part out of context. That refers to our being reborn, not our receiving Him.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Keeping Alert]

I am so tired of seeing that "He will have mercy on whom he wills" horse beaten to death. It is such an abused, misused, and misunderstood passage.

Again, the idea BEHIND that statement that Paul makes is that God chose to have mercy upon Moses because of his earnest desire for intimate relationship with God. Go read the scripture... that's what it shows... and please stop abusing the statement without using in the correct context... the context of the story Paul was referencing...

God's Hardening of Pharaoh was a direct response from God to the works of him and his kingdom, and their rejection of God and their abuse of Israel. It was a direct response to the national choices and works of Egypt.

God's mercy shown upon Moses was a direct response to the choices and works of Moses, and the desires of his heart.

It is not random or arbitrary or capricious as people keep making it out to be when they throw around that "He will have mercy on whom he wills." quote in such an irresponsible manner.

Hi bchandler!

Unfortunately, I beg to differ...

Let's read Ex 33:18,19

And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

God is proclaiming His name YAHWEH. We know of I AM THAT I AM. Here God is revealing a lesser known name of HIS. It is the same sentence construct. I WILL BE GRACIOUS TO WHOM I WILL BE GRACIOUS, AND WILL SHOW MERCY ON WHOM I WILL SHOW MERCY.

Moses is asking to see God's glory. God replies by giving HIS NAME!!! Indeed, God is saying to Moses, if you want to see my glory, understand my name!

Now taking the 2 names from Ex 3:14 and now in Ex 33:19 - the former reveals that peculiar existence of God that he is without anything outside Himself determining his personality; the latter reveals that peculiar dealings of God that does without anything outside determinining his actions.

Reading the context of Chapter 32, 33, you will understand this truth. God was planning to destroy Israel and Moses was praying to God to spare Israel not because of their worth but because of God's worth (32:11-13). God relents and a portion of Israel is killed. God then says he will send his angel before them (32:34)

Here comes the highpoint in the story. Why an angel? Because God will destroy them if He goes with them because they are a stiff-necked people!!! (33:3) Moses refuses and says he will not go if God does not go with them (33:15) God relents and then says "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious and will show mercy on whom I will have mercy."

Moses understood that there is something within God's glory that will cause Him to lead a stiff-necked people to the promise land. It was not based on Moses' worth nor on Israel's worth but based on His glory - the glory that is revealed in the name that reveals that God does what He does without any input or outside influences from His creation.

And therefore, just as you cannot accept the Calvinist view, I cannot accept that God previewed history and knew who would come to him and arranged things to encourage that decision. That would be taking away from His glory (for creation cannot determine His actions) and as I mentioned before, It is all about His glory. Jesus came to die on the cross primarily for that glory. It took me 10 years as a Christian to realise that and 10 years on, I am still grappling to put His glory into focus in my everyday life.

Blessings,
KA