My Essay On Predestination

[Matthan]

The following is an essay (in two parts) on spiritual predestination, and is based in large part on Scripture. It does not specifically address either Calvinism or Arminianism, primarily because both of these "isms", along with almost all other "isms", is the product of human "wisdom" rather than strictly adhering to what is found in God’s Truth. Every single "ism" is found to be fatally flawed when compared to that Truth, and brings to mind Isaiah’s warning when he wrote, "But we (every single human being) are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses (including our best displays of wisdom) are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." By ourselves, we are nothing. Without God, we are nothing. And "nothing" seems to be the very best description for all of our human-originated spiritual "wisdom."

* * *

Is there such a thing as predestination? Does God predetermine the destiny of every person, where each person will end up for eternity, or who will be granted eternal life and who will be punished with eternal torment? There are verses found in Scripture that might lead a person to believe that predestination by God is real, and is actually one of the decrees of God. But, is it?

In Romans the apostle Paul tells us:
"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. For whom he did
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,
that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he
did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also
justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then
say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared
not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him
also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's
elect? It is God that justifieth."(Romans 8:28-33)

Everything that occurs here on earth is always according to God’s purpose, regardless of what it might be. Assassinations, stock market crashes, fires, tornados, volcanic eruptions, wars, or car accidents, sunrises, and balmy breezes, they all conform to His holy purpose. But what does it mean to say that God predestinates all Christians to be conformed to the image of His Son? "Predestinate" can have either of two connotations as used here: One is foreknowledge, and the other is foreordination. There is no question that God foreknows everything. The question to be addressed is if He foreordains everything, especially with regard to ordaining some to eternal life while others are ordained to eternal damnation.

Please note that His purpose is the real and actual focal point of verse 28. Everything else in the rest of these verses relates back to God’s purpose. But, what is the purpose of God? That may sound like a strange or even a potentially sacrilegious question, while it is anything but. God does have a purpose, and it is eternal. It extends from the eternal past to the eternal future. It is so complex and convoluted to the limited reasoning and understanding capabilities of mere mortals that we are completely unable to grasp even small parts of some aspects of it. Therefore, with respect to His purpose, we must instead defer to God’s complete wisdom and just call it a mystery, and then satisfy ourselves with contemplating it only partially or segmentally by attempting to better understand what we refer to as His decrees.

The decrees of God are, at least to us humans, the basis of His sovereign purpose. They are, first and foremost, eternal in nature. They are also all holy and pure. They are all wise, and they are also completely unchangeable, just as He is completely unchangeable. We have to remember that our God has complete comprehension and understanding in all things, which is by itself nearly impossible for humans to even partially contemplate. God knows everything! He knows everything that was, and all things that are, and He is completely knowledgeable of all things that ever will be, from the instant after right now to the farthermost reaches of eternity. He even knows if there is an end to eternity, and what lies beyond it if there is. Just as importantly, God knows the causes for everything, as well as their conditions, their relations with everything else, their successions to the end and/or His determination of their certain finite or infinite future. The totality of infinite quantity and quality of facets of God’s eternal purpose is incomprehensible to humans. Therefore, everything by God and of God is, for want of better human terminology, measured and expressed in "decrees."

Why is this? It is actually quite easy to explain, if somewhat more difficult for us to understand. It is because human intellect and understanding is finite, while God’s is infinite. We have to keep in mind the nature of God in order to better comprehend the differences. First and foremost, God is a Spirit (John 4:24), which means He is infinite in every conceivable manner. He is immutable, which means He is totally and completely unchangeable. He can change His mind, and He can repent for the cause of the change, but such changes always remain within the boundaries of His eternal plan. See Exodus 32:14 and Genesis 6:6 for a better understanding of this concept. He is always fair and impartial in everything that He does, being so to suit His nature and purpose with utter disregard (but with complete understanding) for all else. He is always all Holy, being a completely righteous Entity that is without sin. He is always faithful, completing everything that He has promised He will do.(John 14:2) He is infinitely merciful, completely forgiving every single sin of those who are faithful to Him. It is an impossibility for anyone who is faithful to God (and therefore infused with the Holy Spirit) to commit the one unpardonable sin, which is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. See Matthew 12:31. He is the God of peace, always desiring and creating peace as the end product of His holy nature. (See Luke 1:78-79; 2:14; Romans 1:7; 5:1; 10:15.) And, God is love. (See John 3:16 for details.) His love is infinite, and it extends far beyond the abilities of mere humans to comprehend.
It is also extremely important to remember that God is omnipresent. He is present in all places at all times. He is omniscient, having infinite understanding of all things and regardless of any element of time as we humans might think of time. (Remember that God works outside of time. (See 2nd Peter 3:8 for a better understanding of this concept.) He is omnipotent, being completely unlimited and unchallenged in power, ability and authority. He is also self-existent, having no beginning and no ending (Note: God has NO mother).. And, as an extension of that last characteristic, God is eternal. He will never "die," neither will He ever cease to exist.

Therefore, since His decrees are the acts of an unchangeable (Psalms 33:11; Isaiah 46:9), absolute (Isaiah 45:6-7), infinite (Genesis 1:1), eternal (Acts 15:18; Ephesians 1:4; 2nd Thessalonians 2:13), and sovereign (Matthew 6:10; Revelation 21:1-3) Spirit, our ability to comprehend His eternal plan that would include all of His works of every kind and nature, from the greatest to the smallest, and from before the beginning of creation to the infinitely-extended future, and including the ends as well as the means for achieving them, the causes of His actions as well as the effects of them, circumstances and instrumentalities as well as the proceedings which depend upon them, is simply impossible. We cannot understand even a tiny minute part of His purpose, so comprehending an equally small part is also quite impossible.

The decrees of God can be divided into two general categories: permissive, and efficacious. Permissive decrees essentially means the decrees that honor those events He has determined that His created beings will be permitted by Him to effect. Individual human lives is one good example, with each person ultimately determining events in his own future. A man has an opportunity to commit adultery, and he commits the sin. Or, he does not. God is permissive, and man is thereby permitted to utilize his own sense of free will. Therefore, when considering the sovereignty and infinite greatness of God, and our utter and complete dependence on Him, true Christians should always honor and glorify His greatness and omniscience with our own complete measure of humility. After all, we are currently so sinfully corrupted that, without Him, we have no hope at all. He, by His propitious nature because of the perfect sin sacrifice of Christ as appropriate and complete atonement for our sins, sees fit to bless us with His grace. We in no way merit such an unspeakably wonderful gift, but it is ours just the same by His imputation. What reaction could we possibly display but complete humility for being given so much when we deserve nothing?

Efficacious, or effectual, decrees describe those events God has determined to actualize by His own expeditious volition. He decided to create the world and everything in it, and He created it. He decided to free the Hebrews from slavery, and He freed them. They could not, and did not, free themselves, but He could, and He did to serve His purpose. He decided to put the Hebrews in slavery, and they were enslaved. They could not, and did not, prevent their own enslavement. God is efficacious, and always to serve His higher plan, His purpose. Man has no say whatever in God’s efficaciousness.

* * *

[Matthan]

PART 2

Now the original question must be addressed. Is our eternal destiny predetermined, or an efficacious decree determined by God? Or, is our eternal destiny a permissive decree, and while God knows what our eternal destination will be, He allows or permits us to actually make those decisions in our lives that will ultimately reach that end, and all safely within His purpose?

To answer that question let us examine what "predestinate" as used by Paul actually means. The Greek word that rendered "predestinate" is used only six times in the entire New Testament, and it has the same meaning in all of them. We find in Acts,

"For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both
Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were
gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel
determined before to be done." (Acts 4:27-28)


In the First Epistle to the Corinthians we find:

"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom,
which God ordained before the world unto our glory:" (1st Corinthians 2:7)


And, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, we find these verses:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,
that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having
predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself,
according to the good pleasure of his will," (Ephesians 1:4-5)

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated
according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of
his own will:" (Ephesians 1:11)

Notice that the word is only used with reference to God’s plan regarding our eternal salvation. In every one of those six verses the word translated to "predestinate" enjoys the exact same meaning. And, in each verse it means that God’s sovereign, eternal, unconditional and immutable decree or "determinate purpose" governs all events. God knows who among all the humans that ever lived on earth will be saved eternally because that is part of His nature, but it is not a certainty that He does cause or predetermine which of those individuals will be saved eternally as part of His decree. His specific decree of predestination, if it does exist, remains a mystery to us.

The first cited verse from Ephesians offers a good example. That God predestines or preordains all Christians "unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself" is a certainty that no believer would dare to question. But, does God predestine or preordain individuals to become Christians? The second verse cited from Ephesians offers the same conundrum since Paul is talking to Christians who definitely are predestinated for heaven. But were they predestined by God to become Christians. That is the ultimate question within any discussion of predestination. And, unfortunately, with every one of the six examples offered, that specific question appears to remain unaddressed.

Now, an examination of Scripture, the revealed word of God, is in order. First of all, we are assured that God is no respecter of persons. "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:34-35) Are those persons in every nation that fears God and repents of sin predestined to salvation? Possibly, but why would Peter add, "is accepted with him"? It sounds more like individuals who learn to fear God and who do good works as a result of that learning are accepted with Him. Still, only God knows the answer. And then there is the matter of the great judgement of God. Paul states, "Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that does evil." (Romans 2:6-9) Here we have God’s revealed word telling us clearly that we will be judged by our own deeds, both good and bad. But, why is there a "judgment" at all if everyone is already preordained to an eternal destination? Why will God "render to every man according to his deeds" if such rendering is simply redundancy on His part? Are some men predestined to do good deeds, with others to do bad deeds? Highly doubtful, but still possible.

Then there is [human] logic. From a purely logical point of reasoning, if predestination (i.e. preordination) were the rule, then why was it necessary to have apostles? Or preach the gospels to all nations? Or start churches? After all, if any person in history was predetermined by God to go to Heaven, then he would certainly go there, and nothing he did or that might be done to him would change that fact. Conversely, any person predestined for eternal perdition (as every single person not preordained for salvation must be) could spend his life studying Scripture, and strive to emulate Jesus in every possible way, and it would all be for naught. He would still end up in the lake of fire with no future other than suffering and torment. Therefore, based solely on human logic, predestination that is preordination as it means a person’s eternal fate is sealed even before he is born cannot possibly be a decree of God. Or can it?

Now, can these two debates be combined. Actually, they can, and in a rather simplistic way. God alone, in exercising His sovereignty, dispenses His grace. As per His holy nature, He only dispenses that grace to those that fulfill the scriptural requirements of faith in Jesus and repentance of sin. How each individual Christian reaches that spiritual point where he has developed an adequate belief in Jesus (according to God’s pre-set but unknown standard) and assumed an adequate level of repentance of sin (once again, according to God’s pre-set but unknown standard), is a function of that individual Christian’s exercise of his own free will. Whether or not the exercise of that free will is truly because of the individual’s completely unfettered and unguided actions and choices, or is in reality a preordained function of God’s exercise of His own omniscience and omnipotence, is and will remain unknown to living humans. Therefore, we can only logically conclude that predestination or predetermination of every person’s final eternal place may be a function of God’s purpose, or not. We can only be assured that it is part of God’s purpose, and can say little more about it other than that.

Confused? Maybe this will make it a little clearer. According to what we find in Scripture, with respect to salvation and the granting of His grace to particular individuals, it seems more likely that God foreknows but does not foreordain any particular persons eternal destination. After all, when we read verses such as, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," we are immediately struck with the truth that calling upon the name of the Lord has to be a function of the proper spiritual use of our own free will. If it were anything else then a person predestined for eternal torment who called upon the name of the Lord would make God a liar. And God, who is all-holy, is never a liar.

A doctrine of predestination or election by God of a chosen few is besieged by many difficulties. Such a doctrine, if it does exist, belongs to the "secret things" (See Deuteronomy 29:29; Daniel 2:22). of God. However, remember that Scripture is the revealed word of God. If we take the truth of Scripture as our guide, then we must accept this "possible" doctrine with all its mysteriousness, and satisfy all of our questions with a humble and sincere acceptance as did Jesus in His prayer, "Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." (Matthew 11:26; Luke 10:21)

* * *

[edb19]

Thanks for sharing.

[Gear853]

thanks for sharing brother. i will read that when i have a chance. =)

[mlqurgw]

Well done. It is a well written essay and appears to be thoughtful, though not as much as it could have been. There are some striking contradictions in it and some of the thoughts were not taken far enough to back up your premise. Since I have left off debating, it only feeds my pride, I will just say that I strongly disagree with your premise.

[GordonSlocum]

Confused? Maybe this will make it a little clearer. According to what we find in Scripture, with respect to salvation and the granting of His grace to particular individuals, it seems more likely that God foreknows but does not foreordain any particular persons eternal destination. After all, when we read verses such as, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," we are immediately struck with the truth that calling upon the name of the Lord has to be a function of the proper spiritual use of our own free will. If it were anything else then a person predestined for eternal torment who called upon the name of the Lord would make God a liar. And God, who is all-holy, is never a liar.



Very Good

[DiscipleOfIAm]

I asked a pastor I trust once about the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism and which he beleives if any. I have posted his response here, I know he will not mind. I left off his name for obvious reasons. But, I think it sums it up pretty good. Of course, this is just one pastor's opinion. I trust him though, he does have Doctorate in Theology, a MDiv, and some othe degrees, so he is not a novice.

Here is goes:

Concerning your question about Calvinism and Arminianism, I'm afraid that I don't buy either one 100%, so I guess that I'm somewhere between the both of them. The problem is that neither position is totally correct.

Calvinism[wash my mouth]believes:
(1) T - Total Depravity, to such an extent that man does not have a free will and doesn't choose to be saved, but relies upon God to save them. Arminiasm believes that there is still enough good in man for him to exercise his free will and can be saved by willing it. That isn't correct either. Man is totally depraved - but still has a will. And that will must be exercised in order to be saved, but no one can get saved unless the Father woos them. Therrefore, the correct position is neither! Salvation is not 100% God (Calvinism) nor 100% man (Arminiasm) but rather a partnership whereby God woos the person by sending conviction, but then allows man to reject Him or receive him, based on his free will.

(2) U - Unconditional Election, whereby God chooses who will be saved and who will be damned. That is incorrect as well! Arminiasm believes that it is man's free will that determines the election. God's foreknowledge, therefore, is simply God's ability to see the future and know man's response in advance.

(3) L - Limited Atonement, meaning that Jesus ONLY died for those who would be saved. According to John 3:16, however, His death was for the entire world. Therefore, the Arminian view would be correct.

(4) I - Irresistible Grace, meaning no one is capable of refusing to be saved. That is also nonsense! God's desire is for everyone to be saved and yet, man has a free will which is denied by Calvinism. Arminiasm is again the correct view.

(5) P - Perseverance of the saints, meaning since salvation is all of God, a saved person will always be saved. This is close to the correct view, with the understanding that man's free will is the trigger that opens the door of God's saving plan. The Arminians believe that man's free will can choose to release salvation, thus allowing a person to fall from grace and lose their salvation.

Therefore, in closing - I don't agree completely with either view. I believe that Arminiasm is probably closer with the exception of their denial of eternal security of the believer. But even then, neither view is totally biblical. The HUGE difference between the two is the free will of man. It does exist - and if we as Christians can frustrate the will of God, I don't see why anyone could say that we can't do the same thing before we got saved.

I hope this answers your questions. Hope to see you Sunday.

Pastor ---------

Good stuff or do you all disagree? I think it goes well with Matthan's essay.

God Bless!

[mlqurgw]

I asked a pastor I trust once about the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism and which he beleives if any. I have posted his response here, I know he will not mind. I left off his name for obvious reasons. But, I think it sums it up pretty good. Of course, this is just one pastor's opinion. I trust him though, he does have Doctorate in Theology, a MDiv, and some othe degrees, so he is not a novice.

Here is goes:

Concerning your question about Calvinism and Arminianism, I'm afraid that I don't buy either one 100%, so I guess that I'm somewhere between the both of them. The problem is that neither position is totally correct.

Calvinism[wash my mouth]believes:
(1) T - Total Depravity, to such an extent that man does not have a free will and doesn't choose to be saved, but relies upon God to save them. Arminiasm believes that there is still enough good in man for him to exercise his free will and can be saved by willing it. That isn't correct either. Man is totally depraved - but still has a will. And that will must be exercised in order to be saved, but no one can get saved unless the Father woos them. Therrefore, the correct position is neither! Salvation is not 100% God (Calvinism) nor 100% man (Arminiasm) but rather a partnership whereby God woos the person by sending conviction, but then allows man to reject Him or receive him, based on his free will.

(2) U - Unconditional Election, whereby God chooses who will be saved and who will be damned. That is incorrect as well! Arminiasm believes that it is man's free will that determines the election. God's foreknowledge, therefore, is simply God's ability to see the future and know man's response in advance.

(3) L - Limited Atonement, meaning that Jesus ONLY died for those who would be saved. According to John 3:16, however, His death was for the entire world. Therefore, the Arminian view would be correct.

(4) I - Irresistible Grace, meaning no one is capable of refusing to be saved. That is also nonsense! God's desire is for everyone to be saved and yet, man has a free will which is denied by Calvinism. Arminiasm is again the correct view.

(5) P - Perseverance of the saints, meaning since salvation is all of God, a saved person will always be saved. This is close to the correct view, with the understanding that man's free will is the trigger that opens the door of God's saving plan. The Arminians believe that man's free will can choose to release salvation, thus allowing a person to fall from grace and lose their salvation.

Therefore, in closing - I don't agree completely with either view. I believe that Arminiasm is probably closer with the exception of their denial of eternal security of the believer. But even then, neither view is totally biblical. The HUGE difference between the two is the free will of man. It does exist - and if we as Christians can frustrate the will of God, I don't see why anyone could say that we can't do the same thing before we got saved.

I hope this answers your questions. Hope to see you Sunday.

Pastor ---------

Good stuff or do you all disagree? I think it goes well with Matthan's essay.

God Bless!
I disagree. The totality of Scripture doesn't bear out that man co-operates with God. Actually that is a distinct Roman Catholic view. He is correct in pointing out that it hinges on free-will. Both Mathan's essay and your pastor give an incorrect caricature of the teaching of the doctrines of grace and the Scriptural truth of salvation by free grace.

[DiscipleOfIAm]

I disagree. The totality of Scripture doesn't bear out that man co-operates with God. Actually that is a distinct Roman Catholic view. He is correct in pointing out that it hinges on free-will. Both Mathan's essay and your pastor give an incorrect caricature of the teaching of the doctrines of grace and the Scriptural truth of salvation by free grace.

I was just pointing out an educated person's opinion that is neither Arminian nor Calvinist.

I know you're not trying to debate, me neither.

I will say that most people, pastors are people, too, do not fully understand the Doctrine of Grace and misrepresent it. Most will judge it or try and explain it and are way off. It is hard to explain, that is why so many books have been written about it.

But, good discussion!!

[mlqurgw]

I didn't say I agreed with all of it. Just pointing out an educated person's opinion that is neither Arminian nor Calvinist.

I know you're not trying to debate, me neither. I was just pointing out that I did not say I agreed with either Matthan or the pastor's view.

I will say that most people, pastors are people, too, do not fully understand the Doctrine of Grace and misrepresent it. Most will judge it or try and explain it and are way off. It is hard to explain, that is why so many books have been written about it.

But, good discussion!!My response was in answer to your question. I have read many of your posts and have an idea where you are doctrinally. I certainly didn't mean it as an attack on you or the pastor. Actually the pastor is Arminian. Denying that you are something and then espousing what it teaches tells the tale. There are only two views in reality. Either God does the saving and gets all the glory or man helps in some way and gets some of the glory. One is basic Clvinism the other is basic Arminianism. You are either one or the other, there is no middle ground. While the pastor seems closer to Classical Arminianism rather than Wesleyian Armininism he is still Arminian, though he may deny it.

[tulipianelder]

I asked a pastor I trust once about the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism and which he beleives if any. I have posted his response here, I know he will not mind. I left off his name for obvious reasons. But, I think it sums it up pretty good. Of course, this is just one pastor's opinion. I trust him though, he does have Doctorate in Theology, a MDiv, and some othe degrees, so he is not a novice.

Here is goes:

Concerning your question about Calvinism and Arminianism, I'm afraid that I don't buy either one 100%, so I guess that I'm somewhere between the both of them. The problem is that neither position is totally correct.

Calvinism[wash my mouth]believes:
(1) T - Total Depravity, to such an extent that man does not have a free will and doesn't choose to be saved, but relies upon God to save them. Arminiasm believes that there is still enough good in man for him to exercise his free will and can be saved by willing it. That isn't correct either. Man is totally depraved - but still has a will. And that will must be exercised in order to be saved, but no one can get saved unless the Father woos them. Therrefore, the correct position is neither! Salvation is not 100% God (Calvinism) nor 100% man (Arminiasm) but rather a partnership whereby God woos the person by sending conviction, but then allows man to reject Him or receive him, based on his free will.

(2) U - Unconditional Election, whereby God chooses who will be saved and who will be damned. That is incorrect as well! Arminiasm believes that it is man's free will that determines the election. God's foreknowledge, therefore, is simply God's ability to see the future and know man's response in advance.

(3) L - Limited Atonement, meaning that Jesus ONLY died for those who would be saved. According to John 3:16, however, His death was for the entire world. Therefore, the Arminian view would be correct.

(4) I - Irresistible Grace, meaning no one is capable of refusing to be saved. That is also nonsense! God's desire is for everyone to be saved and yet, man has a free will which is denied by Calvinism. Arminiasm is again the correct view.

(5) P - Perseverance of the saints, meaning since salvation is all of God, a saved person will always be saved. This is close to the correct view, with the understanding that man's free will is the trigger that opens the door of God's saving plan. The Arminians believe that man's free will can choose to release salvation, thus allowing a person to fall from grace and lose their salvation.

Therefore, in closing - I don't agree completely with either view. I believe that Arminiasm is probably closer with the exception of their denial of eternal security of the believer. But even then, neither view is totally biblical. The HUGE difference between the two is the free will of man. It does exist - and if we as Christians can frustrate the will of God, I don't see why anyone could say that we can't do the same thing before we got saved.

I hope this answers your questions. Hope to see you Sunday.

Pastor ---------

Good stuff or do you all disagree? I think it goes well with Matthan's essay.

God Bless!

DiscipleofIAm,

Grettings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am a Baptist minister and a Calvinist. While I respect your pastor's opinion, he has many misconceptions about Calvinist soteriology. I don't have time to go into great detail but I'll point out some of what I'm talking about.

First I must ask, is "Calvinism" a vulger word? You seem to think to think so. I would be interested to know why?

Total Depravity:
Your pastor is in err when stating that Calvinists do not believe that man has free will. It is not free will that Calvinist take issue with. It is the extent thereof that is in question. Arminianists and Calvinists alike will agree that man's free will is not unlimited. So, then the question is where does man's free will end and God's sovereignty begin in the process of salvation. Calvinist believe (put simply) that sinful and fallen man has free will to whatsoever he pleases except to save himself. All that fallen man wills to do will be sin in the sight of God. Only when God the Holy Spirit regenerates the one dead in truspasses and sins can that soul will to do anything pleasing in the sight of God. The believer is capable of both righteousness and unrighteousness, in this life.

Unconditional Election:
God has not chosen/predestinated anyone to hell. Many think that if God has elected only some to salvation then He has also "elected" some to damnation. This is not the case. All of mankind was and is lost in its sins. Seperated from God and destined for Hell. God was not obligated to save anyone. But by His amazing Grace, He Did! So, as I said, God does not "ellect" souls to damnation. He leaves them to thier own sinful rebellion.

Limited Atonement:
To say that we believe that Christ died only for the ellect, is correct.

As the Maxim goes:
God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for either:
1) All of the sins of all men - which means all men are saved.
2) Some of the sins of all men - which means men are still in their sins.

3) All of the sin of some men - which is the biblical position. Arminians must grapple with the fact that Jesus does His saving on the cross. All those for whom he died will be saved in time and justified by god.


Christ's atoneing death was substitutionary. If He took the place of and atoned for (paid the penalty of) all the sins of the whole world then everyone would be free from the penalty of sin. But we know they are not. As for John 3:16, his exegesis is only correct if you presuppose that the Scriptures where writen in English. In Greek there is no equivilant to our English "whosoever". If you put it in its most literal form it would be "all those who will". As Calvinists we affirm that the only ones who will believe are the ellect. (Cf. John 6:37-40; John 10:15; John 15:13; Acts 20:28)

Irresistible Grace:
Your Pastor stated that Calvinists hold that no one can resist being saved. That is completely incorrect! We are not universalists. We beleive that God's grace is in fact iresistible to the ellect. (Cf. John 6:37; John 5:21; John 10:16; Romans 8:29-30; Acts 13:48; Ephesians 1:19-20; 1 Corinthians 4:7)

Perseverance of the Saints:
On this point your pastor is correct in stating that a person is always saved. Though I would like to point out that this has nothing to do with the saint but the savior. Salvation is all of God. (Cf. John 6:37-39; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:23-24; 2 Tim. 4:18; 1 Peter 1:23; Romans 8:29; Ephesians 2:10)

Soli Deo Gloria,
Pastor Chris

[DiscipleOfIAm]

DiscipleofIAm,

Grettings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am a Baptist minister and a Calvinist. While I respect your pastor's opinion, he has many misconceptions about Calvinist soteriology. I don't have time to go into great detail but I'll point out some of what I'm talking about.

First I must ask, is "Calvinism" a vulger word? You seem to think to think so. I would be interested to know why?

Total Depravity:
Your pastor is in err when stating that Calvinists do not believe that man has free will. It is not free will that Calvinist take issue with. It is the extent thereof that is in question. Arminianists and Calvinists alike will agree that man's free will is not unlimited. So, then the question is where does man's free will end and God's sovereignty begin in the process of salvation. Calvinist believe (put simply) that sinful and fallen man has free will to whatsoever he pleases except to save himself. All that fallen man wills to do will be sin in the sight of God. Only when God the Holy Spirit regenerates the one dead in truspasses and sins can that soul will to do anything pleasing in the sight of God. The believer is capable of both righteousness and unrighteousness, in this life.

Unconditional Election:
God has not chosen/predestinated anyone to hell. Many think that if God has elected only some to salvation then He has also "elected" some to damnation. This is not the case. All of mankind was and is lost in its sins. Seperated from God and destined for Hell. God was not obligated to save anyone. But by His amazing Grace, He Did! So, as I said, God does not "ellect" souls to damnation. He leaves them to thier own sinful rebellion.

Limited Atonement:
To say that we believe that Christ died only for the ellect, is correct.

As the Maxim goes:
God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for either:
1) All of the sins of all men - which means all men are saved.
2) Some of the sins of all men - which means men are still in their sins.

3) All of the sin of some men - which is the biblical position. Arminians must grapple with the fact that Jesus does His saving on the cross. All those for whom he died will be saved in time and justified by god.


Christ's atoneing death was substitutionary. If He took the place of and atoned for (paid the penalty of) all the sins of the whole world then everyone would be free from the penalty of sin. But we know they are not. As for John 3:16, his exegesis is only correct if you presuppose that the Scriptures where writen in English. In Greek there is no equivilant to our English "whosoever". If you put it in its most literal form it would be "all those who will". As Calvinists we affirm that the only ones who will believe are the ellect. (Cf. John 6:37-40; John 10:15; John 15:13; Acts 20:28)

Irresistible Grace:
Your Pastor stated that Calvinists hold that no one can resist being saved. That is completely incorrect! We are not universalists. We beleive that God's grace is in fact iresistible to the ellect. (Cf. John 6:37; John 5:21; John 10:16; Romans 8:29-30; Acts 13:48; Ephesians 1:19-20; 1 Corinthians 4:7)

Perseverance of the Saints:
On this point your pastor is correct in stating that a person is always saved. Though I would like to point out that this has nothing to do with the saint but the savior. Salvation is all of God. (Cf. John 6:37-39; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:23-24; 2 Tim. 4:18; 1 Peter 1:23; Romans 8:29; Ephesians 2:10)

Soli Deo Gloria,
Pastor Chris

Greetings!

I must clarify. I did not say that this pastor is my pastor. I thought it would go well here as it is close to what Matthan has written.

The pastor here is an IFB pastor and a man I have known and respected for some time. I believe he is closer to Arminian even though he states he is neither.

I do not feel or imply Calvinist to be a "vulger" word. I admit that around these parts, both on this forum and in my geographical region, it is an unpopular belief system. However, I never said, nor implied, it to be a vulger word.

To sum up my personal beliefs or to clear up any confusion you might have about myself, I agree almost always with C.H. Spurgeon. I'll quote him as close as I can remember, "Am I a Calvinist or an Arminian? Sir, I am a Christian!"

God Bless!

[Phileoeklogos]

Matthan,

I think you might want to set your essay aside for a month or two, let it cool off, and then re-read it. IMHO, it has some serious problems and is a bit tail-chasing, give it some time and have another look at it with fresh eyes..............

[Matthan]

My response was in answer to your question. I have read many of your posts and have an idea where you are doctrinally. I certainly didn't mean it as an attack on you or the pastor. Actually the pastor is Arminian. Denying that you are something and then espousing what it teaches tells the tale. There are only two views in reality. Either God does the saving and gets all the glory or man helps in some way and gets some of the glory. One is basic Clvinism the other is basic Arminianism. You are either one or the other, there is no middle ground. While the pastor seems closer to Classical Arminianism rather than Wesleyian Armininism he is still Arminian, though he may deny it.

Migurgw, I have grown to respect you and many of your ideas and responses that I read here. I feel you are really one of God's children. And I mean absolutely no disrespect when I state that I find that your response (quoted above) is classic in that you give the either/or instead of offering the possibility that there may be a third option. You stated
"Either God does the saving and gets all the glory or man helps in some way and gets some of the glory."
God does save, and He does get ALL of the glory. But man must still do something. Man cannot "help" with his own salvation, but he must still do something. And that something is belief, which we are clearly told is actually the "work" of God.
" Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."
I do not think Jesus would not have made that statement if believing was required (preordained) of some men and not even an option to others. Believing in Jesus is what God wants us to do for Him. But He does not require some to believe and others not to believe. And that is why He gives us free will; we can either do His work and believe, or we do not believe. It is our decision, and He lets us make it. Remember that God is no respecter of men. But, if He made the decision on our eternal destination for us, then He would be respecting some men, and rejecting (disrespecting) all the others. That is why I believe we should be neither Calvinistic or Arminianistic.

It all comes back to human wisdom and all the faults and untruths that we incorporate in it. God deals only in truth, while we seek to insert our wisdom into that truth. That is always a bad idea if we really want to know God's truth, and not what we think that truth really is.

Matthan

[Matthan]

DiscipleofIAm,

Grettings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am a Baptist minister and a Calvinist. While I respect your pastor's opinion, he has many misconceptions about Calvinist soteriology. I don't have time to go into great detail but I'll point out some of what I'm talking about.

First I must ask, is "Calvinism" a vulger word? You seem to think to think so. I would be interested to know why?

Total Depravity:
Your pastor is in err when stating that Calvinists do not believe that man has free will. It is not free will that Calvinist take issue with. It is the extent thereof that is in question. Arminianists and Calvinists alike will agree that man's free will is not unlimited. So, then the question is where does man's free will end and God's sovereignty begin in the process of salvation. Calvinist believe (put simply) that sinful and fallen man has free will to whatsoever he pleases except to save himself. All that fallen man wills to do will be sin in the sight of God. Only when God the Holy Spirit regenerates the one dead in truspasses and sins can that soul will to do anything pleasing in the sight of God. The believer is capable of both righteousness and unrighteousness, in this life.

Unconditional Election:
God has not chosen/predestinated anyone to hell. Many think that if God has elected only some to salvation then He has also "elected" some to damnation. This is not the case. All of mankind was and is lost in its sins. Seperated from God and destined for Hell. God was not obligated to save anyone. But by His amazing Grace, He Did! So, as I said, God does not "ellect" souls to damnation. He leaves them to thier own sinful rebellion.

Limited Atonement:
To say that we believe that Christ died only for the ellect, is correct.

As the Maxim goes:
God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for either:
1) All of the sins of all men - which means all men are saved.
2) Some of the sins of all men - which means men are still in their sins.



3) All of the sin of some men - which is the biblical position. Arminians must grapple with the fact that Jesus does His saving on the cross. All those for whom he died will be saved in time and justified by god.




Christ's atoneing death was substitutionary. If He took the place of and atoned for (paid the penalty of) all the sins of the whole world then everyone would be free from the penalty of sin. But we know they are not. As for John 3:16, his exegesis is only correct if you presuppose that the Scriptures where writen in English. In Greek there is no equivilant to our English "whosoever". If you put it in its most literal form it would be "all those who will". As Calvinists we affirm that the only ones who will believe are the ellect. (Cf. John 6:37-40; John 10:15; John 15:13; Acts 20:28)

Irresistible Grace:
Your Pastor stated that Calvinists hold that no one can resist being saved. That is completely incorrect! We are not universalists. We beleive that God's grace is in fact iresistible to the ellect. (Cf. John 6:37; John 5:21; John 10:16; Romans 8:29-30; Acts 13:48; Ephesians 1:19-20; 1 Corinthians 4:7)

Perseverance of the Saints:
On this point your pastor is correct in stating that a person is always saved. Though I would like to point out that this has nothing to do with the saint but the savior. Salvation is all of God. (Cf. John 6:37-39; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:23-24; 2 Tim. 4:18; 1 Peter 1:23; Romans 8:29; Ephesians 2:10)

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Chris

Once again I mean no disrespect to this poster, but he also errs (imho) in that he does not consider a fourth option in his list. He stated,
"As the Maxim goes:
God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for either:
1) All of the sins of all men - which means all men are saved.
2) Some of the sins of all men - which means men are still in their sins.

3) All of the sin of some men - which is the biblical position.

Arminians must grapple with the fact that Jesus does His saving on the cross. All those for whom he died will be saved in time and justified by god.(SIC)"


Could it also be that Jesus died for all of the sins of all men - who choose to believe in Him as the Son of the living God? Of course in his third option he comes close because Jesus did actually die for all of the sin of some men, but could it have been for those men who "chose" to believe in Him because of their own free will rather than by God's own preordination? I believe that it is. To say anything else is to also say that God (for some reason known only to Him) does respect some men but not others. But, since that would make God a liar in that He clearly tells us He is NOT a respecter of men, we know that is not in any way possible.

The only other option for anyone adhering to the doctrine of Calvin to rely on is that God somehow does select certain men for justification BUT still does not "respect" them. That is of course a possibility, but my own non-prolific wisdom does not permit me to understand such a situation in any way. Personally I believe He knows who will be justified, but He does not pre-ordain them to that justification.

Matthan

[mlqurgw]

Migurgw, I have grown to respect you and many of your ideas and responses that I read here. I feel you are really one of God's children. I can't tell you how much that means to me coming from you. I too respect you and your sincerity. And I mean absolutely no disrespect when I state that I find that your response (quoted above) is classic in that you give the either/or instead of offering the possibility that there may be a third option. You stated

God does save, and He does get ALL of the glory. But man must still do something. Man cannot "help" with his own salvation, but he must still do something. And that something is belief, which we are clearly told is actually the "work" of God.

I do not think Jesus would not have made that statement if believing was required (preordained) of some men and not even an option to others. Believing in Jesus is what God wants us to do for Him. But He does not require some to believe and others not to believe. And that is why He gives us free will; we can either do His work and believe, or we do not believe. It is our decision, and He lets us make it. Remember that God is no respecter of men. But, if He made the decision on our eternal destination for us, then He would be respecting some men, and rejecting (disrespecting) all the others. That is why I believe we should be neither Calvinistic or Arminianistic.

It all comes back to human wisdom and all the faults and untruths that we incorporate in it. God deals only in truth, while we seek to insert our wisdom into that truth. That is always a bad idea if we really want to know God's truth, and not what we think that truth really is.

MatthanI do have answers to all of this but I am not sure I want to give them. I am far too quick to enter into debate and when I do so I tend to take no prisoners. Nothing would thrill me more than to destroy what I believe to be false views but I am not always careful to not destroy the person instead. Give some time to consider it and pray about it. Ron