Did Jesus come to save us ALL or just a FEW?

I’m of the opinion (and I could be wrong – and my theology could be flawed) that in John 3:16 it says “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (Yup I think it’s two versions crossed over but you get the point right?) Okay so in the middle it says whoever, it doesn’t say the rich middle class who can afford nice clothes to wear to church or the homeless crazy guy up the street. WHOEVER that’s you, me, the postman, the milkman and the popstar you can’t stand but everyone else seems to love. I kind of use this argument when it comes to Christianity and being gay (and the more I try and explain it I seem to get myself more tied in a knot so I might come back to that one!)

Predestination always makes things messy lol. Again just my opinion. Then again PD always got my brain fuzzled – if God knew that when I was in Year 6 at school I was going to lose most of my friends because of a rubbish decision I made would he have made some sign etc to stop me making that rubbish decision?? Then again he knew that I was going to do it but because of freewill he left me to screw up or do to the right thing or because of that event and losing my friends that made me the person I am today because I learnt from it right?

Quite a randomly organised post, but I’ll take the bait – and a really good, provocative  way of opening up the issues!

As a Calvinist who evangelises, I see the 5 points as being the engine in the car of the Gospel. Let me explain. I don’t understand how my car works, but I drive it and use it and abuse it and it serves its purpose. The Gospel is far beyond my comprehension – like the engine of a car – but it is completely fit for purpose, amazing, and inclusive in ways I don’t understand. I see the Doctrines of Grace as explaining why some people respond and some people don’t, and that this fits into  a majestically massive view of God’s kingship, or sovereignty.

I’ve been a Calvinist since I became a Christian – and will probably remain one. Calvin’s Institutes was the book that made me intellectually convinced of the Gospel – and remains one of my favourite books. The picture of God painted there – for me, at least – is the greatest and most biblical one I have found. I’m doing my Dissertation on Calvin – which frequently ends up with tidbits on my blog. A recent example was a post on “Calvin on Doubt” - http://admiralcreedy.blogspot.com/2011/11/calvin-on-doubt.html which explored Calvin’s view of Doubt in Faith (in contrast to the monolith most people see Calvin as).

Thanks for this post, I hope my comment is not irrelevant!

Hmmmm….questions of free will and predestination. Great for a Monday lunchtime!

I wouldn’t subscribe to the 5 point calvinism noted above, but I have tended to lean towards the predestination route. You’ve hit pretty much all the key scriptures I have in mind when thinking about the subject. But all practical purposes, I don’t see there’s anything wrong with just sayng “I don’t know.” It’s as honest an answer as I think there is.

If predestination is correct, it’s not my job to say who is and isn’t chosen. It’s God’s. So I might as well preach the gospel to all. There is, of course, the question of what might distinguish predestination from God being in some way ‘outside of time’ and simply knowing who will accept the gospel and who won’t. But free will is not something I have time to write about before lunch finishes at 2pm! 

The danger as I see it is supposing the idea of predestination is wrong. What then? If we choose not to educate the world about the person, death and resurrection of Jesus but keep it hidden, what might happen to the person in the street who we ought to have witnessed to? It’s a bit of a reverse Pascal’s wager, I suppose.

‘Now I like Total Depravity, but I also like Unconditional Election. But which of them is better? Only one way to find out …..’ :D

I first came across the concept of Election in a John Wimber talk at New Wine. As a new Christian it went against the teaching that had got me to that point – that God loves all of us and we choose to follow Jesus. 

It still doesn’t make much sense to me in terms of evangelism – Wimber (who was a persuasive speaker) explained that we have to reach out to everyone because we are commanded to make disciples and we don’t *know* who’s elect. to me, that makes evangelism a test of our obedience rather than an act of love on God’s behalf, and that doesn’t really motivate me even half as much.  
 

I think a lot of the markers of the debate are often set out wrong, and I think Christmas is a great time to recognise this. So often we frame the debate in terms of God’s abstract will in eternity, yet the Bible gives us the story of God actually becoming incarnate in time and space. 

Therefore, before we event start to think about predestination, we need to think about what we mean about incarnation – do we really affirm that in Jesus of Nazareth, God was incarnate as fully God and fully human. If that is so, we need to think about what this says about humanity. 

I would suggest that it says that all of humanity was lifted up by Christ because Christ was the fully sufficient Second Adam who lived and died as the perfect model of obedience to God, in our place and on our behalf. This can only be so because Christ was true representative humanity (following the patristic Fathers ‘what is not assumed is not redeemed’). 

Therefore, when we are talking about predestination, we are talking about the God who in Jesus was the Elected One of God also suffering the Rejection of God so that all humanity (think of the use of the word ‘flesh’ throughout the Johannine corpus, for example) could become elect in Christ. 

When we think (in what I would argue is a Biblical way) from this perspective, then the whole terms of the debate change and we can finally begin to do some useful theology ;-)

The theology og Election in Clavinism is rubbish, nobody preached this in the early church before Augustine. Augustine introduced predestination by suggesting that God ordained some to be saved, Calving followed on and suggested if God predestined some to be saved, then he must of predestined some to damanation, introducing Double Predestination. Beza developed Calvin’s theology further by suggesting that if God predestines some to salvation and some to be lost, then God must be the author of sin. This Calvinistic belief in Predestination, ultimetly leads to this sick and twisted conclusion. This belief in predestination (That God damns some) has not come from the biblical exegesis, but from the exegesis of Augustine who was steeped in Neo Platonism and interpreted the bible through this system. Calvin was nothing but a writing commentary on Augustine and so was beza. Check out the writings of a man called Jacob Arminius. Shame that most leaders in evangelical church and most worship leaders are Calvinists E:G “God commands my destiny”. No he does not, that would make him a control freak!

Any talk of election has to be “in Christ” – always focussed on him doesn’t it! God has chosen for sin to be punished in Christ, for people to live in Christ. All on him. Makes Christmas firmly about Jesus not about whether a person is in or out… all are called to come to Christ, and can…

Thanks Tom! Great comment.
I try to be slightly ‘over the top’ in the way I present blog posts, to stir people to think and to discuss. So I know it’s a bit of a caricature and not written very systematically…it’s aim is just to get people to dive in.
Glad you have! Your thoughts are really helpful!

I believe in conditional predestination = the predetermination of the
destiny of individuals is based on God’s foreknowledge of the way in
which they will either freely reject Christ or freely accept him.  The invitation to salvation is tor all, but not everyone will accept.

Wow I had no idea Wimber was into that! I went to a Vineyard for 7 years and didn’t know. Fascinating! Thanks Pam :)

The first time i heard about predestination, i rejected it but the more i read my bible the more it fits and the more i looked at my own testimony the more i saw it as vital.

Predestination naturally has a bad rep to us in the West just because we love our freedom and right of choice. But we do have free will and in our fallen state we wont choose God (in a way our right for choice condemns us). Predestination means that God is willing to save his enemies by revelation of Him even when we reject him he is willing to reveal himself.

Tim Keller says that salvation is like walking through a door walking towards it looks like you’re making that decision and once you walk through the door you look back and realise he made that decision for you.

I dont question if i should or should not evangelize, i should out of obedience but also i have no reason besides being loved that i was saved, and since i have no reason above anyone else its very humbling and leads me to want to share it with others.

my main reason though is that its taught in scripture and though we may like or dislike it, it is there.

Really like your posts  Vicky, especially the feminism one :)

God bless you 

Weird that Grudem’s views on women didn’t shape the Vineyard values on women, eh?

We conservatives tend to blame that on the beard. Or maybe the 60′s elements. You know, because we try to be “cool” (says the Calvinist at Trent Vineyard…)

Hi Vicky,
I think that “all or few” is a false dichotomy, actually, and that you’ve (unintentionally, I assume) set up a strawman.

Sorry for this long comment, but it’s a pretty in-depth subject (and one I wrestled with for a long while some time back)

 If you subscribe to the Calvinist perspective of “predestination”, then Jesus was born not to offer each of us the chance to be rescued, but only a handpicked group that he foreknew.

This is not reformed theology as I’ve understood it. Perhaps some hold to this, but predestination as I understand it is about God choosing who he will bring to saving faith – that does not mean the offer is a false one – all who will turn in faith will be saved. God makes sure his elect turn in faith. Take John chapter 3 with the famous vs 16 – yes, God offers salvation to whoever will turn in faith, but see what Jesus says to Nichodemus:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is nborn oagain2 he cannot psee the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born qof water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 rThat which is born of the flesh is sflesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.3 7 tDo not marvel that I said to you, ‘You4 must be born uagain.’ 8 vThe wind5 blowswwhere it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Before we can even see the kingdom to put faith in it’s king, we have to be born again by the spirit (regeneration) which blows where it will. Why do we need new birth to see the kingdom? because of total depravity – i.e. because we are dead in our sin, and blind to the truth about Jesus. If this is true, it can only be the sovereign work of God to make us alive again – to remove the blindness to see who Jesus is. It is, as Newton put it, amazing grace.

3. Limited Atonement (Jesus only died for this small hand-picked group).

I also think this is innacurate. I personally don’t like the term, because it’s misleading (as this shows!).  In fact, and this is crucial to my understanding, both calvinism and arminianism “limit” the extent of the atonement. I would go so far as to say they both affirm the sufficiency of the atonement for all, yet, in both view, not all are saved. Calvinism “limits” the effect of the atonement to those whom God sovereignly calls. Arminianism limits is to those who by their free will come (more on that in a moment). Both the calvinist and the arminian will ususally admit that God could have saved everyone, but doesn’t – the calvinist will say it is because of God’s sovereignty in ‘having mercy on whom he will have mercy’, while the aminian will say it is because God values free human choice. When I read the scriptures, I don’t see “free will”, I see a sovereign God. I see people who’s wills are rebellious and enslaved to sin who always choose darkness over the light. To create, as I understand Arminianism to do, a kind of semi-regeneration where God brings us out of depravity just enough to make a ‘free’ choice, not only seems lacking in scriptural support, but seems to require a kind of neutrality in terms of influences that makes the choice arbitrary. However, while I don’t think the bible teaches ‘free will’, I DO think it teaches free agency and responsibility. We are responsible for our choices, even if our will is enslaved to sin. And in the reformed view, we willingly choose Christ – it is “irresistable” the same way caramel slice is to me – I’m not forced, rather God changes my heart and the will so that I will run to Jesus for salvation in joy, willingly.
So I don’t think that Calvinism ignores any of the “arminian” verses you cited (and I’m wary of proof-texting in this debate).
But what about God’s desire for all to be saved? I think John Piper’s piece Are there two wills in God deals helpfully with this, by looking at Jesus (who, after all, makes God known to us) – on the one hand, killing Jesus was the greatest sin in history, and yet, it “pleased” God to crush him – what I think that shows is that God can decree something that he doesn’t desire for a greater purpose. Therefore, I don’t think that God’s desire that all men be saved means he hasn’t decreed to elect people. Again, Arminianism has the same problem that not all are saved, so God must hold something else over this desire (free will).

What about evangelism? Again, Piper – see his book “Let the nations be glad”, or think about the great pioneers of modern mission, like Hudson Taylor. Reformed theology gives assurance that God will save people from every nation tribe and tongue. If Calvinism can spur on the modern mission movement like that, I suspect your perception of Calvinism and it’s relation to evangelism is not quite right.

My interpretation of God’s foreknowledge is that he sees from the perspective of eternity and so knows everything that will happen. In that sense, he knows who will and will not choose him. But I find it impossible to believe that he limits the ability of some to choose him.

Two things here – I don’t think you can avoid the implication of ‘fore ordaining’ with divine foreknowledge. Take the way Peter talks of God’s foreknowledge (“prognōsis“) in his Pentecost speech (Acts 2) and how it is clearly tied to the plan of sending Jesus.  Or see what Peter, again, says in his 1 Peter 1:20 that Jesus was ‘foreknown before the foundation of the world’ (“proginōskō“) This is the same word that Paul uses in the famous Romans 8:29 passage, which is written to assure believers who are suffering persecution. It doesn’t make much sense to write and encouragement to persevere and endure with assurances based on what the believer has done. It makes a whole lot more sense to write such encouragement based on what God has done. 
Unfortunately the pastoral context is often lost in this debate, but I think it’s vital as it’s the context in which the NT talks about election.
It’s also the same word Paul uses to talk of God “foreknowing” Israel in Romans 11, which clearly is not a matter of foreseeing them loving him.

To my mind, Arminianism makes God subject to human will, and doesn’t properly account for the spiritual blindness and deadness of humans. I don’t like the term ‘calvinist’ as I’ve never read Calvin, and he didn’t come up with it, and I don’t really like the way it’s “simplified” into TULIP, and I really dislike the way this debate often turns ugly (a result of the lack of pastoral context) from both sides, and certainly don’t think it’s a salvation issue at all.What does is mean for Advent? I think it means that the long planned and promised messiah was sent to save his chosen people, and we can be sure he will achieve that. The offer stands for all will take it up.

1. Total Depravity (Sin taints everyone… not to the full extreme but to some extent)

I think it means not that we’re totaly bad but that it affects every part of us – we’re not as bad as we could be. 

This is an impossibly hard question… in other words, I believe God both preordains AND we have free will. Don’t ask me to explain that because my brain will explode (and trust me, that’s a sight no-one wants to see.)

I once heard Dick Lucas preaching on Romans 9 (all about predestination). One of the things he said which will always stick with me is that in the Exodus story, half the time God is described as hardening Pharaoh’s heart. Half the time Pharaoh is described as hardening his own heart. Dick said that some people try to push it one way and say we all have absolutely free will, other people try to say God controls absolutely everything all the time… he said that in the end, both were true. (Hope I haven’t misrepresented him there.)

I think part of the problem is that it’s often presented as “Calvinism vs Arminianism” – the verses that Vicky picked I think are the usual verses used to defend both positions. It seems to me that the Bible affirms both are true, and it also seems to me that this is a paradox which must be held in tension. (Like so many things in the Christian life! – are we living in the Kingdom of God now, or is it not yet? – well, they’re both true).

Apologies for the most fence-sitting post ever, but I think often people say “you must believe EITHER this or this” when in fact I think they’re kind of both true, in a brain-melting way. That’s not really helpful either, but just my perspective on it :)

That might be part of why he isn’t the theologian of the vineyard anymore…

How do you relate to the Thomist position?

Aquinas states ”[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect.”, echoing 1 Tim 4:10. 

Paul also talks about predestination, and it doesnt make God control freak, it makes God a Father who pursues those who run from him in order that they make get better than what they deserved. 

Wow Vicky, it takes a lot of guts to open up a topic like this. You have my respect :)
I like writing stuff down as lists, so here’s what I believe:
1. I believe that God is loving and gracious
2. I believe that one of the greatest gifts that He has given to man is choice
3. He will not force you to do anything you don’t want to do, so if you choose not to believe in Him, He will let you live with that choice and it’s consequences (which are really bad)
4. I take the great commission literally. God sent us out into the world to make people His disciples, and then John 3:16 applies to those who believe. Why would He send us into the world to waste our time telling people about Him when they have been predestined for eternal damnation?
5. Hebrews 6 talks about people who were believers, but have “fallen away”. They cannot be brought to repentance again. Were they when part of the chosen ones (because they did believe) or not?

God bless !

Always with the PSA :-) 

Hi Vicky,  Let me start by saying I admire your music.  I first saw you at Kingdom Bound at Darien Lake and knew immediately that God had placed a gift to praise Him in you.

As a first year seminary student I am currently working through the Reformation in my History class.  I have read in detail the writings of John Calvin.  The conclusion I have come to is that  I cannot reconcile how God could predestine only some for salvation.  In no way do I see this in keeping with His character of love or as righteous judge for that matter.  Predestination erases all compassion from the sacrifice of Jesus.  Faith without hope or choice becomes just a rote work.  

I’m reluctant to put my hand up to a particular camp but do adhere to the TULIP points, or close to, after much study and years of deliberation and prayer. I do appreciate there are implications, but also know we can’t understand everything God does. What I won’t subscribe to is lazy Calvinism: I will preach the Gospel and labour that people might be persuaded through relationship or divine opportunity, knowing that He does the hard work – opening blind hearts to His Son through His Spirit, when and how HE chooses. It’s an adventure with God at the helm, not man…

(Also: what Dave Bish said ;) )

When it comes to “predestination,” are we interpreting that correctly?  When God “predestines” something, my understanding is that he purposes it in his heart.  God plans, and he makes covenants — much like legal transactions, yet more potent.  He puts his own name on the line (“for my name sake”) and holds to ALL his promises.  Using Eph 1:5, Rom 8:28-30 and 1 Cor 2:7 as examples, we may see God’s heart a bit differently:

(Eph. 1:5, NASB) — “In love He [purposed] us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,…”
* God has every intention to adopt those who believe in Christ as “sons of God.”  His adoption is irrevocable.  Everyone is invited but few will accept his offer.  Jesus spoke many parables about this.  It’s amazing when we realize God set up this adoption process back in Genesis!

(Rom. 8:28-30, NASB) — For those whom He foreknew, He also [purposed] to become conformed to the image of His Son, and these whom He [purposed], He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified.”
* God has every intention to conform us to the image of Christ.  That is his plan for those of us who believe in him.  Our salvation is not an ends to the means — its the beginning.  Our likeness of Jesus is the ends to the means (sanctification).  So we should rejoice when we receive God’s discipline because it means he considers us his children.  Paul explains this in GREAT detail.

(1Co. 2:7, NASB) — “… but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God [purposed] before the ages to our glory; …”
* Those of us who are in Christ will learn the secrets of God’s kingdom.  Because we are his children, Father God is more than willing to share with us secret wisdom (when we ask) that rulers of this age cannot understand.  The question remains, though, how much are we seeking God’s kingdom?

If we look at predestination as a salvation issue, I believe we’ll fall into a deadly trap because it bears a false witness to God’s character.  It makes God look like he shows favoritism, when we know that is not His character.  God’s heart is that no one perish but have eternal life, but there will be many who will reject him.  For those who do not believe in Christ, I pray they will “taste and see that the Lord is good” and desire to come under his grace-filled authority.

My view?
Believe like a Calvinist – it all depends on Him ultimately (phew!)
Preach like an Arminian – people need to respond so be persuasive.
Anthony

Vicki, Good post. This issue has been one I have been studying for over 30 years. In my masters degree course at Regent University with Dr. J. Rodman Williams we attempted to show the following:

Both
Calvinism and Arminianism affirm predestination in relation to salvation: those
who believe do so as a result of God’s prior decision and action. Both agree
with the words of Paul, “Whom He predestined, these He also called; and
whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also
glorified” (Romans 8:30).

However,
Calvinism holds that since predestination precedes salvation (that is, calling,
justification, and glorification), only those whom God has predestined, or
predetermined, can be saved. The
doctrine of unconditional election as affirmed particularly by Calvinistic
churches declares that salvation is wholly God’s doing (100% God- 0% man). He
elects those whom He wills unconditionally, and man has nothing to contribute
to it. This, I believe, is an extreme view of the sovereignty of God that
leaves nothing to the human decision.

 Arminianism goes back to Romans 8:29 that
begins, “Whom He foreknew, He also predestined,” and holds that God’s
act of predestination depends on His foreknowledge of those who will believe.
On that basis, He predestines them to salvation. Calvinism stresses that
salvation is the result of God’s decision prior to our faith; it is in no way
based on our believing. Arminianism, to the contrary, holds that only those who
believe are predestined to salvation 100% man – 0% God). (See Renewal Theology,
2: chapter 1, “Calling.”)

 

Both
I submit are incorrect in their emphasis. We may well begin by quoting the
words in Ephesians, “God chose us in Christ before the foundation
of the world. In love He predestinated us to adoption as sons through Jesus
Christ to Himself” (1:4-5 NASB). Hence, predestining points to the
same prior action of God, with the emphasis more particularly on God’s
sovereign action in choosing. Notice in Eph. 1 the phrase “in Him”, or “in
Christ” or “in whom” in the context of God’s sovereign action in salvation. The
Bible clearly reveals that the New Covenant was not cut with a mere human but
with Jesus Christ who is God-Man (100% God; 100% man with no mixture nor
separation—See Council of Chalcedon).

Thus,
God chose Christ His only begotten Son to be the means of our salvation. His
predestining was in Christ and thus the phrase, “…he hath chosen us in Him
before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame
before Him…” (Eph. 1:4). Thus, God’s eternal decree was made in Christ (100%
God’s grace) and those who believe (100% man) enter into Christ where the
predestination or election is to be found.

Predestining
also points more directly to the end to which we are called. Later in Ephesians
1 Paul speaks of our “having been predestined according to His purpose…to
the end that we…should be to the praise of His glory” (vv. 11-12). Having
noted these things-the broader meaning of God’s sovereign action and the larger
meaning of direction-we now observe that the word “predestine” may
serve for “choose” or “elect.”

This
is illustrated in Romans 8:28-30. Paul first speaks of calling: “those…who
are called according to His [God's] purpose.” He then proceeds to say,
“For those whom he foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the
image of His Son…. And those whom He predestined He also called….” The end
of this sequence is glorification: “Those whom He called He also
justified; and those whom He justified He also glorified.” Again, both
God’s sovereign action is stressed-quite strongly through the whole sequence of
events-and the ultimate intention: glorification.

It
is important (in the light of many misinterpretations) to observe that the word
“predestinate” is never used in the New Testament to refer to
anything other than the arena of salvation-as we have noted, adoption as sons,
living to the praise of God, glorification. Accordingly, a view of “double
predestination”-a predestination referring to death and damnation as well
as to eternal life-has utterly no basis in Scripture.

Election is not understood as a limitation that only so
many can believe – as if God’s grace were discriminate – but that all who do
believe have their faith grounded in eternity in Christ. To say that “God chose
us in Christ before the foundation of the world” means that He reprobated
others and, thus, pre-ordained their death (Calvin) has no place in Scripture.
There is no double end-One to salvation and one to damnation. This does not
mean that there is no death or damnation, but such does not belong to God’s
predestining action, which refers only to the general arena of salvation.
Freedom to choose is a special mark of human nature. If it is to be genuine freedom,
there must also be the possibility of wrong choice. Punishment inevitably
follows from such a choice, not as an arbitrary act of God, but as resulting
from the way things are in a moral universe.

Thus,
God’s election stands in close correlation with faith. The elect are those who believe in Christ. God surely has
the priority-He initiates, but there must be the response of faith. We are
elected by God as believers in Christ. Without faith there is no
election. Unconditional election too much omits the human side. There is a
proper way to put it. Rather than to say that we are predestined (elected) to
become believers, we should say that we are predestined as believers.
There are always two sides interchangeable: God and faith, God’s sovereign
action and our choice. AS an analogy, prior to becoming Christians we stand outside the door of salvation (Jesus is the door!) which on its mantle states, “…whosoever believes shall have eternal life…” When that person believes he enters through that door and upon looking back at the door above the mantle on the inside it states, “chosen before the foundation of the world.” Yes, prior to coming to saving faith God through His sovereign grace draws us and gives us faith through the working of the Holy Spirit and the operation of His Word. Both work together not either/or but a both/and.

Thus,
the errors of passivity on the one hand and arrogance on the other, are avoided
in this view. The doctrine of calling is balanced only in Christ, specifically
in His nature as God-Man. It preserves the essential doctrine of the Sovereignty
of God while at the same time the necessity of man having and exercising faith.

Thanks again for a great topic!

Paul G.
Arizona

OK, So here’s my thoughts – with a lot of input by the Fab Greg Boyd.

When we use language such as ‘chosen’, ‘elect’, ‘pre-destined’ – There is an entire 39 books that uses the same language in a different context which help to explain what Jesus means in NT.

Who is chosen in OT – Israel (A group of people, not individuals)
The church, people of God are the chosen people in the NT.

‘Many are called but few are chosen.’ – This means that many/all are invited but few actually enter because only a few actually respond / enter. Those who choose to follow are ‘the chosen’

Ephesians 1 – Don’t read with an individualistic lense.

EG – I could have ‘pre destined’ a year ago that I would comment on this blog. But I didn’t pre-destined that everyone here would also comment but instead whoever sees the blog and chooses to comment.  God is saying ‘Come all’ but only those who CHOOSE, receive the eternal life.

With Jacob & Esau – we think individually. But…
Jacob (Israel) – God loved. 
Esau – (Edom) God hated. 

They represented two communities. Corporate categories.

I think there’s certainly merit in the ‘corporate’ view (my sotierology lecturer advocated this view), but I tend to think it’s a “yes, and..”. The OT also has individuals chosen. Besides, it’s doesn’t account for the depravity problem, to my mind. I don’t see why we necessarily ought to read Ephesians 1 in a corporate sense only; after all, vs 5 is very individualists talking about becoming sons..
Perhaps a bit unfairly, I tend to get the feeling that much of the ‘corporate’ lens is a matter of not wanting it to be the reformed way so finding another way to make it work (though we all, of course, have lenses!)

The thought I always return to in this debate is that when we are standing before God in heaven we all will be blown away by his majesty and his absolute  just-ness.We will see crystal clearly that all His decisions relating to salvation, including who has or has not been saved, are at every single point totally right! It is part of the Christians hope I think. We can rejoice that we worship and belong to such a God.  

 I recognise this is an over-simplification of it, but that’s what the ‘regular punter’ unfamiliar with it will see.

It’s not an oversimplification, but rather a distortion. I don’t know any calvinists who hold to a view such as you have described, so I don’t know how “regular punter” would come away with that view except that it’s sometimes perpetuated by those opposed to reformed theology. Take the hymn “Amazing Grace” – that was written by a calvinist, so how can you say there’s no grace in that view?? Of course we can disagree, and discuss disagreements, but I don’t think that such demonising and accusations of destroying grace are at all helpful or conducive, sorry.

 http://youtu.be/5Rcq7Qmpb6k

Andrew, I am sorry if I came across that way, I certainly wasn’t intending to be ungracious or disrespectful, and if it came across that way I am sorry.  I wouldn’t say I was demonising – Calvinists are perfectly entitled to their view and to express it. But the way it comes across to me is simply that God’s love and forgiveness is conditional, and that you only get into His kingdom if He wants you there, and grace exists only if you’re in that select group. Yes, I am over-simplifying it, but that’s what it boils down to, which is why I cannot agree with it. Unconditional love and grace means just that – no conditions. God gives us the choice to follow Him or not, it’s not all just down to some divine whim. I wasn’t accusing anyone of destroying grace – but the calvinist view simply doesn’t display unconditional love and grace – it’s conditional. So grace exists – but it’s conditional grace, which contradicts the very definition of grace from my perspective. I hope we can agree to differ and be respectful – I was not intent on destroying or victimising, or wanting to disrespect the view, but I simply don’t agree with it and I feel it presents a false and limited view of God. People can disagree with me, and that’s fine, but that’s how it seems to be.

My Belief goes along with what you said near the end… In our very limited view of reality to the here and now, everyone has the ability to receive Gods gift of salvation. In God’s whole view of all time, He already knows who is going to come to Him and who isn’t. It hurts the head to try and think that through, but basically God knows the predestination of people but we do not and cannot, so as far as we can tell it is free will.

The “corporate” view is merely an attempt to escape the realities of God’s sovereignty, but it still doesn’t solve the problem.  If God really does save only “groups”, then the question remains:  how does one become part of the “group”?  Which is really the same question we began with: how does one become saved?  It doesn’t answer anything really.

Vicky, as a musician you might appreciate Shai Linne’s poetic summary on the logic of Jesus dying for His “elect”.  :)  Either Jesus actually saved people when He died, or He just died hoping that someone might believe in Him and be saved, which means nobody could have ended up saved, even though God “tried”.  It’s pretty interesting… check it out:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ_jFO2VzRQ 

I think God sees the whole process of our lives in a bigger dimension than we understand – He is both within the moment of our lives, but also knows what we will decide and what will happen. He has such grace for us, it’s amazing. God sees the whole story of our lives and intervenes and becomes part of that to help us know Him and see Him and become the people He made us to be, He journeys with us through it. The more complex side, maybe we don’t need to understand – maybe that’s God’s job not ours, and we can just allow for the mystery. :-)

Generally whats true corporately is true individually isn’t it.
Christ loves us as the church (Eph 5) and he loves me (Gal 2:20).
In either case our attention is meant to turn to Christ.

You can tell a lot about what a persons theology is really about from their worship songs.

If John Newton believed in TULIP his was an attractive flower to produce such theology… but then Charles Wesley wrote some beautiful songs too from the other side of the debate…  and George Whitefield and John Wesley preached fruitfully from either side too.

Charles Simeon had an interesting take on this:

https://wordandmusic.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/against-the-golden-mean/

I would like to suggest that when worship leaders use phrases like “God commands my destiny” that they can be doing so from the perspective of absolute surrender and not necessarily calvinist doctrine. If we are bought at a price and not our own, then to say that God commands our destiny as a sacrifice of our will to accomplishing what he would have us to do is a legitimate phrase to use. This is possibly the most difficult aspect of writing excellent worship music (feel free to weigh in here Vicky!) To convey theologically correct truth in so few words, leaving out abiguity, in a way that is easy to sing and flows, without resorting to cliche expressions and enables the congregation to express their worship to their creator. Phew! What a mouthful.

Very valid point. Thanks Brad.

Right – time to keep reading. :)

Thanks Dave :) Agreed. Complex though!

My church holds mainly to the Calvinistic point of view. I personally haven’t chosen a side at this point, because I just don’t know. But one thing that I do find fascinating is that my church doesn’t really have an outreach program, and we don’t really talk about practical ways of sharing the gospel… It’s not something that’s addressed with urgency very often. The gospel is what our faith is built around, yes, but it’s something that is kept indoors or left to individual members to share with their family and friends as they will. I would contend that this goes along with the rigid Calvinistic mindset, but I could very well be wrong. Perhaps those who attend other churches that have a strong belief in Calvinism have had a different experience.

While I am a HUGE fan of Calvin and I agree with most of his teachings and doctrines, I cannot stand the 5 points. They are a post-Calvin response to the 5 points of Arminianism. Seems a bit like the Darwin fish as a response to the Ichthus if you follow my parallel. I have to agree with Dave Bish’s post earlier with the breakdown of the points. That is the way I understand them, I’ve just never been able to put it so concisely.

Biblical doctrine is such a difficult thing to discuss because of the mystery and beauty surrounding it. It’s like looking at artwork. People will perceive it differently because it holds different meaning to everyone. Just because I feel loneliness when I look at a white canvas with a single red dot in the corner, and you feel hope doesn’t mean that we aren’t celebrating the same piece. It’s the diversity of the spectators and the conversations that arise that make the art so beautiful and elegant. As the body of Christ, we don’t merely spectate, we live the art that is the gospel. While I see the gospel one way, and you see it another, we are both seeing Christ and His Glory.

I’ve always found it pointless to argue over the issue of Election over Free Will because no matter what you believe, you need to turn your life over to Christ. Regardless of if it was God’s choice to save you, or your choice to allow Him to save you, you need to repent of sin, you need to fellowship with other Christians, and you need to make disciples. That is the Gospel. While we argue over seemingly petty issues like this, the lost are perishing and our brothers and sisters in Christ are stumbling and losing faith. 2 Timothy 2:14 is a verse that I am constantly convicted with when I want to argue these issues.

Thank you for posting this blog Vicky. It is rare for someone who is not a Calvinist to give a fair shake to those of us who are. Your treatment of the scriptures and your thoughts are compelling and well worth dwelling upon.

The key point is that those God forsore he predestined. It would be pointless preparing a place for someone whom he new for a fact would not accept the call. Paul writes in Romans 2:15 that the law is written on our hearts, we know right from wrong, I know it would be evil for God to create someone with no hope of salvation and God is not evil. Romans 9 is often taken out of context where Paul is talking about nation not personal salvation also at the of that chapter Paul state isreal did not attain righteousness due to lack of faith not lack of selection. The point remains that God wants all to be save 2Pet3:9 I’ve heard it argued that God has 2 wills but for me I feel that it unbiblical and I don’t think God is Schizophrenic. Calvinism takes lots of one-liners out of context which is a dodgy premis for any theology especially whe there are dozens of passages which talk about belief being the route to salvation not being pre-picked.

Predestination is unfair and egoist . How God could choose only a few people and sends all the rest  to hell???? If  GOD  loves all of 6 billion…..

“Chosen by God”, by RC Sproul, is a very informative, thorough, and easy to read book on this subject that you might enjoy reading.  Also, the book “When Grace Comes Home” by Terry Johnson is a good follow up to that.  Blessings to you as you enjoy the adventure of pursuing the God of the Bible, who first pursued you! :)

A God who justly sends sinners to hell, but lovingly saves some in the process, is not a just or loving God?  What am I missing?  The question is always “If God can save some, why doesn’t He save all?” but in reality, the more appropriate question should be “Why does God save any at all?”.  

And secondly, what do you do with Eph 2:8 which clearly states that we were dead in sins, and the faith that saves us is not even from us, but is actually a gift from God?

I would agree with that Mark, I’m thinking more along the lines of God’s sovereignty V human free will. “God commands my destiny” could be interpreted as I have no obligation to obey God, because my destiny is fixed no matter what I do. I believe we can miss our destiny through lack of obedience. E.G When Moses struck the rock, God told him because of his disobedient action he would not see the promised land.

Dave, you have turned a very clear understanding in it’s original explanation historically and by Vicky here (even though she has simplified the theological concepts) into something different than what they actually teach. Irresistible grace does not mean that “Jesus is beautiful and those who become Christians find him to be that”. It means that those who are predestined by God before time began cannot resist the grace of God or better stated they have no choice in the matter” Grace cannot be resisted by the chosen because after all they are the chosen. Equally, limited atonement means that those who are predestined to not be saved or a part of the elect can never be saved and will never be saved. If you are a calvinist at least be forthcoming about what Calvinism actually teaches and not play it down.

Total depravity means among other things that even a good act of man a part from salvation through grace is nothing but filthy rags, depraved. We are all separate from God and can only escape our fallen state of depravity by being saved through Jesus finished work on the cross. 

This is a great comment that actually has loads to do with God being merciful, loving, generous, forgiving and patient. It bring us to the question why did he kill everyone on earth except for the only righteous person left? The preservation of the only saints left and the future of humanity on earth is the reason that God in his incredible mercy judged evil humanity. The Bible says that all their thoughts and imaginations had become nothing but evil and that Noah was the only righteous guy left. If God did not do this we would not be alive today and millions of Christians in heaven would have never even been born. If we consider this perspective we understand that the FLOOD was of course the judgment of God but also one of His greatest acts of mercy. It makes me love God, respect his necessary judgement and appreciate his mercy. What do you think about this?

The key question is: how does our position on this issue affect the way we live? 
It’s nice to think that God has chosen us – that feels special. It makes us feel more secure in his love. 
It is also helpful to approach the world believing that God desires all to turn to him and be saved. 
Can we hold both positions in tension like this?

Very interesting blog!  Thank you!  I have a friend who recently became a calvinist, and I found his view really upsetting.  It is interesting that only those who think they are “the elect” claim to be calvinists.  Only those “in the club”.  How could God create any of us destined for hell?  God is love and love is above everything.  I know that we could say “His ways are higher than ours” and justify this decision to determine certain people from birth to eternal concious torment.  But I cannot in anyway accept that there are only certain people to who God’s grace is open to.  Even though the Israelites were chosen, there were non-Isrealites God “chose” along the way; Rahab and Ruth for just two examples.  When Jesus came He challenged the “in club” by preaching about the Good Samaritan and challenging the Pharisees at every turn.  Surely that should be our response also…?

Or better to ask, how could so many people see God holding out his arms in love toward them, and inviting them into the community of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to live in a renewed world where everything is put to rights… and walk away…  God has made the first move and yet so many refuse his warm invitation. No easy way of explaining that.

I believe both sides have right, it all just a matter of definition or communication. This message opened my eyes how things could look like: http://marshill.com/media/religionsaves/predestination

What about gensis 6, Jeremiah 17:9?

ok all of this is way over my head, so i’ll keep it simple. God is God. Who are we to judge any of it, but we are human so we do. God came to save ALL. Doesn’t matter if you are predestined to be saved, or have gone away from God or are lost completely, God came to save all. By God’s Grace we are alive. God is standing with His arms wide open and a lot of us by free will are running the opposite direction choosing hell. Why because we are stupid and don’t always know a good thing when it’s there. Theory and doctrine and denomination should be chucked out the window. It seems to complicate everything. God simply said believe in Me. When you look at Who God Is all else is worthless. Beholding is becoming. 

I have an idea…let’s get some of these “theologians” off the Internet and out talking to people brining them to church preaching the gospel to them…however you want to reach people do it.

Guess what this debate won’t matter when billions of people are burning in hell.

Find someone that doesn’t know Jesus and talk to them stop wasteing time!!

In the grand scheme of things we don’t know who God chooses do choose someone and hope God choose them too. To many times we argue/debate over these things like rapture, version of bible, style of worship, and other issues that don’t matter…love people, love Jesus preach Jesus and let him take care of the rest!

Yeah, so my brain pretty much hurts after reading all this. Fascinating stuff and well-presented, but I just can’t wrap my head around a God who would send His son to die and only offer it to “some”. I believe that God does know who will believe, but I definitely also believe we have free will and He did not decide who WILL believe. I’m not nearly smart enough to delve in deeper into some of the debate, but I appreciate the thoughtful discourse. Great job as usual, Vicky!

I have some questions in my mind since i was a little girl. 

1)God created  and predestined lucifer to be “the evil”??????

2)God created and predestined adan and eva to eat the thing?

3)God see the future, why He created lucifer , adan, eva and all the rest?

4)I was predestined to write this??

Please,if you have answers reply me  lol.

Vicky,

I found it fair after my tweet yesterday to let you know exactly why (At first), I did not find it worth my time to be a part of this debate. I felt I needed to explain myself further. 

My biggest frustration was that it felt like you gave a very large (and quite fragmentary) view of the 5 points of Calvinism. While “technically” you are correct, a Calvinist would argue that they were not defended justly by any means. 

It would be compared to you asking me what it takes to operate Disneyland, and I told you “We’ll you just take tickets at the gate”. Meanwhile, I have left out the millions of tiny details that it really takes to operate a massive theme park (from marketing, to parking, to insurance, to maintenance, to staffing, etc….)

This is a complex debate that has endured centuries with no definitive conclusion and to try and spell it out in a few sentences is not fair. Especially when you are trying to spell out the other side of an argument when you already have thoughts and emotions tied to it, that are not particularly flattering toward that teams thoughts.

You also painted the “5 points” in a very negative light. For instance, under the “Unconditional Election” line you wrote in parenthesis (God has hand-picked a group of people to be saved). I could say the same thing this way: Even though he God has every right to justly send all humans to hell for an eternity, He was completely gracious to many. Fairness would have been for him to all send us to hell immediately. Grace went above and beyond. Writing it in that light, it would take some of the sting for people who are reading this for a first time. 

One of the comments that disturbed me was when you said “But I find it impossible to believe that he limits the ability of some to choose him.” The reason this bothered me is because it is all personal opinion at that point. There is no Scripture to back up why you believe that. It is based on an emotional stance (which I do not blame you for at all), but there is much Scripture that would be contrary to that. 

In addition, your #5 point says “everyone God has hand-picked will be saved”, when it reality (to a Calvinist) it just means that you cannot lose salvation. He who is faithful to begin a good work in you….. In addition, if Psalm 3:8 is correct (Salvation belongs to the Lord), than it is not our salvation to lose in the first place, but God’s. 
 
I would like to suggest that you dive into a leading “Calvinist” and spend hours listening to what he has to say. John Piper has a great resource in DVD format called “T.U.L.I.P”. It does a great job unpacking, over the course of about 20 hours, the 5 points of Calvinism. I struggled with this for years, and after watching that series, I cannot see the Bible pointing in any other direction. 

I would liked to have seen you approach this topic in a different direction. You can usually tell the way a person feels about a topic, by the way they describe the opposite view. While you usually do a great job leading the discussion in a helpful and fair way, I feel like on this one you dropped the ball. 

However, I am sorry to have initially commented so abruptly. I should not have done that. And for that I apologize.

Much Love,
Heath

I appreciate this post. As a fairly recent Arminian turned Calvinist I can certainly empathize with the emotional aspect of the debate. What it came down to for me was the question: “if the Bible teaches it, would I believe it and worship the God who revealed it.” If we answer yes to that question then the Scriptures rightly take priority.

As I studied the Scriptures in support of Calvinism, some of which you mentioned, there was simply no other option for me than to affirm God’s absolute freedom in election. How that fits with man’s responsibility, also clearly taught in Scripture (as some of the verse you mentioned indicate), is not up to me to fully comprehend. I must simply bow to what God has revealed in Scripture and affirm all the truth he has made available to me. I conclude with these words of Spurgeon, with which I hertily amen:

“That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can clearly see; they are believed to be inconsistent, and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find
taught in one part of the Bible that everything is foreordained—that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is
responsible for all his actions—that is true! It is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two Truths of God can ever
contradict each other! I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil—but they certainly shall be
one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never
discover that they converge—but they do converge—and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the Throne of God, from whence all truth doth spring!” – Spurgeon in “A Defense of Calvinism”

Arguments such as these are precisely why I remain a Calvinist.

Vicky, unless you want to be convinced that your understanding of God’s sovereignty is incorrect, I would recommend NOT doing a web search of “selective salvation” lol.

Vicky, I must admit that I really don’t have the time in my day to read all the comments above, but I like the fact that you don’t shy away from this age old bone of contention in your original post.

So I don’t know if this has been said above, but I think that there is something to grasp that starts to bring the two apparently opposites of ‘election’ and ‘free-will’ together…

The key I think is the phrases ‘In Adam’ and ‘In Jesus’. We are all born ‘In Adam’ so inheriting Adam’s spiritual deformity of being spiritually dead towards God. Becasue I am born into this family I sin (live apart from God) because that is the family trait. When I choose to believe, my old deformed spirit becomes part of Jesus’ death on the cross. Thus my spiritual death is complete and now, being united with Jesus in death, I also share in the new life of his resurrection. I get a new heart and a new spirit and with them my identity is transferred to a new family; Christ’s family. The bible actually equates eternal life with Christ’s life, so If I share that life in my new spirit I experience eternal life. If I have eternal life, now everything is changed. I have access to eternity to come and eternity past. This then starts to make sense of the New Testiment saying both that we “are seated in heavenly places” and that we are “these whom He predestined”. If these statements are true of Christ, then now, they are also true of me, becasue I have his life in me, I am united to him.For me, this starts to bring the impossibilities of election and predestination together. Much more changed when I came to faith than I realised! In some strange way, I am in spirit, already in eternity. Do still sin? Yes, that’s the habit of my old flesh-life, the way that I learned to live before I ever met Jesus, but it’s not who I really am now – My identity has changed at the deepest and unseen level.Because faith isn’t something I can muster on my own, the question that still remains for me is why God reveals himself to some and not (it would seem) to others. Maybe between those brackets is where my misconception lies. I’m still working through that – I’ll report back when I have further insight into that one.Lastly, I can find the passages behind this thinking and I’m happy to supply them if anyone is really interested (most are in the mid-part of Romans), but like I said, I’m a bit pushed for time and I quite imagine that my post will be washed away with the rest of the flotsam of the internet.

Chuck,
I appreciate the dialogue. The website you pointed me to is simply dishonest. Calvin does not quote half of the Bible and I have never heard a Calvinist leave “in Christ” out of anything. “in Christ” is the foundation of what Calvinists believe. The only basis that makes election possible is that it is “in Christ.”

I invite you to re-read Calvin. Here is a link to his commentaries:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html

You can’t believe everything you read on some blog. My advice to you would be to check out what Calvin and other Calvinists (Piper, Sproul, Spurgeon, Whitfield, Augustine, Luther, James White, Tom Schreiner, etc.) have said themselves..not what some website thinks they say. Grace and peace.

Matt

Allegedly used the “F” word? Give me a break. Prove it! 

Chuck, you are a legalist my friend.

Jason,
I believe Jesus at His word when He says:
Matthew 12:36   But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 
Is Jesus lying or is Jesus a legalist by saying that men shall give an account of their words in the day of judgment?  Even Paul says we all must give an account to God:
Romans 14:12   So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
If it doesn’t matter what we do then why do I have to give an account?
I can’t change what will be.  I use to try to be loving and understanding by quoting Matthew 12:20 (Isaiah 42:3) “A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. “ (Matthew 12:20)  And then I read the word “till” and then I understood the verse and I stopped making excuses.
As far as John Piper is concerned, all you need for proof is a search engine.  In my opinion, an elder has to be above reproach and self-controlled:
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (1 Timothy 3:2, NIV)
New International Version (©1984)
And Paul received His teaching from God so if Paul says it then God taught it to Him:
Galatians 1:11 ¶ But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 
Galatians 1:12   For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Here is the proof from the web and you will hear or read profanity if you click on the links:
 
http://thirtythousandpeople.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/john-piper-on-the-emergent-church/
 
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/a-conversation-with-the-pastors
 
About -36 minutes (on the counter) into the above MP3, I heard profanity.
How do you know if someone is following Jesus or if someone is a fraud?
Matthew 7:20   Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 
What is the fruit of the spirit?
Gal 5:22   But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 
Gal 5:23   Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 
The reason I don’t accept John Piper is because an elder has to be above reproach and self-controlled or temperate.  My pastors have said that discipline is an evidence of spirituality and I’m studying it.
Sincerely,
Chuck

Chuck,

“For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”
(Romans 5:17–19 ESV)

According to your logic, just as all were under condemnation, then all will be saved. Do you believe all will be saved? If not, then there is a difference between the “all’s” here. If you read it in context, the difference is between Jew and Gentile. Both Jew and Gentiles were condemned under Adam, thus both Jew and Gentiles are made alive in Christ through faith. It’s all without distinguishing between Jew and Gentile, not all individuals ever. Otherwise you are making Paul a universalist.

Second, John Piper did not sat the “F-word” in that clip. Also, if you were listening closely, you would realize that he was quoting somebody who cursed at him. Your allegations of John Piper are completely unfounded and you need to repent and apologize for spreading false information about him. If there is any elder who fits the description of “above reproach” it is certainly John Piper.

Finally, you said, “As far as websites being dishonest, if we treated everyone as
“dishonest” then there would be no point in discussing or conversing
with anyone.” 

I was not saying that “all arminians are dishonest”. I simply said that the website you gave me to look at was dishonest. This is a fact that you would notice if you just did a little research. They misquoted Calvin and lied about what Calvinists believe. I have tons of respect for Wesley, and believe him to be a brother in Christ. I am simply weighing the sources I read in light of Scripture.

What you need to learn to do friend is check out information on your own and weight the evidence, rather than just take everything you hear that affirms your beliefs as true.

Two things on Piper:

1) I didn’t here the “F-word”…so you still presented false information.

2) Since when as a Christian brother do you hold something over someone else who shows genuine remorse? And since when do you get to decide what “above reproach” actually means. It seems slightly hypocritical to say you don’t respect someone who to your knowledge has said one single word that you don’t like and has publicly regreted saying it. Sorry..can’t see the Christian charity in that.

With regard to Rom 5:18, you seem to be inserting words into the text. The text says nothing about a gift to be accepted. It says, “so as condemnation came to all men…in the same way righteousness came to all men.” You also did not deal with my argument. I gave you the context and an explanation that did not even use the word elect. It sounds to me like you have a pre-supposed understanding of calvinism and you refuse to let me give my own interpretation. If you can tell me why my interpretation is wrong, and give me a positive exegetical presentation, then we can move on.

Beautifully put!

Ephesians 1:3-6 wasn’t referring to the nation of Israel as a whole? If you believed that then you would be saying that all of ethnic Israel is going to be saved.

Hi Vicki,

Thanks for your post. I did not have time to read everyone’s
responses, so this might have already been said. If it has I am sorry. I am a
Jesus-loving “5-point Calvinist”. I put it in quotes because I fear that what I
mean by 5-point Calvinist is not what most people understand a 5-point Calvinist
to be. That is perhaps a discussion for another time though! J I do want to respond
to what you specifically addressed in your post about “Limited Atonement”
though. First, I  know a lot of
Calvinists and every one of them does not like the term “Limited Atonement”. It
is only put that way because it starts with an “L” which makes for a better
Acrostic. Virtually all Calvinists I know would better term the idea as “Effectual
Atonement”, because what they are speaking of is that Christ’s death atoned for
everyone it was supposed to atone for and not for those who will never believe.
That having been said,  I think then that
you and I would believe something very similar. Let’s consider what we are
talking about. We both believe that Jesus saves the “whosoever believes”,
right? (Referring to John 3:16) The death of Christ is only effective for those
that believe, so Christ coming to earth is not good news to those who never
believe. But further than that, as you stated in your original post, you
recognize the foreknowledge of God,  that
He knows from eternity all who will believe. So if He knows all who will
believe and the death of Christ is only effective for all who believe, then it
makes sense that Christ died for those “select few” who will believe. For those
who continue in unbelief Christ’s coming to earth and death on the Cross does
nothing for them. It is not good news for them unless or until they believe. So
we all believe in “limited atonement” (or better said “effectual atonement”) in
some sense of the word. If the atonement is not limited then it is universal
and all are saved. If it is effectual then it is effective for all who believe
and not for those who don’t. So in the end I think we (both Calvinists and
non-Calvinists) are proclaiming the Good News in Christmas that Christ has come
to save “whosoever believes”! That is truly great news.

Sorry, I just found your reply today! In answer to your first question, that depends on how the process is done. I don’t think the Calvinist explanation of why God sends some to hell and others to heaven presents God as loving or just. If two drunks fall overboard by their own fault, and the captain only saves one, and could save the other but decides not to… that captain would be arrested! It seems to me that Calvinism does the same. God could righteously not send Jesus and send us all to hell – or if God is a calvinist, just elect everybody. But to arbitrarily select a minority? That’s not justice or love, imho.

Eph. 2.8-9 doesn’t say faith is a gift. It’s grammatically impossible in Greek. “This” in that verse is neuter, and “faith” is feminine. Therefore, “this”  cannot refer to faith. Most theologians see “this” as referring to the concept of “salvation.” Biblically, faith is the response to the gift from God, not the gift itself. Hope this helps!

Also.. who says it’s “arbitrary”?

R.C. Sproul puts it well – in choosing to save sinners, some get justice and some get mercy. No one gets injustice. 

Unless one is a universalist, God’s saving power (which I’m sure we’d agree is not impotent) is limited, either by God’s will, or man’s will. I see a big problem with a position that has God subordinating his will to man’s.

How is God choosing a minority of people totally at random not arbitrary. I just don’t see how Calvinism accomplishes that cliche Sproul is saying. It is inherent injustice for God to be fully able to choose someone to be saved (like Grandma), but not. Also, to say that some get justice and some mercy is a weird dualism of pitting God’s actions against themselves. Christ satisfied God’s justice at the cross, thus being saved by that is both justice and mercy. And even the unsaved have both from God – God showed mercy toward them by dying for them, but they refused it. So, he let’s them stand on their own “merits” and depravity and gives them what they deserve based on that (hell).

Frankly, I don’t see a problem with God working alongside man’s will if God sovereignly chose to create the world that way, with free moral agents. Muslims have a big problem with a position that says God incarnated into human form, because it’s “below” God. But if God contains all the virtues in himself, including humility, then I see both the incarnation and his authentic offer of salvation to all humans as God-glorifying. But you must agree man doesn’t follow God’s will when man sins. Thus, God isn’t controlling every minute detail; this doesn’t detract from his sovereignty, it’s just how the world operates.

Again, clearly, I’m simply not a staunch Calvinist. I don’t think the Bible teaches it, nor does it make good sense. But many fine Christians such as yourself think differently, and I respect such people. I just don’t respect the system.

How is God choosing a minority of people totally at random not arbitrary

Who says it’s ‘random’? It’s just not according to anything we’ve done, but according to God’s sovereign will. That he doesn’t tell us, doesn’t make it arbitrary. Jacob was not chosen because of anything he’d done, that didn’t make Israel random.

 It is inherent injustice for God to be fully able to choose someone to be saved (like Grandma), but not.

No it’s not. He can have mercy on who he wants to have mercy. Just because one prisoner gets a reprieve it does not mean the prisoner serving full sentence is getting injustice.

, to say that some get justice and some mercy is a weird dualism of pitting God’s actions against themselves. 

How?

Christ satisfied God’s justice at the cross, thus being saved by that is both justice and mercy. 

Well Jesus satisfied the just demands of the law and our transgression of it. Jesus takes the just wrath and gives mercy to those who trust in him, so that they don’t receive what justice demands rebels ought to receive. It is not injustice for some to get mercy. Injustice would be either being wrongly punished, or not receiving due reward, neither of which is happening. No one get punishment they don’t deserve (except for Jesus).

And even the unsaved have both from God – God showed mercy toward them by dying for them, but they refused it. So, he let’s them stand on their own “merits” and depravity and gives them what they deserve based on that (hell).

Right. That God sovereignly chooses to revive from spiritual death some so that they willingly choose to accept him is no injustice on those who he allows to continue to willingly refuse.

Frankly, I don’t see a problem with God working alongside man’s will if God sovereignly chose to create the world that way, with free moral agents.

I reject the notion of ‘free will’ but I do agree with moral agency where we are responsible for our choices, and that we all either willingly accept or willingly reject Christ. No one is forced unwillingly. The question is why dead sinners would ever willingly choose Christ, and from what I read in scripture, it’s pure grace whereby the holy spirit opens our eyes to see the irresistible beauty of the cross and embrace the risen Christ.

 I see both the incarnation and his authentic offer of salvation to all humans as God-glorifying. But you must agree man doesn’t follow God’s will when man sins. Thus, God isn’t controlling every minute detail; this doesn’t detract from his sovereignty, it’s just how the world operates.

Well yeah – God allows people to continue in sinful rebellion, but that does not make him responsible for their rebellion. I agree that the offer is genuine, and that all who will accept Christ will be saved. The problem, according to scripture, is that no one wants to, unless God changes their heart first.  From what I see, if we are dead in sin, then regeneration and faith must be a gift.

 But many fine Christians such as yourself think differently, and I respect such people. I just don’t respect the system.

I’m no so interested in the system. I do see the reformed sotierology as what scripture teaches, though it’s not always what I thought, and I agree that many fine Christians disagree. I don’t think it needs to be a big issue, because both sides are interested in sharing the gospel. My view is that it’s always taught in scripture as a means of encouraging the believer to persevere (i.e. because their salvation, even faith, comes 100% from God) and it’s not there to be argued as a kind of systematic theology about who is in and who isn’t.

I’m a bit late in the commenting, But, I was very interested to know how you felt about predestination. My thoughts on the subject are this. A loving god & creator who made us in his very image and loves us unconditionally would not intentionally and willfully create life to be given to his enemy and fill the halls of hell for eternity (those not “predestined”). It doesn’t compute. God loves and respects our wishes. We are given a choice even though he has read the last chapter in our book/life. And further more he knows and suffers over every soul that is lost to the enemy as he is our father. I’ve also thought it was all a bit smug to assume that one was in fact one of the chosen few. In short, I agree with you :). Yours sincerely. -David

Hi again, sister Vicky and the other brothers and sisters. I posted something, just want to make sure that I did not come across rude. What makes me think I came across rude is the “As I said” clause. I am probably paranoid about this. One other thing is that that dvd series on the 5 points of Calvinism meant very very much to me. After watching it (TULIP – 8 hours) I fell on my knees and thanked Lord Jesus for helping me through it. It took me a while before I was able to tell others about it. I thought: “Don’t tell anyone about this”, but after a few weeks I started sharing some of it with people. But, my main point is this: TRUSTING IN THE GOODNESS OF GOD is for me the key to hard texts in the Bible. So, I am coping with what was said in TULIP while I trust the LORD and believe that HE is GOOD and LOVING. His plan and His thoughts and His understanding is so infinitely beyond our understanding! To Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen! Hallelujah!

PS: Your music meant and means so very much to me! And I thank the Lord for you also and everyone who built something in me and everyone who brought me just a little closer to Him.

Love in Lord Jesus.
Jan-Louis

Jesus died so that the opportunity for salvation is available to ALL people (from the moment He died on the cross).  Unfortunately, the majority of the human race will reject the love and mercy of God because they are proud, arrogant and they love their sin more than they love Jesus.  It is very heartbreaking…….

P.s
I saw also a good debate on youtube by tentmakers777 who also have website, the video was titled ‘hell, myth or true’.
Take a peek!
Thanx
Bless.

my bible says to “avoid foolish controversies…..” and quarreling about words is “of no value, and only ruins those who listen…”      2Tim 4:14

that
“this is a trustworthy saying…
   that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men[mankind], and especially
  of those who believe”     1Tim 4:10

since only
    “the Lord knows those who are His”, and “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn
    away from wickedness”   2 Tim 2:19

so
  we must preach the gospel in season & out of season, going to make disciples of ALL nations (ie: people/language groups), baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.       Mt 28:19

  ” if you love Me, you will obey what I command”   – Jesus, according to Jn 14:15