(Below Video Description) Dr. Leighton Flowers plays clips from Drs. James White, RC Sproul and John Piper on the question of the origin of moral evil so as to compare and contrast the various perspectives and the apparent inconsistencies of the Calvinistic worldview.
William Lane Craig discusses [below] being a “consistent Calvinist” vs. an “inconsistent Calvinism”
Is the Calvinist God the Author of Evil? w/ William Lane Craig Dr. William Lane Craig explains why he believes that Calvinism is forced to conclude that God is the author of evil.
Any consideration of the goodness of God at once threatÂens us with the following dilemma.
On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judgeÂment must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil.
On the other hand, if Godâs moral judgement differs from ours so that our âblackâ may be His âwhiteâ, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say âGod is goodâ, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say âGod is we know not whatâ. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) âgoodâ we shall obey, if at all, only through fearâand should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravityâ when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothingâ may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.
The escape from this dilemma depends on observing what happens, in human relations, when the man of infeÂrior moral standards enters the society of those who are better and wiser than he and gradually learns to accept their standardsâa process which, as it happens, I can describe fairly accurately, since I have undergone it. When I came first to the University I was as nearly withÂout a moral conscience as a boy could be. Some faint disÂtaste for cruelty and for meanness about money was my utmost reachâof chastity, truthfulness, and self-sacrifice I thought as a baboon thinks of classical music. By the mercy of God I fell among a set of young men (none of them, by the way, Christians) who were sufficiently close to me in intellect and imagination to secure immediate intimacy, but who knew, and tried to obey, the moral law. Thus their judgement of good and evil was very different from mine. Now what happens in such a case is not in the least like being asked to treat as âwhiteâ what was hitherto called black. The new moral judgements never enter the mind as mere reversals (though they do reverse them) of previous judgements but âas lords that are certainly expectedâ. You can have no doubt in which direction you are moving: they are more like good than the little shreds of good you already had, but are, in a sense, continuous with them. But the great test is that the recognition of the new standards is accompanied with the sense of shame and guilt: one is conscious of having blundered into sociÂety that one is unfit for. It is in the light of such experiÂences that we must consider the goodness of God. Beyond all doubt, His idea of âgoodnessâ differs from ours; but you need have no fear that, as you approach it, you will be asked simply to reverse your moral standards. When the relevant difference between the Divine ethics and your own appears to you, you will not, in fact, be in any doubt that the change demanded of you is in the direction you already call âbetterâ. The Divine âgoodnessâ differs from ours, but it is not sheerly different: it differs from ours not as white from black but as a perfect circle from a childâs first attempt to draw a wheel. But when the child has learned to draw, it will know that the circle it then makes is what it was trying to make from the very beginning.
This doctrine is presupposed in Scripture. Christ calls men to repentâa call which would be meaningless if Godâs standards were sheerly different from that which they already knew and failed to practise. He appeals to our existing moral judgementââWhy even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?â (Luke 12:57) God in the Old Testament expostulates with men on the basis of their own concepÂtions of gratitude, fidelity, and fair play: and puts Himself, as it were, at the bar before His own creaturesââWhat iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?â (Jeremiah 2:5.) …
CS Lewis | The Problem of Pain (Chapter 3)
“Human Wickedness”
…A recovery of the old sense of sin is essential to Christianity. Christ takes it for granted that men are bad. Until we really feel this assumption of His to be true, though we are part of the world He came to save, we are not part of the audience to whom His words are addressed. We lack the first condition for understanding what He is talking about. And when men attempt to be Christians without this preliminary consciousness of sin, the result is almost bound to be a certain resentment against God as to one always inexplicably angry. Most of us have at times felt a secret sympathy with the dying farmer who replied to the Vicarâs dissertation on repentance by asking âWhat harm have I ever done Him?â There is the real rub. The worst we have done to God is to leave Him aloneâwhy canât He return the compliment? Why not live and let live? What call has He, of all beings, to be âangryâ? Itâs easy for Him to be good!
Now at the moment when a man feels real guiltâ moments too rare in our livesâall these blasphemies vanish away. Much, we may feel, can be excused to human infirmities: but not thisâthis incredibly mean and ugly action which none of our friends would have done, which even such a thorough-going little rotter as X would have been ashamed of, which we would not for the world allow to be published. At such a moment we really do know that our character, as revealed in this action, is, and ought to be, hateful to all good men, and, if there are powers above man, to them. A God who did not regard this with unappeasable distaste would not be a good being. We cannot even wish for such a Godâit is like wishing that every nose in the universe were abolÂished, that smell of hay or roses or the sea should never again delight any creature, because our own breath hapÂpens to stink.
When we merely say that we are bad, the âwrathâ of God seems a barbarous doctrine; as soon as we perceive our badness, it appears inevitable, a mere corollary from Godâs goodness. To keep ever before us the insight derived from such a moment as I have been describing, to learn to detect the same real inexcusable corruption under more and more of its complex disguises, is therefore indisÂpensable to a real understanding of the Christian faith. This is not, of course, a new doctrine. I am attempting nothing very splendid in this chapter. I am merely trying to get my reader (and, still more, myself) over a pons asi-norumâto take the first step out of foolsâ paradise and utter illusion. But the illusion has grown, in modern times, so strong, that I must add a few considerations tending to make the reality less incredible.
We are deceived by looking on the outside of things. We suppose ourselves to be roughly not much worse than Y, whom all acknowledge for a decent sort of person, and certainly (though we should not claim it out loud) better than the abominable X. Even on the superficial level we are probably deceived about this. Donât be too sure that your friends think you as good as Y. The very fact that you selected him for the comparison is suspicious: he is probÂably head and shoulders above you and your circle. But let us suppose that Y and yourself both appear ânot badâ. How far Yâs appearance is deceptive, is between Y and God. His may not be deceptive: you know that yours is.
Does this seem to you a mere trick, because I could say the same to Y and so to every man in turn? But that is just the point. Every man, not very holy or very arrogant, has to âlive up toâ the outward appearance of other men: he knows there is that within him which falls far below even his most careless public behaviour, even his loosest talk. In an instant of timeâwhile your friend hesitates for a wordâwhat things pass through your mind? We have never told the whole truth. We may confess ugly factsâ the meanest cowardice or the shabbiest and most prosaic impurityâbut the tone is false. The very act of confess-ingâan infinitesimally hypocritical glanceâa dash of humourâall this contrives to dissociate the facts from your very self. No one could guess how familiar and, in a sense, congenial to your soul these things were, how much of a piece with all the rest: down there, in the dreaming inner warmth, they struck no such discordant note, were not nearly so odd and detachable from the rest of you, as they seem when they are turned into words. We imply, and often believe, that habitual vices are excepÂtional single acts, and make the opposite mistake about our virtuesâlike the bad tennis player who calls his norÂmal form his âbad daysâ and mistakes his rare successes for his normal. I do not think it is our fault that we cannot tell the real truth about ourselves; the persistent, life-long, inner murmur of spite, jealousy, prurience, greed and self-complacence, simply will not go into words. But the important thing is that we should not mistake our inevitably limited utterances for a full account of the worst that is inside.
A reactionâin itself wholesomeâis now going on against purely private or domestic conceptions of moralÂity, a reawakening of the social We feel ourÂselves to be involved in an iniquitous social system and to share a corporate guilt. This is very true: but the enemy can exploit even truths to our deception. Beware lest you are making use of the idea of corporate guilt to distract your attention from those humdrum, old-fashioned guilts of your own which have nothing to do with âthe systemâ and which can be dealt with without waiting for the milÂlennium. For corporate guilt perhaps cannot be, and cerÂtainly is not, felt with the same force as personal guilt. For most of us, as we now are, this conception is a mere excuse for evading the real issue. When we have really learned to know our individual corruption, then indeed we can go on to think of the corporate guilt and can hardly think of it too much. But we must learn to walk before we run.
We have a strange illusion that mere time cancels sin. I have heard others, and I have heard myself, recounting cruelties and falsehoods committed in boyhood as if they were no concern of the present speakerâs, and even with laughter. But mere time does nothing either to the fact or to the guilt of a sin. The guilt is washed out not by time but by repentance and the blood of Christ: if we have repented these early sins we should remember the price of our forgiveness and be humble. As for the fact of a sin, is it probable that anything cancels it? All times are eternally present to God. Is it not at least possible that along some one line of His multi-dimensional eternity He sees you forever in the nursery pulling the wings off a fly, forever toadying, lying, and lusting as a schoolboy, forever in that moment of cowardice or insolence as a subaltern? It may be that salvation consists not in the cancelling of these eternal moments but in the perfected humanity that bears the shame forever, rejoicing in the occasion which it furÂnished to Godâs compassion and glad that it should be common knowledge to the universe. Perhaps in that eterÂnal moment St Peterâhe will forgive me if I am wrongâ forever denies his Master. If so, it would indeed be true that the joys of Heaven are for most of us, in our present condition, âan acquired tasteââand certain ways of life may render the taste impossible of acquisition. Perhaps the lost are those who dare not go to such a public Of course I do not know that this is true; but I think the possibility is worth keeping in mind.
We must guard against the feeling that there is âsafety in numbersâ. It is natural to feel that if all men are as bad as the Christians say, then badness must be very excusÂable. If all the boys plough in the examination, surely the papers must have been too hard? And so the masters at that school feel till they learn that there are other schools where ninety per cent of the boys passed on the same papers. Then they begin to suspect that the fault did not lie with the examiners. Again, many of us have had the experience of living in some local pocket of human soci-etyâsome particular school, college, regiment or profesÂsion where the tone was bad. And inside that pocket certain actions were regarded as merely normal (âEveryÂone does itâ) and certain others as impracticably virtuous and Quixotic. But when we emerged from that bad sociÂety we made the horrible discovery that in the outer world our ânormalâ was the kind of thing that no decent person ever dreamed of doing, and our âQuixoticâ was taken for granted as the minimum standard of decency. What had seemed to us morbid and fantastic scruples so long as we were in the âpocketâ now turned out to be the only moments of sanity we there enjoyed. It is wise to face the possibility that the whole human race (being a small thing in the universe) is, in fact, just such a local pocket of evilâan isolated bad school or regiment inside which minimum decency passes for heroic virtue and utter corruption for pardonable imperfection. But is there any evidenceâexcept Christian doctrine itselfâthat this is so? I am afraid there is. In the first place, there are those odd people among us who do not accept the local stanÂdard, who demonstrate the alarming truth that a quite difÂferent behaviour is, in fact, possible. Worse still, there is the fact that these people, even when separated widely in space and time, have a suspicious knack of agreeing with one another in the mainâalmost as if they were in touch with some larger public opinion outside the pocket. What is common to Zarathustra, Jeremiah, Socrates, Gautama, Christ1 and Marcus Aurelius, is something pretty subÂstantial. Thirdly, we find in ourselves even now a theoretÂical approval of this behaviour which no one practises. Even inside the pocket we do not say that justice, mercy, fortitude, and temperance are of no value, but only that the local custom is as just, brave, temperate and merciful as can reasonably be expected. It begins to look as if the neglected school rules even inside this bad school were connected with some larger worldâand that when the term ends we might find ourselves facing the public opinÂion of that larger world. But the worst of all is this: we cannot help seeing that only the degree of virtue which we now regard as impracticable can possibly save our race from disaster even on this planet. The standard which seems to have come into the âpocketâ from outside, turns out to be terribly relevant to conditions inside the pocketâso relevant that a consistent practice of virtue by the human race even for ten years would fill the earth from pole to pole with peace, plenty, health, merriment, and heartsease, and that nothing else will. It may be the custom, down here, to treat the regimental rules as a dead letter or a counsel of perfection: but even now, everyone who stops to think can see that when we meet the enemy this neglect is going to cost every man of us his life. It is then that we shall envy the âmorbidâ person, the âpedantâ or âenthusiastâ who really has taught his company to shoot and dig in and spare their water bottles.
[….]
This chapter will have been misunderstood if anyone describes it as a reinstatement of the doctrine of Total Depravity. I disbelieve that doctrine, partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature. Nor am I recommending universal gloom. The emotion of shame has been valued not as an emotion but because of the insight to which it leads. I think that insight should be permanent in each manâs mind: but whether the painful emotions that attend it should also be encouraged, is a technical problem of spiritual direction on which, as a layman, I have little call to speak. My own idea, for what it is worth, is that all sadness which is not either arising from the repentance of a concrete sin and hastening towards concrete amendment or restitution, or else arising from pity and hastening to active assistance, is simply bad; and I think we all sin by needlessly disobeying the apostolic injunction to ârejoiceâ as much as by anything else. Humility, after the first shock, is a cheerful virtue: it is the high-minded unbeliever, desperately trying in the teeth of repeated disillusions to retain his âfaith in human natureâ, who is really sad. I have been aiming at an intellectual, not an emotional, effect: I have been trying to make the reader believe that we actually are, at present, creatures whose character must be, in some respects, a horror to God, as it is, when we really see it, a horror to ourselves. This I believe to be a fact: and I notice that the holier a man is, the more fully he is aware of that fact. Perhaps you have imagined that this humility in the saints is a pious illusion at which God smiles. That is a most dangerous error. It is theoretically dangerous, because it makes you identify a virtue (i.e., a perfection) with an illusion (i.e., an imperfection), which must be nonsense. It is practically dangerous because it encourages a man to mistake his first insights into his own corruption for the first beginnings of a halo round his own silly head. No, depend upon it; when the saints say that theyâeven theyâare vile, they are recording truth with scientific accuracy.
As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die? (Ezek. 33:11, NLT)
In my small group conversation was just getting off the ground regarding this topic, of God’s love. I had, providentially, just listed to this video [below] and was going to adopt this tact into my response. As I was just gonna get going another brother in Christ came in and conversation changed. So I followed up with the ppl in the original short discussion:
Like Paul Harvey would say, “Here is the rest of the story.” Frank Turek notes the view that I said was jaundiced in group…. that the splitting of God’s will creates an “infinite application of God’s justice,” but a “finite application of His love.” It bifurcates God in a way the Bible does not. God is a Whole. (5 minutes):
If God Wants All Saved, Why Isnât Everyone Saved?
(Above Video, description)Can anyone truly produce good works apart from Christ, or even choose to submit to God on their own? A Calvinist questions Frank on predestination, human freedom, and whether we are capable or incapable of choosing God. Join the conversation and share where you land in the comments!
Here is more to connect the idea above.
(Below Video description)Does God want to save all men? Yes He does! The Calvinists are wrong.
In the short conversation, Psalm 5:5 was mentioned, which reads:
The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity. (NKJV)
Here, we have a picture, not of where man begins, but where sin’s grip will take him if he continues in rebellion against God. (As an aside, I like Bible Hub’s dealing with this sticky issue) I had a discussion of this verse on my Facebook, but cannot find it unfortunately. So I will respond to the ideas herein. The first few clips are showing how reading Scripture without the additional lenses of a 16th century philosophy can bring out the beauty, assurance in God, and the meaning to the audience David intended:
Prayer regarding enemies (5:4â12). The psalmist next complains to God about his enemiesâespecially their destructive speech which consists of lies and flattery. He urges God to indict them and let them experience the consequences of their destructive behavior. He also asks God to get them away from him. The psalmist turns from Godâs enemies to those who seek Godâs protection. For these, the psalmist asks protection, joy, a sense of great security.
The assurance of being heard is now won by the petitioner from the fact that the wicked are not allowed to appear before Yahweh, whereas he himself, the petitioner, has access to the sanctuary
Stanza 2 focuses on the accusers, but in the form of praise for Godâs judgment of the wicked. The foes are described (vv. 4â6, 9â10) [Enemies]. With mouth and tongue they destroy. They are boastful and speak lies; they are bloodthirsty and deceitful (vv. 5â6). Such persons cannot stand in Godâs sight; for God, such behavior must be abhorrent (v. 6). The implication is that the LORD will never permit the wicked access to the sanctuary, to which the psalmist now seeks entry.
James H. Waltner, Psalms, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, PA; Waterloo, ON: Herald Press, 2006), 50.
Verses 4â6: David distances himself from his enemies
Now he is sure that God is hearing him, Davidâs thoughts of his enemies are different from what they were in Psalm 3. Then he was thinking of the strength of their numbers (3:1), now he is thinking of the weakness of their position before God. God cannot dwell with them because they are wicked and God takes no pleasure in evil (v. 4) in fact he hates such (v. 5). Since God is not with them, they will not stand. When he appears among them it will not be to prosper but to destroy them.
For God is just, and their charges against David have no basis in fact but are lies (v. 6). Absalom and his party were acting against him out of sheer deceit and cruelty; they are bloodthirsty and deceitful men. This is the truth behind Absalom and his campaign. It is sufficient ground for David to believe they will not succeed and that he will return, as he goes on to say.
Eric Lane, Psalms 1-89: The Lord Saves, Focus on the Bible Commentary (Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2006), 42.
How do non-Calvinists deal with certain Bible verses which show that God hates certain people?
Psalm 5:5: âThe boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.â
Psalm 7:11: âGod is a righteous judge, and a God who has indignation every day.â
Psalm 26:5: âI hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked.â
Malachi 1:3: âBut I have hated Esau [referencing Edom], and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.â
It is answered in two ways. In some instances, the word âhateâ just reflects preference, such as Luke 14:26: âIf anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.â However, that may not be a suitable understanding for all occurrences, such as Malachi 1:3, in which God said that He is âindignant foreverâ with the Edomites, regarding their betrayal of Israel during the Babylonian captivity. So, how can a God who âis loveâ (1st John 4:8, 10) hate anyone? Itâs not that He wants to, or that He needed to create people to hate. Godâs wrath is conditional. Evil distorts Godâs perfect ways, and for those who do commit evil, God would rather have it that they turn back to Him, so that He may show them mercy, than to have to exercise judgment upon them.
Micah 7:18: âWho is a God like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love.â
So, although God may declare that He hates a particular sinner, that does not preclude His longing to see restoration through repentance. One example is that of wicked King Ahab, when God was delighted to see his repentance, and in turn, relented from His intentions of judging him: ââDo you see how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the evil in his days, but I will bring the evil upon his house in his sonâs days.ââ (1st Kings 21:29)
To further illustrate, I might say: âI hate people who tailgate on the highway and drive recklessly,â or I might say, âI hate people who donât flush the toilet when theyâre done.â This doesnât mean that I have arbitrarily thrown names into a hat, and chosen to unconditionally hate them for no reason whatsoever. Rather, it means that my disapproval of them is based upon their free will choice to commit an act which I disapprove of. This is what God is expressing at verses like Psalm 5:5, Psalm 7:11, etc., as He is defining a certain class of people who have freely chosen to enter that class, by freely choosing to sin. Itâs somewhat similar to when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. expressed a desire for his children to be judged, ânot by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.â Make no mistake, God still does judge people. However, He judges them for the âcontent of their character,â so to speak, as displayed by the type of actions that they chose to engage in. (In other words, He doesnât judge them on arbitrary things, such as skin color, or whether or not He unconditionally picked their name out of a hat from eternity, and arbitrarily decided to hate them for no other reason than that their name was selected.) God looks to the heart, and judges people accordingly: ââI, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds.ââ (Jeremiah 17:10)
Of course Leighton Flowers deals with this. I will clip his longer video, but my clip is still long mind you. He is essentially reading from his own article: “Does God Love or Hate His Enemies?” Here is the “truncated” version:
The wages of sin is death, but it is not God’s pleasure to see the death of anyone. However, anyone who hates Him and refuses to return, will see death. In every man-made government the penalty for high treason is death; it is no different in the Kingdom of God.
The whole thread is worth a read — it includes many from varying theological assumptions. (This resource was mentioned, click to enlarge)
I wish to note as well, that Calvin’s Institutes is a work I do not like all that much. However, I hold his commentary on a higher level because he withholds much of the Augustinian influence at bay, so-to-speak. Here is his commentary on verses 4-6 of Psalm 5:
Verses 4-6
4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness; evil shall not dwell Smith thee. 5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight; thou hatest all that commit iniquity. 6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak falsehood; Jehovah will abhor the blood-thirsty 9 and deceitful man.
Here David makes the malice and wickedness of his enemies an argument to enforce his prayer for the divine favor towards him. The language is indeed abrupt, as the saints in prayer will often stammer; but this stammering is more acceptable to God than all the figures of rhetoric, be they ever so fine and glittering. Besides, the great object which David has in view, is to show, that since the cruelty and treachery of his enemies had reached their utmost height, it was impossible but that God would soon arrest them in their course. His reasoning is grounded upon the nature of God. Since righteousness and upright dealing are pleasing to him, David, from this, concludes that he will take vengeance on all the unjust and wicked. And how is it possible for them to escape from his hand unpunished, seeing he is the judge of the world? The passage is worthy of our most special attention. For we know how greatly we are discouraged by the unbounded insolence of the wicked. If God does not immediately restrain it, we are either stupified and dismayed, or cast down into despair. But David, from this, rather finds matter of encouragement and confidence. The greater the lawlessness with which his enemies proceeded against him, the more earnestly did he supplicate preservation from God, whose office it is to destroy all the wicked, because he hates all wickedness. Let all the godly, therefore, learn, as often as they have to contend against violence, deceit, and injustice, to raise their thoughts to God in order to encourage themselves in the certain hope of deliverance, according as Paul also exhorts them in 2 Thessalonians 1:5, âWhich is,â says he, âa manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled, rest with us.â And assuredly he would not be the judge of the world if there were not laid up in store with him a recompense for all the ungodly. One use, then, which may be made of this doctrine is this, â when we see the wicked indulging themselves in their lusts, and when, in consequence, doubts steal into our minds as to whether God takes any care of us, we should learn to satisfy ourselves with the consideration that God, who hates and abhors all iniquity, will not permit them to pass unpunished, and although he bear with them for a time, he will at length ascend into the judgment-seat, and show himself an avenger, as he is the protector and defender of his people. 10 Again, we may infer from this passage the common doctrine, that God, although he works by Satan and by the ungodly, and makes use of their malice for executing his judgments, is not, on this account, the author of sin, nor is pleased with it because the end which he purposes is always righteous; and he justly condemns and punishes those who, by his mysterious providence, are driven whithersoever he pleases.
In the 4th verse some take ra, in the masculine gender, for a wicked man; but I understand it rather of wickedness itself David declares simply, that there is no agreement between God and unrighteousness. He immediately after proceeds to speak of the men themselves, saying, the foolish shall not stand in thy sight; and it is a very just inference from this, that iniquity its hateful to God, and that, therefore, he will execute just punishment upon all the wicked. He calls those fools, according to a frequent use of the term in Scripture, who, impelled by blind passion, rush headlong into sin. Nothing is more foolish, than for the ungodly to cast away the fear of God, and suffer the desire of doing mischief to be their ruling principle; yea, there is no madness worse than the contempt of God, under the influence of which men pervert all right. David sets this truth before himself for his own comfort; but we also may draw from it doctrine very useful in training us to the fear of God; for the Holy Spirit, by declaring God to be the avenger of wickedness, puts a bridle upon us, to restrain us from committing sin, in the vain hope of escaping with impunity.
Some INSPIRING PHILOSOPHY YouTube Shorts:
In the debate Dr. Turek mentions in the YouTube Short to the right, his memory was a bit off [graphic at the bottom with the corrected reference], however, he is still correct… as many 5-pointers mention God not allowing Adam and Eve to sin, but actually causing it. See my two posts:
In a dealing with Psalm 5:5-6, Dr. Eitan Bar (co-founder of one of my go-to Jewish ministries, ONE FOR ISRAEL — although he is no longer affiliated with them. Which I kind of agree with – he rejects an eternal punishment in hell as well as the penal substitutionary theory.)
But Doesnât God Hate Sinners?
You hate all who do wrong. –Â Psalm 5:5
Marco from Reading, Pennsylvania, wrote to ask pastor John Piper: âPastor John, what do you make of the saying, âGod loves the sinner, but hates the sin?ââ John Piperâs answer included a quotation of Psalm 5:5 as well as the following statement:
It is just not true to give the impression that God doesnât hate sinners by saying, âhe loves the sinner and hates the sin.â He does hate sinners. –Â John Piper
Likewise, pastor Mark Driscoll preached to his congregation the same motif:
The Bible speaks of God not just hating sin but sinners⊠Psalm 5:5, âYou,â speaking of God, âhate all evildoers.â God doesnât just hate what you do. He hates who you are! – Mark Driscoll
In the same way, Reformed Baptist pastor David Platt wrote:
Does God hate sinners? Listen closely to Psalm 5:5-6: âThe arrogant cannot stand in your presence; You hate all who do wrong.â –Â David Platt
The ECTâs (Eternal Conscious Torment) logic in quoting Psalm 5:5-6 goes something like this:
Those who sin are sinners.
Everyone sins.
God hates sinners.
God must separate Himself from sinners.
Therefore, God hates everyone and must condemn all to hellfire.
Practically speaking, fundamentalist preachers believe that every cute newborn, every sweet toddler, and every child playing in your neighborhoodâs parkâare all sinners condemned to hellfire as God hates them.
Once we dismiss the pleasantries of Calvinism, the only reason some are in heaven and some are in hell is because it pleased God for them to be there. Notwithstanding the weak and misleading arguments to the contrary by many Calvinists, I maintain all consistent Calvinists inevitably believe in double predestination. They either believe God actively predestined some to hell, as Calvin does, or he did so by choosing not to offer what would have surely delivered them from hell to heaven, which is unconditional election and selective regeneration. Calvin refers to this cold, inescapable reality as the product of Godâs wish, pleasure, and counsel.*
* John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), vol. 2, bk. 3, chap. 21, sec. 7, pg. 210.
On the surface, Psalm 5 seems to contradict verses like John 3:16, which states, âFor God so loved the world.â In âWorld,â John speaks about the people in it, not the waters and soil. John essentially says, âFor God so loved the sinners.â
So, is there a conflict between Psalm 5 and John 3:16?
Psalm 5:5
Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, so many Hebrew words carry a broad range of meanings, varying according to context. Moreover, the meanings of words often evolve over time.
To fully grasp the message of Psalm 5:5, itâs crucial first to understand its context. Hebraist scholar Mitchell Dahood interprets Psalm 5 as a ârepudiation of false gods when one was accused of idolatry.â In a similar vein, VanGemeren, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, views Psalm 5 as Godâs self-distinction from other deities, asserting that âwhereas other religions brought together good and evil at the level of the gods, God had revealed that evil exists apart from him.â
Thus, with this context in mind, more accurate than âGod hates everyoneâ will be to conclude that God hates idol worshippers. Remember, the pagans around ancient Israel would not only steal office pens and lie about how lovely you looked in your new evening dress tonight; they would burn their babies in the fire as a sacrifice for their idols. The pagans were cruel and evil. So, it is they, in this context, that God hates.
But this isnât even the main problem with how Psalm 5:5-6 is being misused.
The Biblical Meaning of âHateâ
Much like âlove,â the English word âhateâ has become heavily loaded with strong emotional connotations in contemporary language. âHate,â often used to express extremely strong emotions, is usually associated with images of violence, wrath, death, and anger. In biblical Hebrew, however, âhateâ means something else altogether.
Regrettably, preachers often misinterpret ancient Hebrew (and Greek) terms when reading a translation in their native languages, applying modern perspectives and interpretations. This misinterpretation can occur accidentally, but at times, it might also stem from a desire to support a pre-existing theological agenda.
SANEÂ = To avoid, reject, and ignore
The Hebrew word translated to âhateâ is SANE. The Hebrew Bible frequently uses SANE as a synonym for âreject,â âavoid,â âdeny,â or âignore.â If you donât trust my Hebrew skills as a native Hebrew speaker, then allow me to point you over to the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible, where âSANE â is explained as something one avoids:
The pictograph is a picture of a thorn, then is a picture of seed. Combined, these mean âthorn seed.â The thorn, (the seed of a plant with small sharp points) causes one to turn in directions to avoid them.
Hate as reject: In Romans 9:10-13, Paul clearly uses âhateâ in a matter of election. God elected Jacob yet rejected (SANE/hated) Esau. âEsau I have hatedâ is not about God wishing for Esau a violent and painful death but about God rejecting Esau and electing Jacob instead.
Thus, biblically speaking, to hate someone is to reject or avoid themâto deny your attention, election, intimacy, or blessings from them. If a woman hates her husband, she turns indifferent, pushes him away, avoids him, and leaves him. On the other hand, if she still cares for him â loves him â she will get angry and fight loudly and emotionally. You go to battle over the things you cherish most but avoid associating with those you hate and are apathetic about.
Hate as ignore/avoid: Paulâs understanding of âhateâ is also why Paul says, âNo one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body.â (Ephesians 5:29). We all know people who emotionally hate their body or parts of it. I emotionally hated mine when I was a fat kid with zits on my face. But as we just established, biblical hate is not about emotions or feelings of detestation. Paul was saying that no one ignores their body. We indeed drink water when we are thirsty and donât avoid going to the toilet when our body tells us to (even if emotionally we âhateâ ourselves).
The understanding that to âhateâ means to reject, ignore, or avoid is the only way the words of Jesus would make any sense:
If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sistersâyes, even their own lifeâsuch a person cannot be my disciple. – Luke 14:26
Love would not demand that you âhateâ (in the modern emotional sense of the word) others or your family because that would contradict Jesusâ commandment to love even our enemies. So clearly, to âhateâ your family must mean we have to choose him over them, not loathe and despise them.
As a Jew, I had to experience Luke 14:26 when my Jewish mother first found out I believed in Jesus. When she demanded I stop believing and reject Jesus, I had to reject her plea, choosing Christ instead.
In the same way, we should read Psalm 5:5-6. God rejects the evildoersâthe idols and those who worship them. Godâs rejection of idols stems from their influence in leading Israel to commit heinous acts, such as the burning of their children.
To conclude, from a biblical standpoint, when you reject, avoid, or ignore someone, you SANE (âhateâ) them. Therefore, God may âhateâ in the sense of withdrawing blessings and protection from people, rejecting their appeals, or avoiding them. However, God loves even the greatest of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).
Does God Desire the Salvation of Everyone?
WWUTT (When We Understand The Text) has recently released a video that denies God’s genuine desire for the salvation of all people based on some very erroneous logical fallacies and misapplications of scripture.
Originally posted April of 2013, UPDATED(1/15/2026) with Calvinist distortions. JUMP TO UPDATE
I am including this here because in my now closing in on a year of studies, I clearly saw this “faith distortion” a few months ago. So I am including this video with my Facebook description here:
This was awesome to hear — listened to today (1-14-2026). I made this point in my small group, which was: having been raised in the Word Faith/”name it and claim it” type Christianity, I noticed that Calvinistâs adopt a view of faith that is the same, when describing their opponents. That is, “Faith in your faith”, to wit:
Many of the WOFMâs doctrines are linked directly to the mistaken concept that faith is a literal substance, âa power force ⊠a tangible force ⊠a conductive force.â
— According to Kenneth E. Hagin, faith in oneâs own faith is the secret to getting every desire of the heart.
This delapitated/false view of faith is what Calvinists think all non-Calvinists express. And that is a wrong supposition, or view of what faith is. It is a straw man. I was happy to hear that connection I thought of from Doc Flowers.
Originally posted April of 2013, UPDATED(2/8/2024) with the NET Bible and commentary at the end.
Here is a quick 101 on the history of the Word Faith via GOT QUESTIONS:
The Word of Faith movement grew out of the Pentecostal movement in the late 20th century. Its founder was E. W. Kenyon, who studied the metaphysical New Thought teachings of Phineas Quimby. Mind science (where “name it and claim it” originated) was combined with Pentecostalism, resulting in a peculiar mix of orthodox Christianity and mysticism. Kenneth Hagin, in turn, studied under E. W. Kenyon and made the Word of Faith movement what it is today. Although individual teachings range from completely heretical to completely ridiculous, what follows is the basic theology most Word of Faith teachers align themselves with.
At the heart of the Word of Faith movement is the belief in the “force of faith.” It is believed words can be used to manipulate the faith-force, and thus actually create what they believe Scripture promises (health and wealth). Laws supposedly governing the faith-force are said to operate independently of Godâs sovereign will and that God Himself is subject to these laws. This is nothing short of idolatry, turning our faithâand by extension ourselvesâinto god.
From here, its theology just strays further and further from Scripture: it claims that God created human beings in His literal, physical image as little gods. Before the fall, humans had the potential to call things into existence by using the faith-force. After the fall, humans took on Satanâs nature and lost the ability to call things into existence. In order to correct this situation, Jesus Christ gave up His divinity and became a man, died spiritually, took Satanâs nature upon Himself, went to hell, was born again, and rose from the dead with Godâs nature. After this, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to replicate the Incarnation in believers so they could become little gods as God had originally intended.
Following the natural progression of these teachings, as little gods we again have the ability to manipulate the faith-force and become prosperous in all areas of life. Illness, sin, and failure are the result of a lack of faith, and are remedied by confessionâclaiming Godâs promises for oneself into existence. Simply put, the Word of Faith movement exalts man to god-status and reduces God to man-status. Needless to say, this is a false representation of what Christianity is all about. Obviously, Word of Faith teaching does not take into account what is found in Scripture. Personal revelation, not Scripture, is highly relied upon in order to come up with such absurd beliefs, which is just one more proof of its heretical nature.
[….]
The Word of Faith movement is deceiving countless people, causing them to grasp after a way of life and faith that is not biblical. At its core is the same lie Satan has been telling since the Garden: âYou shall be as Godâ (Genesis 3:5). Sadly, those who buy into the Word of Faith movement are still listening to him. Our hope is in the Lord, not in our own words, not even in our own faith (Psalm 33:20-22). Our faith comes from God in the first place (Ephesians 2:8;Â Hebrews 12:2) and is not something we create for ourselves. So, be wary of the Word of Faith movement and any church that aligns itself with Word of Faith teachings.
Here is an example of one verse striped of context via the Word Faith movement:
Geisler & Rhodes opine:
JOSHUA 1:8âIs this verse a key to financial prosperity, as Word-Faith teachers suggest?
MISINTERPRETATION: Joshua 1:8 says, “This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have sucÂcess” (NASB). Word-Faith teachers say this verse is a key to financial prosÂperity.
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: Word-Faith teachÂers are reading a meaning into this verse that is not there. The context of this verse is military, not financial. In fact, finances are nowhere in sight in this entire chapter of Joshua.
In the conquest of the Promised Land, God promised Joshua that his military efforts would prosper if he maintained his commitment to meditate upon and obey God’s Word. The prospering also no doubt includes the full outworking of the land promises that were given unconÂditionally by God in the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3). Later, just before his death, Joshua urged the people to continue living in subÂmission to the Scriptures (Josh. 23:6).
What a healthy view of this Joshua verse is this:
… Sometimes we misunderstand what it means, ‘to succeed’ or ‘to prosper’ which has given rise to a prosperity teaching which places the emphasis on temporal, worldly prosperity rather than eternal spiritual wealth. God may choose to bestow worldly wealth on His children or He may permit the alternative, but the goods and chattel of this world are passing away, and like Paul we need to be content in all things.
What is important, is to know the Word of God, to trust the Word of God, and to apply the Word of God in every circumstance of life, knowing that to do so will lead to success in the Christian life; for all things work together for good to those that love the Lord and trust His Word.
We should read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the Word of the Lord. We should study God’s Book of instruction, particularly those passages that relate specifically to the Church, and we should continually feed on His Word in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving.
We should meditate on His Word, memorize His Word, trust His Word, and love His Word, and we should be sure to obey His Word and apply His Word in our daily lives, for in so doing we will certainly prosper and succeed in all we do, to His praise and glory….
1:8 This law scroll must not leave your lips! You must memorize it day and night so you can carefully obey all that is written in it. Then you will prosper and be successful.
1:9 I repeat, be strong and brave! Donât be afraid and donât panic, for I, the LORD your God, am with you in all you do.â
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005), Jos 1:7â9.
A decent extended commentary can be found here to help separate the wheat from the Chaff, as competing theologies fight over interpreting verses:
1:6â9. The second half of Godâs speech also begins with two imperatives (âBe strong and courageousâ), though these two are effectively synonyms. These imperatives follow logically from the promise of verse 5âif no one could resist Joshua, then there was no basis for fear. Instead, as leader he was to distribute the land that God had sworn to give to their ancestors (adapting phrasing found five times in Deuteronomy). The land is thus simultaneously Godâs gift and something to be claimed and allotted. Verse 7 provides a more specific focus for Joshua: He was to be strong and very courageous in carefully observing all the instruction (ŚȘÖŒŚÖ茚֞Ś) that God had given through Moses. This was not simply a set of facts to be known but rather a life that was to be livedâand living this life would take effort. Drawing on the common metaphor of life as a journey, the idea is that Joshua should stay on the path that this instruction provides rather than take alternative routes, for this is the means by which he would succeed. This success is related to the task that God had given Joshua, so walking faithfully in the Mosaic instruction was the means by which Joshua could lead the people into the land that God had promised.
Joshua was to meditate (ŚÖžŚÖžŚ) on this instruction. The verb, with a similar promise of success, also occurs in Ps 1:2 and means something like âgrowlâ or âmutter.â This verbal element is more apparent in Ps 2:1, where it is translated âplot.â It is difficult to match this word to a single English verb since âmeditateâ is often thought of as a silent activity. That the instruction was to be in Joshuaâs âmouthâ is an idiom that goes naturally with the verb. Thus, he would continue reflecting on its meaning, with such reflection being verbal. This relates to the fact that reading in the ancient world meant reading aloud. In the same way, reflection on it was verbal. But what matters in particular is that Joshuaâs life was to be shaped by faithfulness to Godâs instruction. At this stage in the book we might think of this as unproblematic, but as the ensuing chapters unfold it becomes clear that Joshua would need to wrestle with the intent of the instruction in order to determine how it was to be applied in a range of circumstances. This would require seeing the instruction as guidance for situations that would be faced rather than as a comprehensive set of rules that could simply be applied. Joshua would need a deep knowledge of Godâs instruction, which meant both knowing its content and reflecting on how it could be applied. Therefore, it could not depart from his mouth, because only by continued recitation/meditation could he both know it and understand how to apply it. Psalm 1 then broadens out this possibility for all believers.
Godâs speech then concludes with a reminder of the command to be strong and courageous so that Joshua would understand there is no place for fear because Yahweh would go with him. Joshua could succeed and lead his people to success when he understood that his role as a leader was to journey with God, know Godâs instruction, and shape his life by it. Success here does not mean something financial but to receive the things that God is giving. We might perhaps think of âsuccessâ as flourishing in the life God has preparedâwhich is the way it is developed in Psalm 1. Here, that flourishing would be military, as Israel received the land God gave.
David G. Firth, JOSHUA, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021), 72â74.
This from CROSS WISEÂ (2011) explaining a bit about the above:
In light of another Calvary Chapel pastor making an appearance on TBN’s Praise-the-Lord program, I thought it apropos to share a tape in my collection of how a Bible believer should behave when invited onto TBN or any of the other errant “Christian” networks. What sort of message is communicated when a solid Bible teacher shares the platform with heretics and does not bring reproof? Certainly it gives the impression that the guest endorses the teaching of the hosts and /or founder of the Christian network.
Some argue that if they can’t go on TBN due to its corruption, then they couldn’t show up on ABC, NBC or CBS either. They don’t understand the distinction between being salt and light to the unsaved world and practicing biblical separation from so-called Christians who are spreading false teaching against Jesus Christ. To the unsaved, we can use their media to spread the Gospel, but to the errant brother we are to bring correction and divide if they do not stop their false teaching. For a proof-text consider 1 Corinthians 5:11:
But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called a brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or ban idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindlerânot even to eat with such a one. (NASB)
When Calvary Chapel Albuquerque’s pastor Skip Heitzig went on TBN last week acting like he and his host Phil Munsey were old friends, it was a shame to the spirit of that passage. Phil Munsey and his brother Steve Munsey are two of the most infamous extortioners in the field of Christian television. Munsey has used new age ideas of paradigm shifts and panentheism to spread his unbiblical dominionist views.
In contrast to the compromisers, the late Walter Martin tried to bring correction the last time he made an appearance on TBN. This video tape has never circulated and has not been available anywhere until now that I have posted it to YouTube.
Back in 1985 my younger sister was Martin’s secretary. She and my older sister and I all regularly attended his weekly Bible study. I used to share my research with him and also with my friend author Dave Hunt. Walter and Dave disagreed on many things regarding their styles of apologetics and discernment. Whenever there was a difference of opinion between the two of them, I usually agreed with Dave.
I had had some discussion with Dr. Martin over Dave’s book, The Seduction of Christianity. Walter had been critical about it on the radio having never read it but based his criticisms upon what his personal editor had told him.
One day my older sister was watching Praise-the-Lord when Hal Lindsey was a guest. He was her pastor at that time. Back then Hal used to challenge the teaching of other TBN regulars and Paul Crouch put up with it. However, that got old with the Crouches and when Hal wouldn’t stop criticizing the Kingdom Now doctrine, he was put on the shelf until he learned to kow-tow to them. When my sister heard Hal bring up Walter’s name in the show, Paul and Jan agreed that he was a brilliant man and Hal said you should have him on some time. They both responded – oh sure we will.
So she informed our little sister who told Walter and Walter told her to call TBN and arrange it which she did. However, the Crouches wouldn’t host him so they got prophecy teacher Doug Clark to do so. My younger sister called me on the day of the taping saying that Walter wanted me to go through Dave Hunt’s book, The Seduction of Christianity and highlight things he would be in agreement with. I was happy to do so for him. He used that information to challenge TBN’s blackballing of Dave Hunt and other whistle-blowers.
I stayed home to work the VCR I didn’t know how to program, while my two sisters attended, one in the green room and one in the audience we had stacked with many friends. Walter gave it to them with both barrels. Not only was the program not replayed at its regular slot, but the tapes were not available when people followed up to request one. Back in those days any Praise-the-Lord program could be bought on audio cassette for a small fee. And both Walter Martin and Doug Clark were never invited back. We had heard years later from Doug Clark that during the interview he kept receiving notes from the stage manager telling him to “shut that guy up” and other nasty notes….
Dr. Flowers welcomes Pastor Scott Mitchell, of Calvary Chapel in Boston, who has authored a new book titled, “Rediscovering Romans 9: How Calvinism Distorts the Nature & Character of God” (FULL VIDEO EMBEDDED BELOW)
Leighton read this section from Pastor Scott’s book:
Disrespect through misrepresentation is nothing new; it happens among people all the time. I cannot count the number of times I have had people misrepresent me, or put words in my mouth that I never said. I have had people tell me what I believe, when in fact I do not. Even when I attempt to correct their claim, many refuse to listen and continue to tell me what I believe. The point here is, if I am disrespected because someone misrepresents me, though frustrating, it is not necessarily going to affect me and I typically do not take it personally. What others claim I believe does not actually change me, it just makes me aware of their opinion. People are always going to have their opinions and I cannot correct everyone’s perspective of what they think I believe. I have taught enough Bible studies over the past 30 plus years so people can know what I believe and why I believe it. There will always be detractors; as they say, it goes with the territory.
Sometimes disrespectful statements can hurt those beyond the one targeted. If someone makes a disrespectful or inaccurate statement about me and it results in hurt to others, then you have my attention. Affecting others causes the stakes of the case to rise. Moreover, if the claim is against my character and it results in a damaged relationship with someone dear to me (including those God has placed under my care as a pastor) this requires my undivided attention. Not because of how I feel about the personal disrespect, but because of how it affects others who are innocent victims and vulnerable to unnecessary hurt. This issue corresponds to the intention of this book. I believe that Calvinism misrepresents God’s character. Though I do not believe Calvinists do this intentionally, the resulting effect is still the same.
When any Christian misrepresents God, it can result in hurt or confusion to believers and effect the presentation of the gospel to unbelievers. Calvinism has a particular problem in this area since their doctrines are notoriously controversial. When a neophyte Calvinist begins to realize the incongruity of the “doctrines of grace” with the clear teachings of Scripture, it can certainly result in confusion. The real problem in this case can be a distrust in the Bible instead of the Calvinistic teachings, since there may not be enough previous Bible education for a fair comparison to take place.
Calvinists typically reject any presentation of the gospel to large groups or crusades because they believe it is deceptive to offer the gospel to those in the crowd who are not the elect. Their actions in rejection of these events spans from refusing involvement to outright picketing as unbelievers enter these events. What does that say to unbelievers? Any concern Calvinists have with the gospel preached to the “non-elect” (in their minds) is a result of their own theological bias and is both unbiblical and illogical. First, in the Bible Jesus and the apostles preach the gospel to groups. We are told that some or many believed, implying naturally that not all believed, or that others rejected. Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) is a classic example along with the multiple cities Paul visited on his missionary journeys. His efforts involved crowds of people he preached to, not to mention his visit to Jerusalem (Acts 22). Second, it is illogical to hold the gospel back from anyone through concern they are not one of the elect. Whether it is one or one hundred thousand to whom the gospel is shared, no one knows who will respond positively until after the presentation is made. Moreover, an initial positive response may not be genuine faith; this is only discoverable over time no matter whether it is one or more. There is never a biblical or logical reason to prevent sharing the gospel with anyone when the opportunity presents itself. No one knows or can assume a person will receive or reject the truth.
God has big shoulders and can certainly handle people who do not accurately understand Him because they do not know Him. But, when false or misleading statements made about Him are by those who know Him, this presents a different picture. This can affect the relationship between God and His people, and when this occurs, I think you will have His attention. There is a particular responsibility assigned to pastors, Bible teachers, and Christian leaders to represent Him reverently and biblically. All Christians have the responsibility to engage in “casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the [accurate} knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5), but those whom God has specifically tasked with overseeing and caring for His flock (1 Peter 5:2-3; Titus 1:9-11) must pay particular attention for the sake of His flock. “The flock of God” (1 Peter 5:2) are His blood-bought people!
False statements and claims about God can easily result in unbelievers rejecting Christ. This however is also a problem in the church among God’s people. If there is a place people should be able to go and get a clear understanding of God’s self-revelation through His word, it is the church, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). His word accurately represents His nature and character; thus, a poor exposition of His word can easily result in misrepresenting Him in the congregation. Paul was well-aware of this problem and spent much of the New Testament (NT) instructing about God and correcting misrepresentations or misunderstandings related to Him. Therefore, this issue requires our utmost attention. Misrepresenting God kept Moses from entering the Promised Land (Num. 20:7-13) after a life of faithful service (Heb. 3:5)âit is a serious matter with God for sure.
Pages 5-7 of Scott Mitchellâs book, Rediscovering Romans 9: How Calvinism Distorts The Nature And Character Of God
The green box that follows the original text is GROK modernizing it
The sight of your well known hand writing in your favour of 25. Feb. last, gave me great pleasure, as it proved your arm to be restored and your pen still manageableâmay it continue till you shall become as perfect a calvinist as I am in one particular. Poor Calvins infirmities his rheumatism his gouts and sciatics made him frequently cry out Mon dieu Jusque au quand Lord how long! Prat once Chief Justice of new york always tormented with infirmities dreamt that he was situated on a single rock in the midst of the Atlantick ocean, He heard a voice. âWhy mourns the bard Apollo bids thee2 rise, renounce the dust,3 and claim thy native skies.ââ
Here’s a modern English update of the excerpt from John Adams’s letter to Thomas Jefferson (dated March 10, 1823), keeping the original meaning, tone, and humor intact while making the language clearer and more contemporary:
Seeing your familiar handwriting in your letter from February 25th gave me great pleasure. It showed that your arm has recovered and you can still write easilyâmay that continue until you become as much of a Calvinist as I am in one respect. Poor Calvin’s ailmentsâhis rheumatism, gout, and sciaticaâoften made him cry out, “Mon Dieu, jusqu’Ă quand?” which means “Lord, how long!” Pratt, who was once Chief Justice of New York and always plagued by health problems, dreamed that he was stranded on a lone rock in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Then he heard a voice say:
“Why does the bard mourn? Apollo bids you rise, renounce the dust, and claim your native skies.”
(For context: Adams is playfully teasing Jefferson about enduring old-age infirmities with Calvinist patience, referencing John Calvin’s sufferings and a poetic anecdote about Benjamin Pratt, an 18th-century New York judge known for his poetry and health issues.)
The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of âmon Dieu! jusque Ă quandâ! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. he was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was DĂŠmonism. if ever man worshipped a false god, he did. the being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a dĂŠmon of malignant spirit. it would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.Â
[….]
Of the nature of this being we know nothing. Jesus tells us that âGod is a spirit.â 4. John 24. but without defining what a spirit is. âÏÎœÎ”Ï ÎŒÎ± áœ ÎžÎ”ÎżÏ.â down to the 3d century we know that it was still deemed material; but of a lighter subtler matter than our gross bodies. so says Origen. âDeus igitur, cui anima similis est, juxta Originem, reapse4 corporalis est; sed graviorum tantum ratione corporum incorporeus.â these are the words of Huet in his commentary on Origen. Origen himself says âappellatio αÏÏΌαÏÎżÎœ apud nostros scriptores est inusitata et incognita.â so also Tertullian âquis autem negabit Deum esse corpus, etsi deus spiritus? spiritus etiam corporis sui generis, in suĂą effigie.â Tertullian. these two fathers were of the 3d century. Calvinâs character of this supreme being seems chiefly copied from that of the Jews. but the reformation of these blasphemous attributes, and substitution of those more worthy, pure and sublime, seems to have been the chief object of Jesus in his discources to the Jews: and his doctrine of the Cosmogony of the world is very clearly laid down in the 3 first verses of the 1st chapter of John, in these words, âΔΜ αÏÏη ηΜ áœ Î»ÎżÎłÎżÏ, ÎșαÎč áœ Î»ÎżÎłÎżÏ Î·Îœ ÏÏÎżÏ ÏÎżÎœ ÎžÎ”ÎżÎœ ÎșαÎč ÎžÎ”ÎżÏ Î·Îœ áœ Î»ÎżÎłÎżÏ. ÎżáœÏÎżÏ Î·Îœ ΔΜ αÏÏη ÏÏÎżÏ ÏÎżÎœ ÎžÎ”ÎżÎœ. ÏαΜÏα ΎΔ Î±Ï ÏÎżÏ Î”ÎłÎ”ÎœÎ”ÏÎż, ÎșαÎč ÏÏÏÎčÏ Î±Ï ÏÎżÏ Î”ÎłÎ”ÎœÎ”ÏÎż ÎżÏ ÎŽÎ” áŒÎœ áœ ÎłÎ”ÎłÎżÎœÎ”Îœ.â which truly translated means âin the beginning God existed, and reason [or mind] was with God, and that mind was God. this was in the beginning with God. all things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made.â yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus that the world was created by the supreme, intelligent being, has been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism by a mistranslation of the word λογοÏ. one of itâs legitimate meanings indeed is âa word.â but, in that sense, it makes an unmeaning jargon: while the other meaning âreason,â equally legitimate, explains rationally the eternal preexistence of God, and his creation of the world. knowing how incomprehensible it was that âa word,â the mere action or articulation of the voice and organs of speech could create a world, they undertake to make of this articulation a second preexisting being, and ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe. the Atheist here plumes himself on the uselessness of such a God, and the simpler hypothesis of a self-existent universe. the truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. and the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. but we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.
So much for your quotation of Calvinâs âmon dieu! jusquâa quandâ in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than reluctance. may we meet there again, in Congress, with our antient Colleagues, and recieve with them the seal of approbation âWell done, good and faithful servants.â
Here’s a modern English update of this excerpt from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Adams (dated April 11, 1823), preserving the original meaning, passion, and philosophical tone while making the language clearer and more accessible:
The wishes you expressed in your last letterâthat I might live long and healthy until I become a Calvinist, at least in crying out “My God! How long?!”âwould make me immortal if they came true. But I can never join Calvin in addressing his god that way. He was essentially an atheist (which I could never be), or rather, his religion was daemonism. If any man ever worshiped a false god, it was him. The being described in his five points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adoreâthe Creator and benevolent governor of the worldâbut a daemon with a malignant spirit. It would be more forgivable to believe in no god at all than to blaspheme the true God by attributing such atrocious qualities to Him.
[….]
Of the true nature of this Being, we know nothing. Jesus tells us that “God is a spirit” (John 4:24), but without defining what a spirit isâ”ÏÎœÎ”áżŠÎŒÎ± ᜠΞΔÏÏ” (pneuma ho theos). Down to the 3rd century, it was still considered material, though of a lighter, subtler substance than our gross bodies. So says Origen: “Therefore God, to whom the soul is similar, according to Origen, is actually corporeal, but incorporeal only in comparison to heavier bodies.” These are the words of Huet in his commentary on Origen. Origen himself says that the term “incorporeal” (áŒÏÏΌαÏÎżÎœ) is unusual and unknown in our [Christian] writers. Tertullian says the same: “Who will deny that God is a body, even though God is a spirit? For spirit is a body of its own kind, in its own form.” Both of these Church Fathers were from the 3rd century.
Calvin’s portrayal of the Supreme Being seems mostly copied from the Jewish conception. But reforming those blasphemous attributes and replacing them with ones more worthy, pure, and sublime appears to have been Jesus’s main goal in his discourses with the Jews. His doctrine of the world’s creation is very clearly stated in the first three verses of the Gospel of John:”áŒÎœ áŒÏÏáż áŒŠÎœ ᜠλÏγοÏ, Îșα᜶ ᜠλÏÎłÎżÏ áŒŠÎœ ÏÏáœžÏ Ï᜞Μ ΞΔÏÎœ, Îșα᜶ ÎžÎ”áœžÏ áŒŠÎœ ᜠλÏγοÏ. ÎáœÏÎżÏ áŒŠÎœ áŒÎœ áŒÏÏáż ÏÏáœžÏ Ï᜞Μ ΞΔÏÎœ. Î ÎŹÎœÏα ÎŽÎčâ αáœÏοῊ áŒÎłÎΜΔÏÎż, Îșα᜶ ÏÏÏáœ¶Ï Î±áœÏοῊ áŒÎłÎΜΔÏÎż ÎżáœÎŽáœČ áŒÎœ áœ ÎłÎÎłÎżÎœÎ”Îœ.”Which, truly translated, means: “In the beginning, God existed, and reason (or mind) was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created by it, and without it not one thing that was made came into being.” Yet this textâso plainly declaring Jesus’s doctrine that the world was created by the supreme intelligent Beingâhas been twisted by modern Christians to build up a second person in their tritheism through a mistranslation of the word λÏÎłÎżÏ (logos). One of its legitimate meanings is indeed “word,” but in that sense it produces meaningless nonsense. The other equally legitimate meaningâ”reason”âexplains rationally God’s eternal preexistence and His creation of the world. Knowing how incomprehensible it was that a mere “word”âthe simple action of voice and speech organsâcould create a world, they instead turn this “word” into a second pre-existing being and attribute the creation of the universe to him rather than to God. The atheist here boasts about the uselessness of such a God and prefers the simpler idea of a self-existent universe. The truth is that the greatest enemies of Jesus’s doctrines are those who call themselves their interpreters, who have perverted them to build a system of fantasy that is utterly incomprehensible and has no foundation in his actual words. And the day will come when the mystical story of Jesus being generated by the Supreme Being as His father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the myth of Minerva springing from the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will sweep away all this artificial scaffolding and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. So much for your quotation of Calvin’s “Mon Dieu! jusqu’Ă quand!” When addressed to the God of Jesusâand our GodâI join you in it wholeheartedly, and I await His time and will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet again there, in a heavenly Congress with our old colleagues, and receive with them the seal of approval: “Well done, good and faithful servants.”
And here GROK did a redo making it :”more concise”
Here’s a more concise modern English version of Jefferson’s response (April 11, 1823):
Your wish that I live long enough to become a Calvinistâat least in crying âMy God! How long?ââwould make me immortal. But I can never pray to Calvinâs god. He was essentially an atheist, or his religion was daemonism. If anyone worshiped a false god, it was him. The being in his five points is not the God we both acknowledgeâthe benevolent Creator and governor of the worldâbut a malignant daemon. It is more forgivable to believe in no god than to blaspheme the true one with Calvinâs atrocious attributes.
We know nothing of this Beingâs nature. Jesus said âGod is a spiritâ (John 4:24), but did not define it. Until the 3rd century, Christians considered spirit material, though subtler than fleshâas Origen and Tertullian both affirmed.
Calvinâs image of God largely copies the harsh Jewish portrayal. Jesusâs main mission seems to have been correcting those blasphemous attributes and teaching purer, more sublime ones. His cosmology is clearly stated in John 1:1â3:âIn the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God⊠All things were made through it.â
Properly translated, Logos means âreasonâ or âmindâ: In the beginning God existed, reason was with God, and reason was God. All things were created by it. Modern Christians, however, mistranslate Logos as âwordâ to invent a second divine person and build their tritheism. This turns a rational account of creation into incomprehensible jargonâand gives atheists an easy target.
The worst enemies of Jesusâs teachings are the so-called experts who have twisted them into a fanciful, groundless system. One day, the virgin birth of Jesus will be ranked with Minerva springing from Jupiterâs head. But I hope the spread of reason and free thought in America will sweep away this artificial scaffolding and restore Jesusâs original, genuine doctrinesâthe work of the greatest reformer of human errors.
As for Calvinâs âMy God! How long?ââwhen addressed to the God of Jesus, our GodâI join you wholeheartedly. I await His will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet again in a heavenly Congress with our old colleagues and hear together: âWell done, good and faithful servants.â
GROK offered to explain Jefferson’s “5-Points Critique,” here that is:
Thomas Jefferson’s critique of Calvinism’s “five points” appears in his April 11, 1823, letter to John Adams. He did not break it down point-by-point but offered a sweeping condemnation, calling the God portrayed in these doctrines a “daemon of malignant spirit” rather than the benevolent Creator he and Adams revered. Jefferson viewed Calvin’s theology as blasphemous, arguing it would be better to believe in no God at all than to attribute such “atrocious” qualities to the divine. The Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP)These points, formalized after John Calvin’s death at the Synod of Dort (1618â1619) in response to Arminianism, summarize key Reformed doctrines on salvation:
Total Depravity: Humanity is utterly corrupted by sin, incapable of choosing God or doing spiritual good without divine intervention.
Unconditional Election: God chooses (elects) certain individuals for salvation based solely on His will, not on any foreseen merit or faith.
Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption): Christ’s death effectively atones only for the sins of the elect, not for all humanity.
Irresistible Grace: God’s grace effectively calls the elect to faith; they cannot ultimately resist it.
Perseverance of the Saints: The elect will persevere in faith and cannot finally lose salvation.
Jefferson’s Core Objection
Jefferson, influenced by Enlightenment rationalism, Deism, and Unitarian leanings, emphasized a God of benevolence, reason, and moral governance. He saw Calvinism’s emphasis on God’s absolute sovereigntyâespecially in predestination (including “double predestination,” where God decrees both election to salvation and reprobation to damnation)âas portraying a tyrannical, arbitrary deity. This God predestines most of humanity to eternal punishment without regard to their actions, which Jefferson found cruel and incompatible with divine goodness. He contrasted this with Jesus’s teachings, which he believed focused on moral reform, free will, and a loving God. Jefferson also linked Calvinism to historical intolerance (e.g., Calvin’s role in the execution of Michael Servetus) and saw it as a perversion of true Christianity. In essence, Jefferson rejected the five points not for subtle theological nuances but because they collectively depicted a God he considered morally repugnantâa “malignant” being closer to a demon than the rational, kind Creator revealed (in his view) by nature and Jesus’s ethical teachings. This reflected his broader anti-Trinitarian, anti-orthodox stance, favoring a simplified, moralistic Christianity over doctrinal systems like Calvinism.
Keep in mind GROK is not a theologian. I asked GROK about John Adam’s views of Calvinism, this was the short answer:
John Adams, raised in a Puritan New England Congregationalist family with strong Calvinist roots, ultimately rejected core Calvinist doctrines and evolved into a Unitarian Christian.
Early Rejection of Calvinism
He rejected key Calvinist tenets early in life, including:
Predestination
Total depravity
Limited atonement
Eternal damnation for most
He called Calvinism “frigid,” irrational, and marked by a “domineering and persecuting spirit.” Influenced by liberal Congregationalist preachers and Enlightenment rationalism, Adams viewed strict Calvinism as incompatible with a benevolent God and human free will. He leaned toward Arminianism (emphasizing free choice in salvation) before fully embracing Unitarianism.
Self-Identification as Unitarian
In later years, Adams explicitly identified as a Unitarian, writing to his son John Quincy Adams in 1816: “We Unitarians, one of whom I have had the Honour to be, for more than Sixty Years…” He rejected the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, original sin, and salvation by arbitrary grace alone, favoring a rational, moral Christianity focused on benevolence, good works, and the Sermon on the Mount.
Playful Teasing in Correspondence
In his famous 1823 correspondence with Thomas Jefferson (the letters you referenced earlier), Adams playfully teased Jefferson about old-age sufferings, joking that Jefferson might yet become “as perfect a Calvinist as I am in one particular”âreferring only to enduring infirmities with stoic patience (echoing John Calvin’s own cries of “Mon Dieu! Jusqu’Ă quand?”). This was ironic humor, not an endorsement of Calvinism. Adams shared Jefferson’s disdain for Calvin’s “atrocious attributes” and predestinarian God, aligning with Jefferson’s view of a benevolent Creator.
Overall Religious Outlook
Adams remained deeply religiousâa “church-going animal” who believed in divine providence, prayer, and morality’s role in societyâbut his faith was liberal, tolerant, and anti-dogmatic. He saw religion as essential for public virtue yet warned against ecclesiastical tyranny. Historians describe him as a blend of Puritan heritage and Enlightenment reason, ultimately a conservative Unitarian who retained belief in Jesus as a moral teacher (though not divine) and an active God.
In short, Adams was emphatically not a Calvinist; he detested its harsher doctrines and spent much of his life moving away from them toward Unitarian rationalism.
Mind you, I am not a Unitarian whatsoever, but needless to say not only would Calvin had burned Christ at the stake in Geneva, he would have done the same to the Founders of America!
BAPTIST MARTYRS
This Baptist History is brought to you by Steve Brady at Fairhaven Baptist Church in Chesterton, Indiana. (Full playlist of 50 Baptists You Should Know here)
Here is what was said in a post that included the above drawing via Facebook:
It has been decreed this day by the Council of the Two Hundred (of Zurich) that the leaders of the Catabaptists shall be cast into the Tower, in which they formerly lay, and allured by bread and water diet until either they give up the ghost or surrender. It is also added that he who after this is dipped shall be submerged permanently (qtti posthac tingatur, prossus mcrgatur); this is not published (Zwingli, Opera, vii. 477).
This is but one of numerous decrees by city councils in Calvinist principalities levied against “Catabaptists”. This word means someone who opposes baptism, but even in their usage of the term the Calvinists reveal themselves to be liars. The Baptists didn’t oppose baptism, they opposed infant baptism, which is nowhere evidenced in Scripture. The Calvinists knew Baptists baptized believing adults – that’s one of the reasons they murdered them – “submerged permanently,” as opposed to submerged briefly, in baptism.
Note that in his final comment, Zwingli writes that this is “not published”. He wanted the homicidal order to remain a secret. So he knew that what he was doing was immoral. He just didn’t want the general population to know about it.
Zwingli and the Calvinists were murderers. They knew they were murderers. They congratulated themselves on being murderers. And history has preserved the evidence of their murders.
I asked GROK to explain the above a little more and then GROK offered up info on Felix Manz
Key Historical Context
In 1525, a group of Zwingli’s former followers (including Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz) broke away because they believed Zwingli and the Zurich authorities were reforming the church too slowly and compromising with civil government. They rejected infant baptism (paedobaptism) as unscriptural, insisting baptism should be for believing adults onlyâwho could consciously confess faith. On January 21, 1525, they performed the first adult baptisms in Zurich, marking the start of the Anabaptist movement (from Greek ana- meaning “again,” implying “re-baptizers” in the eyes of critics, since they viewed infant baptism as invalid).Zwingli strongly defended infant baptism (seeing it as the New Testament equivalent of Old Testament circumcision, a covenant sign for children of believers). After public debates in 1525 failed to resolve the issue, the Zurich Council sided with Zwingli and began cracking down on the Anabaptists, viewing their separatism, refusal of oaths/civic duties, and defiance of authority as threats to social and religious order.
The Decree and Quote Explained
The decree Zwingli describes had two parts:
Leaders of the Anabaptists (called “Catabaptists” hereâsee below) were to be imprisoned in the tower on bread-and-water rations until they recanted or died.
Anyone who continued to perform adult (“re-“)baptism would be executed by drowning (a grim, ironic punishment: “whoever dips shall be dipped/submerged permanently”).
This was an escalation from earlier penalties (fines, banishment). A similar but formalized mandate followed shortly after, and the first execution under it was Felix Manz, drowned in the Limmat River on January 5, 1527. Several others followed in Zurich before the movement was suppressed there.
Regarding your quote’s final line: “this is not published (Zwingli, Opera, vii. 477).” Most historical sources (including direct translations of the letter) actually read that the decision was publishedâor at least do not mention secrecy. It’s possible this is a transcription/translation variant in the specific edition you referenced, or a slight misremembering. Zwingli’s letter was private correspondence, not a public statement, and he expresses approval of the council’s action without hinting at shame or secrecy. The drowning penalty was openly enforced later, so it wasn’t kept hidden long-term.
On “Catabaptists”
This was a term Zwingli and some allies (like Oecolampadius) briefly used in Latin writings around 1525â1527 (e.g., in his 1527 book In Catabaptistarum Strophas Elenchusâ”Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists”). From Greek kata- (down/against), it carried a double meaning:
“Against baptism” (implying they undermined true [infant] baptism).
Ironically, “down-dipper” or “one who submerges/drowns” (playing on immersion baptism and foreshadowing the drowning punishment).
It was a derogatory label, not what the group called themselves (they preferred “Brethren” or similar). The more common term “Anabaptist” stuck. You’re correct that they didn’t “oppose baptism” outrightâthey practiced believer’s baptism (often by immersion or pouring)âbut critics framed it as rejecting the established sacrament.
Broader Perspective
The Anabaptists were seen as dangerous radicals in the 16th century (both by Catholics and magisterial Protestants like Zwingli/Calvin/Luther) because their ideas challenged the unity of church and state. Persecution was harsh and widespread: drowning in Protestant Zurich, burning/beheading elsewhere. Modern historians view this as a tragic episode where Reformation leaders, fearing anarchy, used state power to enforce orthodoxyâsimilar to how Catholics persecuted Protestants.
From a Baptist perspective (as your text seems to reflect), Anabaptists are often seen as forerunners of believer’s baptism and church-state separation. Zwingli and the Zurich Reformed tradition defended infant baptism and a closer church-government alliance.
This event highlights the deep divisions within the early ReformationâZwingli started as a bold reformer against Catholic practices but ended up opposing those he saw as going “too far.”
[….]
Background on Felix Manz
Felix Manz (c. 1498â1527) was a Swiss Anabaptist leader and co-founder of the Swiss Brethren, the earliest Anabaptist congregation. Initially a follower and collaborator of Huldrych Zwingli (helping with Bible translation), Manz broke away over theological differences, particularly the rejection of infant baptism in favor of believer’s baptism (adult baptism upon confession of faith). He participated in the first adult baptisms on January 21, 1525, at his mother’s home in Zurich, marking the birth of the Anabaptist movement.Manz was arrested multiple times between 1525 and 1527 for preaching and performing adult baptisms, seen by Zurich authorities as seditious and threatening to social order.
The Decree Leading to Execution
On March 7, 1526, the Zurich City Councilâaligned with Zwingli’s Reformed positionâissued an edict making adult “re-baptism” punishable by drowning. This ironic penalty (“a third baptism”) was intended to mock Anabaptist views on immersion baptism.
Details of the Execution: January 5, 1527
Manz was rearrested in December 1526 while baptizing in the GrĂŒningen region and imprisoned in Zurich’s Wellenberg Tower. He refused to recant during interrogation.On January 5, 1527, around 3 p.m., he was sentenced to death for persisting in Anabaptism, separatism, and defiance of authority. Led in procession from prison through the fish market to the Limmat River (flowing through central Zurich), Manz praised God and preached to onlookers.
Contemporary accounts (e.g., from Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor) describe:
His hands bound behind his knees with a pole inserted (a common binding for drowning executions).
Placed in a boat and rowed to mid-river (near a fishing hut/platform).
Pushed into the icy water to drown.
A Reformed preacher accompanied him, urging recantation, but Manz remained steadfast. Crowds lined both banks.
Family Presence and Last Words
Manz’s mother (Anna Manz) and brother were present on the shore, encouraging him to stay firm in his faithâher cries reportedly rang out across the water.
As he was thrown in, Manz sang loudly in Latin: “In manus tuas, Domine, commendo spiritum meum” (“Into Thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit”âechoing Jesus’ words on the cross, Luke 23:46).His property was confiscated, and he was buried in a common grave.
Zwingli’s Role
Zwingli, once Manz’s mentor, debated against the Anabaptists publicly (e.g., 1525 disputations) and supported the council’s measures. While he did not personally order the execution, sources indicate he approved of the edict and viewed Anabaptism as heretical and anarchic. No record shows him opposing the drowning.
Legacy and Memorial
Manz became the first Anabaptist martyr executed by Protestants (predating radical events like the MĂŒnster Rebellion). His death inspired the movement rather than suppressing it.A memorial plaque on the Limmat River wall at Schipfe (opposite No. 43) commemorates Manz and other drowned Anabaptists (1527â1532):The plaque reads (in translation): “Here in the middle of the Limmat from a fishing platform were drowned Felix Manz and five other Anabaptists during the Reformation 1527 to 1532.”This event highlights the tragic intolerance within the early Reformation, where theological disputes led to state-enforced executions.
The Early Church Before Augustine on Free Will and Original Sin ~ Winkie Pratney ~
Let me just say, this was one of the best presentations I have seen. I will follow it with one I like but the early AI voice is tough.
Winkie Pratney lectures on Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and the Early Church regarding free will and original sin. What did early Christianity, or the early Christians, believe on these issues? Is Calvinism really historic Christianity as Calvinists claim?
Did Augustine Corrupt The Church With Gnostic Doctrine? Beyond Augustine Documentary ~ Jesse Morrell ~
Beyond Augustine is a church history and theological documentary that examines the free will debate in light of the Early Church and the Gnostics. Did Augustine corrupt the church with Manichean or Gnostic doctrine? Is Calvinism or Reformed Theology really orthodox and historic Christianity, as Calvinists claim? Or are the Calvinists and Augustinians the spiritual descendants of the Gnostics and Manicheans? Were the Pelagians really the heretics in their free will debate with Augustine? These are the type of controversial questions Jesse Morrell examines in this documentary.
(Jump to update if you wish) Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, gives a brief 10 minute overview of Ephesians 1 from a Traditional/Provisionist perspective as in contrast with the typical Calvinistic reading.
Pages 132-138 of pastor Ronnie W. Rogers’ book, Does God Love All or Some: Comparing Biblical Extensivism and Calvinism’s Exclusivism. This is chapter 20, titled:
A Better Gospel!
THE GOOD NEWS ACCORDING to Calvinism is to be proclaimed to everyone everywhere, but it is not good news for everyone who hears. I believe the gospel according to Jesus presents a better gospel.
To many, it appears Calvinists, Arminians, Molinists, and Traditionalists (the last three I refer to, broadly speaking, as Extensivists) all believe the same thing about the gospel while merely differing on tertiaries. Consequently, they quite understandably retort, âWhy all of this divisive bickering; let us just preach the gospel.â I wholeheartedly agree that we can all communicate the gospel message so that anyone and everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Consequently, we should do so and applaud all endeavors at such. I also believe both Extensivists and Calvinists can be evangelistic.
However, I do think it is incumbent upon Christians to make clear that even though these things are true, the differences between Calvinistsâ and Extensivistsâ perspectives regarding salvation do in fact influence the evangelistic and missionary endeavor. This influence is even determinative of what one can and cannot say to a lost and hell-bound individual and world when we communicate the gospel. These differences are not tertiary as some claim, for they do in fact change the raison dâĂȘtre (reason for being or existence) of the gospel, the purpose for sharing the gospel, the language used in communicating the gospel, and the nature of our passion derived from the gospel. These dissimilarities are substantial. So much so they actually and unavoidably define the missiology of the church; accordingly, they are not tertiary. Our differences even affect our understanding of arguably the most well-known, lucid, humbling, and awe-inspiring verse regarding the gospel and mission of evangelizing (John 3:16).
John Piper asked the question, âWhat message would missionaries rather take than the message: Be glad in God! Rejoice in God! Sing for joy in God! . . . God loves to exalt himself by showing mercy to sinners.â[1]My answer to this question is the truth that when someone hears this glorious message that same someone has a chance, by the grace and mercy of God, to receive the truth of the message by faith. Further, without opportunity for all sinners to accept, Piperâs message should be changed to say, âSome can be glad in God if he predestined youâ or âGod loves to exalt himself by showing mercy to some sinners.â This rephrasing of his statement is not a mischaracterization of Calvinism, but rather it is the actual message of Calvinism, and everyone who understands Calvinism knows it. Unfortunately, it is popularly and ubiquitously stated in the manner cited by Piper (or similarly opaque phrases) that shield most from yet another disquieting reality of Calvinism. I would greatly appreciate Calvinistsâ due diligence to speak in such a way that all can be reminded of this reality (as some Calvinists are very careful to do). Any suggestion this distinction is tertiary is baffling indeed.
Some like John Owen postulate a covenant of redemption which limits the atonement to the elect. David Allen gives several problems with Owenâs belief in the Covenant of Redemption. For example, âno such covenant within the Godhead is revealed in Scripture. . . . This shifts the focus from Godâs revealed will in Scripture to a focus on Godâs secret will in eternity.â[2]
The two irreconcilable approaches to understanding the presentation of the gospel can be seen in these brief synopses. Extensivists affirm that salvation is entirely a work of God because he has provided everything necessary, even the gift of faith, by which every sinner can by faith receive the salvation of the Lord.[3] The offer of salvation is unconditional, whereas the experience of salvation by an individual is conditioned upon grace-enabled faith (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38). Many verses attest to the accuracy of this understanding of salvation. Manâs part in salvation is seen repeatedly in the book of Acts, e.g., Acts 2:37â41; 3:19â26; 7:51; 8:6â14, 22â23, 36â37; 9:35, 42; 10:34â35, 43; 11:21; 13:8â13, 38â41, 46â47; 14:1; 15:19; 16:30â34; 17:2â4, 11â12, 17, 30â31; 18:4â8, 19, 27â28; 19:8â9, 18; 20:21; 22:18; 26:17â20; 28:23â24. The epistles teach the same (Rom 5:1; Gal 3:26; Eph 2:8â9; Heb 11:6). In addition, God gave repentance as a grace gift (Acts 5:31; 11:18).[4]
In contrast, Calvinism generally argues the new birth precedes faith.[5] Piper asserts, âThe native hardness of our hearts makes us unwilling and unable to turn from sin and trust the Savior. Therefore, conversion involves a miracle of new birth. This new birth precedes and enables faith andrepentance. Nevertheless, faith and repentance are our acts. We are accountable to do them . . . God grants us the inclination we need.â[6] The Synod of Dort says, âMen are chosen to faith . . . therefore election is the fountain of every saving good; from which proceed faith.â[7] R.C. Sproul declares, âWe do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order to believe.â[8]
Such explanation creates an abstractness in Calvinismâs understanding of the gospel, which results in a concomitant chilling unfriendliness of the good news when shared one-on-one. It is one thing to say God loves Africa and desires the gospel to go there, or that he desires for Africans to be saved. It is quite another for the missionary to look into the eyes of a lost and perishing African and say God loves you and desires you to receive the good news of the gospel, which is the friendliness of the gospel in Scripture. The former has an abstract quality about it that the latter does not have (like the difference between saying I love Africans and then really loving the one who moves in next door). A Calvinist can say, âBelieve in Jesus for the remission of sins,â but there is a secret aloofness embedded in the invitation for the vast majority of individuals who hear the gospel; an aloofness the Calvinist is very aware of and staunchly committed to.
Further, this abstract quality of Calvinism is the provenance of the good faith offer, which is reflective of Calvinismâs different understanding of the gospel. I for one find neither this abstraction, with its secret indifference for the majority of individuals who hear the gospel, nor the suggestion of such a concept as a good faith offer in the scriptural presentations of the gospel. This abstract quality transforms the simple straightforward gospel as seen in Scripture from being exoteric (available to all) into an esoteric gospel (only available to some). The exoteric gospel of Scripture calls upon every individual with whom we share to receive the gospel and gives every indication that he should and can believe. It is authentically and dependably what it appears to be, the good news of Godâs love and compassion offered to all who hear.
In contrast, the esoteric gospel according to Calvinism says everyone should come, but the secret is that while God has told Calvinists to tell all the lost to come, be forgiven, and flee the wrath to come, the inner circleâ Calvinistsâknow it has pleased God to exclude a host of individuals with whom the Calvinist presents this message. This means if one is to be consistent with Calvinism, the gospel must be protectingly presented so that the hearer believes God loves him and truly desires for him to be delivered from the fiery cauldron of Godâs eternal fury; something no Calvinist can say to any particular individual unless God inspires him to intuit that the lost man to whom he is witnessing is one of Godâs elect. If God gives such enlightenment it behooves the Calvinist to share such glorious news with the individual, or so it would seem.
According to Calvinism, the gospel is good news for some, but inherent in their understanding of the gospel is that for most with whom they speak it is the ghastliest horror one could ever imagine (whether a sinner desires to believe or not does nothing to palliate this point). That being the case, one may rightly question the righteous legitimacy of indiscriminately declaring a gospel so construed that, in any way, intimates it is for all who hear because it is emphatically not; something every knowledgeable Calvinist knows. To wit, if a Calvinist shares the gospel in such a way so that all those who hear believe God loves them and desires for them to repent and be saved by faith in Jesus, the Calvinist has been true to Scripture but not to Calvinism. One must genuinely ask, is there not a point when a good faith offer is transmogrified into an ungodly deception? Calvinists can avoid this point by determinedly shunning any semblance of offering, via precisely chosen guarded language, what the Calvinist is convinced does not exist. Or is the concept of a good faith offer an unchallengeable and un-fillable reservoir for storing gospel secrets of Calvinism? I am simply asking Calvinists to be clear in presenting what they so resolutely believe to be the whole good news, and I do not think that is too much to ask.
David Allen, referring to 2 Corinthians 5:19â20, says, âHere we have God himself offering salvation to all. But how can he do this according to limited atonement since there is no provision for the salvation of the non-elect in the death of Christ? Furthermore, how can God make this offer with integrity? It seems difficult to suppose he can. Without belief in the universal saving will of God and a universal extent in Christâs sin-bearing, there can be no well-meant offer of salvation from God to the non-elect who hear the gospel call.â[9]
Extensivists follow the scriptural pattern of presenting the good news as good news for everyone who hears because, by Godâs loving grace, they should and can believe. If they choose to reject, which they do not have to do, they will forfeit being adopted as a child of God and succumb to a sinnerâs just deserts. This is based upon a clear, simple, and straight-forward reading of the clearest presentations of the gospel and the declared nature of God. Calvinismâs understanding of the gospel disallows any meaningfully eternal difference in the gospel if they simply said, âGod hates you and has a terrible plan for you because the elect will get saved and the non-elect will not.â For Calvinists to respond that they are sharing the gospel out of obedience is not a solution to the problem I pose but rather it is symptomatic of it. Further, for a Calvinist to rely upon such an idea as a good faith offer does nothing to absolve God from intentionally obscuring his real plan.
In contrast to Calvinism, Jesus clearly warned those to whom he spoke to repent, with every indication they should and could, which warning he issued repeatedly (Matt 4:17; 11:20â21; Luke 5:32; 15:7; 24:47). The same can be said for the Apostles (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). If Christ knew some of them could not repent because they were not the elect, his warning seems disingenuous and misleading. Some Calvinists will say Jesus was making a âgood faith offerâ (if there is such an idea) because as a man, he did not know who the elect were.
As an example of Jesus not knowing certain things, in his humanity, they reference Jesus saying âBut of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father aloneâ (Matt 24:36). Of course, we all recognize as a human, Christ did not know certain things. However, this explicit statement of not knowing does not seem to justify the good faith offer since he gives every indication of speaking as forthrightly in presenting the gospel as he did regarding his second coming, consistent with the way things really are. There is really something to believe, he really as a human did not know the hour, which it seems all could choose to believe. There is no pretense. When he said he did not know, he really did not know, and they could believe what he said. They need not be cryptographically savvy.
Further, Calvinistsâ reliance upon this example assumes they are justified in presenting something so that those who hear believe they can act on it when Calvinists know they cannot. That seems to be an illegitimate deduction. Clarification of the way things really are would only take a moment when Calvinists present the gospel according to Calvinism. I do not accept leaving the listener believing he is receiving a good offer when he is really hearing only a good faith offer to be noble evangelism. Unless one is a Calvinist who needs to justify the extra-biblical concept of the good faith offer, I doubt one would be able to mine it from this passage on the second coming. There is a crucial difference between Jesus not knowing certain things due to his role as a servant and his speaking forthrightly things that are either misleading or not trueâdo not correspond fully to reality. Moreover, Jesus stated he did not know the hour of his coming, but he never says nor even hints that he does not know the gospel.
Additionally, there are problems with assuming Jesusâs words were in any way misleading or ill-informed. First, Jesus would have to have forgotten all about unconditional election and selective regeneration. This seems unlikely since, as part of the Trinity, he would have had to help devise the plan of unconditional election, which would at least make his âgood faith offerâ a little less good than such an offer from your everyday Calvinist. While he did not know the hour of the second coming, he did know there was a second coming; to wit as a servant, he lacked precise knowledge of the eventâs time not of the event, which he detailed in Matt 24â25. Second, and more problematic for the Calvinist, is that Jesus said he always did the will of the Father (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 17:4) and spoke not of his own initiative but what the Father wanted him to speak (John 3:11, 34; 5:19; 7:16; 8:26, 28, 38; 12:49â50; 14:10, 24, 31; 17:8). Furthermore, the Holy Spirit was upon Jesus filling him without measure (Isa 61:1; Matt 12:18; Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14; John 3:34; Acts 10:38).
Consequently, even if Jesus did not know, the Father and the Holy Spirit did know; therefore, the Calvinist doctrine of selective regeneration makes the Trinity complicitous in this misrepresentation. The obvious truth is that Jesus commanded them to repent because he was not willing that any would perish and desired that all would come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9); something God has grace-enabled everyone who hears the truth to do.
The gospel according to Calvinism is the gospel that is commanded to be preached to all, presented as available to all with an urgency that it be received by all, and yet cannot be received by all who hear the message; even though its universal availability is the obvious inference any listener would draw based upon most Calvinistsâ carefully guarded presentation of the gospel (guarding the divulgence of the secret limitations of the gospel according to Calvinism). In reality, the doctrine of selective regeneration preceding faith dictates the gospelâgood newsâ is really not good news at all because it cannot be received by anyone who just hears the good news, and this unavailability is just as true for the elect as the non-elect.
Reception of the Calvinistic gospel is divinely limited to the selectively regenerated; therefore, the primary good news of Calvinism is not the gospel, but rather that some to whom they speak are on the secret list of those who have been selected for regeneration, which results in receiving the good news â the gospel. That is to say, according to Calvinism, the gospel is not the good news to be received by all or any listener, but rather a description of the benefits that will be bestowed upon those on the secret list of the unconditionally elect. Simply put, the gospel according to Scripture is a better gospel than the gospel according to Calvinism.
NOTES
Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad, 33.
Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, 217.
Spiritual faith is the ability to trust what God has said and is a gift given by God in creation as are all the endowments of man. It is also a gift in the sense that God restores the ability to exercise spiritually restorative faith as a sinner through the provision of grace enablements (John 12:35â36). It is not a gift in the Calvinist sense of being resultant of Godâs irresistible grace upon the unconditionally elect, understood to be so in part by a misreading of Eph 2:8.
Repentance and faith are inseparable. Repentance focuses upon turning from sin, whereas faith focuses upon turning in trust to the Savior. Repentance is neither a predetermined irresistible work of God upon the unconditionally elect only, nor is it merely a humanly derived act. Rather, the ability to repent is given to all by God through grace enablements and is required by God for salvation.
See my answer to Calvinistsâ argument for only a logical relationship between faith and regeneration in Appendix 4.
Piper, Desiring God, 62.
Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine, article 9.
Sproul, Chosen by God, 72â73.
Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, 786.
Dr. Leighton Flowers explains a Traditional Southern Baptist perspective of Eph. 2:8-9:
Yes, faith is a gift from God, but the point of contention between the Traditionalist and the Calvinist is whether it is a gift that is given irresistibly (or effectually).
Traditionalists affirm God enables (or grant) faith by means of His Word (the gospel), but we disagree that God effectually causes some people to believe the gospel while leaving others in a morally hopeless condition from birth.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (ESV)
What is âThisâ?
The main question is: What does this refer to? âThisâ is a demonstrative pronoun. Paul is demonstrating that something, this thing, is a gift. Heâs pointing at something he just said in the previous phrase, âFor by grace you have been saved through faithâ, and he saying âthis thing is a giftâ. But what is Paul referring to as a gift? To help answer this question, letâs repeat this passage with the Greek word, gender, and number displayed:
For by grace [charis, feminine, singular] you have been saved [sesosmenoi, masculine, singular] through faith [pistis, feminine, singular]. And this [toutĆ, neuter, singular] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.Â
There are six possible interpretations for the gift. Based on the grammatical structure of the verse (seen above), four interpretations will be ruled out. They will be ruled out because ancient Greek authors used the gender and number of pronouns to make it clear to their reader which noun the pronoun is referring to. Here are the six possibilities:
1: The gift is âby grace you have been saved through faithâ 2: The gift is âby grace you have been savedâ 3: The gift is âbeen saved through faithâ
4: The gift is only grace
5: The gift is only salvation
6: The gift is only faith
Youâll notice that the pronoun âthisâ [toutĆ, neuter, singular] does not match a single one of the previous nouns in question; neither âgraceâ, nor âsavedâ, nor âfaithâ. If Paul wanted to say only one of those was the gift, then all he would have had to do was match the gender and number of âthisâ with that noun. But he chose to make it match none of them. So the gift canât be only the grace, nor only the salvation, nor only the faith.
Even though itâs not possible, interpretation six, that only faith is the gift, is often argued because faith is the last thing referenced. Most who quote Ephesians 2:8-9 to claim that âfaith is a giftâ are arguing from this position. This seems like a natural interpretation to English readers becauseâŠthatâs how we would denote which noun to which the pronoun refers. The problem is: Paul didnât write in English. Piper, as well as many other scholars, correctly understand that this interpretation is impossible due to the grammatical formatting of the Greek.Â
In Greek, pronouns must agree with their antecedent in gender and number. English somewhat does this with pronouns like âheâ and âsheâ but other pronouns like âtheyâ and âitâ are more difficult to determine. No so in Greek. All pronouns in Greek have gender and number, and they must always agree in gender and number to the noun they are pointing to, whether it is masculine, feminine, or neuter.
In the verse, âthisâ is neuter, meaning that it must connect two genders: Feminine, masculine, or neuter. Faith is a feminine word.  The word âthisâ would need to be written as feminine for it to refer to faith. While interpretation 6 is quoted often, it can safely be ruled out. Interpretations 5 & 6 can be ruled out for the same mismatched gender problem. The remaining three interpretations are discussed by Piper and will be analyzed in the arguments below.
[….]
Why Didnât Paul Just Say The Thing?
If Paul was concerned about anybody thinking that faith is something that youâre supposed to do, he would have simply written âfaith is a giftâ somewhere in one of his many letters. Since Paul never wrote this, we cannot exegetically assume that this was his motivation. Paul could have said âtheseâ to mean all three individually or he could have just added a sentence somewhere that clarified it. Claiming that this is what Paul was thinking or worried about is unsupported by any of his work.
Paul Wrote About Faith, Grace, Works, and Boasting Elsewhere
In order to make any claims about the motivations of Paul in regards to faith and boasting, we must take a close look at the other passages were Paul addresses these issues. As a matter of fact, several years before writing his letter to Ephesus, Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. In chapter 3 & 4, Paul goes into great detail about the relationship between salvation, grace, faith, works, and boasting. Since these chapters are much more explicit than Ephesians 2:8-9, we must incorporate them into our interpretation. Here are some snippets of his writings, but go read these chapters for yourselves and then read Ephesians 2:8-9.
âthe righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith . . . It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the lawâ (Romans 3:24-25 ESV)
âWhat then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? âAbraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousnessâ
âFor the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspringânot only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us allâ
âNo unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was âcounted to him as righteousness.ââ (Romans 4 ESV)
Paul makes it extremely clear that his concern for boasting lies in who is the justifier of our salvation, who powers it, who does the work. Paul spends all of this time communicating that promise must ârest on graceâ and that this is accomplished only through faith as the means. If we are the justifier through works, then God is not glorified. Nowhere in the long exposition of Romans does Paul say that âfaith is a giftâ. Paul invalidates Piperâs argument by saying that our boasting from being justified by faith âis excluded.  By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the lawâ. Using Piperâs own reasoning, Paul could have easily said âBoasting is excluded because faith is a giftâ. But instead he says âBoasting is excluded because of faithâ . Faith is non-meritorious and is not worthy of boasting. No one can exegetically claim that faith is a work. If faith is not worthy of boasting because it is not a work, where is Paulâs concern that we âcreate faithâ? Why does Paul say that âAbraham believed Godâ? This seems like the perfect place to drop this supposed additional information about faith being effectually given or that you are unable to put faith in God. Nowhere in the entire Bible does it say that man is unable to believe, repent, or put their faith in God unless effectually given faith. This concept has to be read into the text. If putting faith in God is boast worthy, why didnât Paul address it as clearly as he addresses faith not being a work?
Does faith rob God of his glory? Romans 4 says no. Abraham âgrew strong in his faith as he gave glory to Godâ. The text doesnât say God made Abraham grow strong in faith. Instead, the text gives Abraham credit for his faith. If this was a concern of Paulâs in the slightest, why would Paul write it this way? Paul clearly writes that salvation through faith gives God all of the glory. Where is Paulâs concern? Piperâs argument that faith somehow takes glory from God is an attempt to turn faith into a work. One can only boast if it is under the law of works. Assuming that Paul holds this concern is completely unfounded by his work.
Bibliotheca Sacra BSAC 122:487 (July 1965): 248â253. (PDF HERE)
Most Calvinistic commentators believe that the gift of Ephesians 2:8 is saving faith rather than salvation: âFor by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boastâ (Eph. 2:8â9). This interpretation leads some to a hyper-Calvinistic doctrine of faith, which in turn leads to an unscriptural plan of salvation.
For example, Shedd says: âThe Calvinist maintains that faith is wholly from God, being one of the effects of regeneration.â1This results in a strange plan of salvation. Because the sinner cannot believe, he is instructed to perform the following duties: 1. Read and hear the divine Word. 2. Give serious application of the mind to the truth. 3. Pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration.2
Thus an unscriptural doctrine of total depravity leads to an unscriptural and inconsistent plan of salvation. Doubtless the sinner is âdead in trespasses and sinsâ (Eph. 2:1b). If this means that regeneration must precede faith, then it must also mean that regeneration must precede all three of the pious duties Shedd outlines for the lost. A doctrine of total depravity that excludes the possibility of faith must also exclude the possibilities of âhearing the word,â âgiving serious application to divine truth,â and âpraying for the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration.â The extreme Calvinist deals with a rather lively spiritual corpse after all. If the corpse has enough vitality to read the Word, and heed the message, and pray for conviction, perhaps it can also believe. Incidentally, it would seem evident that the person who would pray earnestly for conviction must already be under a deep state of conviction.
Arthur W. Pink agrees with Shedd. He says the sinner is to âask God ⊠to bestow upon him the gifts of repentance and faith.â3
Berkhofâs position is similar: âThis faith is not first of all an activity of man, but a potentiality wrought by God in the heart of the sinner. The seed of faith is implanted in man in regeneration.â4
The tragedy of this position is that it perverts the gospel. The good news becomes only a hopeful possibility. The sinner is wrongly instructed to beg for that which God is already beseeching him to receive (2 Cor. 5:20). He is given no assurance that his prayer will be answered. He is really being told that the condition of salvation is prayer instead of faith.
The one verse which seems to teach that saving faith is the gift of God is Ephesians 2:8. But a careful study of this verse and its context shows clearly that it is salvation which is the gift of God. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary gives this explanation: âThe word that refers not to grace or to faith, but to the whole act of salvation.â5This is also the interpretation of Calvin, Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Eadie, and others. The Greek text favors this meaning because the relative pronoun that (ÏοῊÏÎż) is neuter while the word faith (ÏÎŻÏÏÎčÏ) is feminine. In addition the whole context, especially verse 9, makes clear that the issue is salvation by grace opposed to the ever-present error of salvation by works. The same conclusion is reached by the grammarian J. Harold Greenlee.6
Sir Robert Andersonâs footnote on Ephesians 2:8 is well stated: âEph. 2:8. âThe gift of Godâ here is salvation by grace through faith. Not the faith itself. âThis is precluded,â as Alford remarks, âby the manifestly parallel clauses ânot of yourself,â and ânot of works,â the latter of which would be irrelevant as asserted of faith.â It is still more definitely precluded, he might have added, by the character of the passage. It is given to us to believe on Christ, just in the same sense in which it is given to some âalso to suffer for His sakeâ (Phil. 1:29). But the statement in Ephesians is doctrinal, and in that sense the assertion that faith is a gift, or indeed that it is a distinct entity at all, is sheer error. This matter is sometimes represented as though God gave faith to the sinner first, and then, on the sinnerâs bringing Him the faith, went on and gave him salvation! Just as though a baker, refusing to supply empty-handed applicants, should first dispense to each the price of a loaf, and then, in return for the money from his own till, serve out the bread! To answer fully such a vagary as this would be to rewrite the foregoing chapter. Suffice it, therefore, to point out that to read the text as though faith were the gift, is to destroy not only the meaning of verse 9, but the force of the whole passage.â7
There are those who agree that Ephesians 2:8 does not prove that saving faith is the gift of God, but they believe the doctrine is taught by other passages, such as: Acts 5:31; 11:18; Phil. 1:29; 3:9; Romans 12:3; 2 Peter 1:1; 2 Timothy 2:25; and John 6:44â45. A careful look at these verses yields no proof that faith or repentance, as a synonym for faith, are special gifts of God.
âHim hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sinsâ (Acts 5:31). If repentance in this verse refers to a special gift for salvation, then all Israel would be saved. It is evident that the reference is to Godâs general offer of repentance, which most of the Jews rejected. The same explanation applies to Acts 11:18 where the Gentiles are in view.
âFor unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sakeâ (Phil. 1:29). Sir Robert Andersonâs comment on this verse has been noted: âIt is given to us to believe on Christ, just in the same sense in which it is given to some âalso to suffer for his sake.â â8
âAnd be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faithâ (Phil. 3:9). It would be a strange and strained interpretation of this verse to make âthe faith of Christâ refer to a gift of faith from Christ, which Paul then exercised as his own in order to receive the righteousness of God. The ASV renders the phrase âthrough faith in Christ.â Even if the AV rendering is accepted, the expression clearly refers to the gospel as centered in Christ, and not to the manner in which Paul obtained his personal faith.
âFor I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faithâ (Rom. 12:3). The novice in Bible study would recognize that this section of Romans deals with the exercise of faith with the gifts for service (cf. Rom. 12:6) and has nothing to do with saving faith.
âSimon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christâ (2 Pet. 1:1). Here Peter states that believers have âobtainedâ their faith, but he does not say how it was obtained. To use such a verse to prove that saving faith is a special gift of God is only to show how desperate the advocates of this theory are for Scriptural proof.
âIn meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truthâ (2 Tim. 2:25). The gift of repentance of this verse is clearly to recover members of the church out of the snare of Satan, and has nothing to do with saving faith. Even this gift is not an unqualified sovereign bestowal because it is dependent on the instruction of Timothy and the co-operation of the one ensnared, as the context (vs. 26) indicates.
âNo man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto meâ (John 6:44â45). It should be noted, first of all, that these verses do not say that saving faith is the gift of God. This is an assumption based on other assumptions. The method of obtaining faith is by hearing and learning of the Father. This is in harmony with Romans 10:17. Later the Lord explained his strong statement by the simple proposition that some could not come to him because of their unbelief (vss. 64â65), not because they did not receive a gift of faith. Some could not believe because they were interested in free bread and board, but not in the true bread from heaven. The sovereignty of God in salvation is a profound mystery that has its place in theology, but it need not be invoked to explain a problem which the Lord Himself explains in a far simpler way. The moral state of the enemies of Christ precluded their coming to the Father or Christ. The same situation is seen and clearly explained in John 5:44: âHow can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?â
In the Bible there is no clear and dogmatic statement that saving faith is a gift of God. On the other hand, the Bible clearly states the way in which faith is obtained: âFaith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Godâ (Rom. 10:17). The Scriptures speak of saving faith as âthy faithâ (Luke 7:50), âhis faithâ (Rom. 4:5), and âtheir faithâ (Matt. 9:2); but never as the faith of God.â
It can be agreed that saving faith is the gift of God in the broad sense in which all things come from God (1 Cor. 4:7; Rom. 11:35, 36). However, this is entirely different from the position that an unsaved person cannot believe until he first receives a special gift of faith from God. Such a doctrine is opposed by the âwhosoverâ passages of the Bible, and by passages which beseech the sinner to be saved (i.e., John 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:20).
But it is argued that if the sinner has sufficient ability to hear the Word of God and be saved, then salvation is by works, or partly by works. Not at all! âFaith is no more than an activity of reception contributing nothing to that which it receives.â9
Machen, himself a Calvinist, agrees emphatically that faith is not a kind of good work: âThe faith of man, rightly conceived, can never stand in opposition to the completeness with which salvation depends upon God: it can never mean that man does part while God merely does the rest; for the simple reason that faith consists not in doing something but in receiving something.â10
A gift from a good man to a beggar does not cease to be a gift because the beggar stretches forth his hand to receive it.
On the other hand, it is the hyper-Calvinist who is open to the charge of teaching salvation by works. Prayer is doing something, and the man who prays hard and gets saved could justly believe that he had made his contribution to the plan of salvation. Those who deny the sinner the ability to believe end by imputing to him the impossible and unscriptural ability to find God through pious works.
Calvin did teach that faith is a gift of God, but his conclusion was not based on Ephesians 2:8. Contrary to popular opinion, Arminius also believed that justifying faith is the gift of God. He said: âFaith is the effect of God illuminating the mind and sealing the heart, and it is his mere gift.â11However, he believed that God bestows sufficient grace upon all men to believe if they will. Thus he held a position in harmony with a sincere proclamation of the gospel to all men. But did not both Calvin and Arminius go beyond the authority of the Bible in teaching that saving faith is a special gift of God?
Many passages, and whole books of the New Testament, are written to prove salvation is a gift of God and not the reward of good works. But where are the passages to prove saving faith is the gift of God? Is not this theory a deduction from the doctrine of election rather than an induction from the teaching of the Word?
NOTES
1 W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, p. 472.
* After soldiers returned from âthe war to end all wars,â prohibition brought turmoil, but the economy boomed. A seemingly indestructible country complacently stood at the threshold of the Great Depression. And it came about in those days that Dallas Theological Seminaryâfirst known as the Evangelical Theological Collegeâhad its birth. And at the end of the first academic cycle, the first student to graduateâa young man named Roy L. Aldrichâcrossed the stage to receive his degree. (More Here)
Dr. Leighton Flowers responds to a book recently published by Matthew Cserhati titled, “A Critique of Provisionism: A Response to Leighton Flowers’s ‘The Potter’s Promise.'” Join us LIVE as we demonstrate how Matthew’s arguments never get off the ground by surviving even the most basic level of unbiased scrutiny. To get your copy of Dr. Flowers book, Drawn By Jesus.
To assist in this video above, I will also excerpt a large portion of a must read book pictured below… it is a long read but well worth the time. Under that book quote I will put a very recent interview with Ken Wilson [Jump To] regarding Augustine… also worth your while IMHO.
Chapter IV titled: “Is God’s Grace Irresistible? A Critique of Irresistible Grace
[….]
The Bible and Irresistible Grace
What does the Bible say about irresistible grace? The easy answer is the Bible does not specifically address it. The phrase âirresistible graceâ does not appear anywhere in Scripture. Neither can one find such important Calvinist words as âmonergism,â âcompatibilism,â or ordo salutis. This absence alone does not mean irresistible grace might not be a reality. Other doctrines such as the Trinity are described in Scripture but not with the theological name that we now give them. So let us examine Old Testament texts, New Testament texts, and the ministry and teachings of Jesus to see if they support irresistible grace. We will also see how the repeated all-inclusive invitations to salvation throughout Scripture and the descriptions of how to be saved argue against irresistible grace.
Key Texts Affirming Resistible Grace
Old Testament TextsâSome Scripture texts appear to deny irresistible grace and to affirm resistible grace explicitly. For example, in Proverbs 1, the wisdom of God personified speaks to those whom âI calledâ (Prov 1:24 NASB), to whom âI will pour out my spirit on youâ (v. 23b), and to whom wisdom has made âmy words known to youâ (v. 23c). Nevertheless, no one regarded Godâs truth, for the hearers refused Godâs message and disdained wisdomâs counsel (vv. 22â26). Some might claim this message merely exemplifies the resistible outward call. The problem becomes complicated because these are Godâs elect people, the Jews, with whom God had entered into covenant: âI called and you refusedâ (v. 24a). God makes them the offer: âI will pour out my spirit on youâ (v. 23b), but they would not turn and instead refused to accept the message (v. 24). The grace that was so graciously offered was ungraciously refused. The proffered grace was conditional on their response. Acceptance of Godâs Word would have brought blessing, but their rejection of it brought calamity upon themselves.
In the Prophets and the Psalms, God responds to the Israelitesâ refusal to repent and their rejection of his Word:
âWhen Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. As they called them, so they went from them; they sacrificed to the Baals, and burned incense to carved images. I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms; but they did not know that I healed them. I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love, and I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed them. He shall not return to the land of Egypt; but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to repent. And the sword shall slash in his cities, devour his districts, and consume them, because of their own counsels. My people are bent on backsliding from Me. Though they call to the Most High, none at all exalt Him. How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I set you like Zeboiim? My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is stirred. I will not execute the fierceness of My anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim. For I am God, and not man, the Holy One in your midst; and I will not come with terror.â (Hos 11:1â9 NKJV)
They did not keep the covenant of God; they refused to walk in His law. (Ps 78:10 NKJV)
âBut My people would not heed My voice, and Israel would have none of Me. So I gave them over to their own stubborn heart, to walk in their own counsels. Oh, that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways!â (Ps 81:11â13 NKJV)
They have turned their backs to Me and not their faces. Though I taught them time and time again, they do not listen and receive discipline. (Jer 32:33 HCSB)
New Testament TextsâOne of the most direct references to the resistibility of grace in the New Testament is in Stephenâs sermon in Acts 7:2â53, just before his martyrdom in vv. 54â60. In confronting the Jews who had rejected Jesus as Messiah, Stephen said, âYou men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers didâ (v. 51 NASB). The Remonstrants referenced this specific Scripture, as do most scholars who reject the notion of irresistible grace. Stephen is not speaking to believers but to Jews who have rejected Christ. He not only accuses them of âresisting the Holy Spiritâ but observes that many of their Jewish ancestors resisted God as well. The word translated as âresistâ (antipiptĆ) means not âto fall down and worship,â but to âoppose, â âstrive against,â or âresist.â21 Clearly this Scripture teaches that the influence of the Holy Spirit is resistible. A similar account in Luke describes the Phariseesâ response to the preaching of John the Baptist: âBut the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of himâ (Luke 7:30 KJV).
Another example of resistance occurs in Paulâs salvation experience in Acts 26. As Saul was on the road to Damascus to persecute Christians, a blinding light hit him, and a voice out of heaven said, âSaul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goadsâ (Acts 26:14 HCSB). Saul had resisted the conviction of the Holy Spirit in events such as the stoning of Stephen, but after his dramatic experience with the risen Christ, Saul did believe. Even so, some time lapsed before Ananias arrived and Paul received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). However, in both the Old and New Testaments, other people saw miracles yet continued to resist Godâs grace.22
What do Calvinists say about these texts? First, Calvinists do not deny that people can resist the Holy Spirit in some situations. Unbelievers can resist the â outward callâ of the gospel, but the elect cannot resist the âeffectual call.â John Piper has said, âWhat is irresistible is when the Spirit is issuing the effectual call.â23 However, Calvinistic explanations do not appear to help in this instance. The Jews, after all, were Godâs chosen people, and the entirety of the Jewish people were covered under the covenant, not just individual Jews. Calvinist covenantal theology sees the entire nation of Israel as being Godâs chosen people. The elect, after all, are supposed to receive the effectual call. Calvinists often quote, âJacob I have loved, but Esau I have hatedâ (Rom 9:13 NKJV) as strong evidence for election.24 But these divinely elected people have not only rejected Jesus as Messiah but resisted the Holy Spirit through many generations in history. Therefore, it would seem Godâs grace is resistible, even among the elect who are eligible to receive the effectual call.
Resistible Grace in the Ministry and Teachings of Jesus
Throughout his teaching ministry, Jesus taught and ministered in ways that seem to be inconsistent with the notion of irresistible grace. In each of these occasions, he appears to advocate the idea that Godâs grace is resistible. For example, hear again Jesusâs lament over Jerusalem: âJerusalem, Jerusalem! [The city] who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!â (Matt 23:37 HCSB, emphasis added; cf. Luke 13:34). What was Jesus lamenting? He was lamenting that despite Godâs gracious love for âJerusalemâ (by metonymy including all Jews, not merely the leaders) and his desire to gather them to eternal security under his protection, and the many prophets and messengers he sent them with his message, they rejected the message that was sent them and âwere not willingâ to respond to God. In fact, the Greek sets the contrast off even more sharply than the English does because forms of the same Greek verb thelĆ (to will) are used twice in this verse: âI willed . . . but you were not willing.â25 Gottlob Schrenk described this statement as expressing âthe frustration of His gracious purpose to save by the refusal of men.â26 Note also that his lament concerned the entire city of Jerusalem, not just a small number of the elect within Jerusalem. Indeed, Jesusâs âhow oftenâ signified even his preincarnate salvific concern about not only the persons living in Jerusalem at that time but for many previous generations of Jerusalemites.
Again, one might suggest that the prophets were merely the vehicles for proclaiming the general call, and thus these Jerusalemites never received the efficacious call. However, this argument will not do. First, the Jerusalemites were Godâs chosen people. As the elect, they should have received the efficacious call, but in fact, they were still unwilling to respond. Some Calvinists might make this argument: the election of Israel included individuals within Israel, not all of Israel as a people. Only a remnant of physical Israel, not all of it, will be saved. But the proposal that God sent the efficacious call to just a portion of Israel nevertheless does not match up well with this text or numerous other texts.
Even so, the greater issue is that if Jesus believed in irresistible grace, with both the outward and inward calls, his apparent lament over Jerusalem would have been just a disingenuous act, a cynical show because he knew that God had not and would not give these lost persons the necessary conditions for their salvation. His lament would have been over Godâs hardness of heart, but that is not what the Scripture says. Scripture attributes the peopleâs not coming to God to their own unwillingness, that is, the hardness of their own hearts.
What is generalized in Jesusâs lament over Jerusalem is personalized in the incident with the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18â23). The ruler asked, âWhat must I do to inherit eternal life?â (v. 18 HCSB). If Jesus were a Calvinist, one might have expected him to answer, âNothing!â and admonish the young ruler for the impertinence of his question, particularly the idea that he could do anything to inherit eternal life, as if to steal glory from Godâs monergistic salvation. Instead, Jesus told him what he could do: he could go and sell all his possessions and give them to the poor. This instruction was not just about the young rulerâs money; it was about his heart. He loved his money and the privileges it gave him, and he just could not live without it. In other words, Jesus would not grant him eternal life unless he was willing to make a total commitment of his life to God, but the young ruler was unwilling to do so. Jesus let him walk away and face the solemn consequences of his decision.
Noting the rich young rulerâs unwillingness, Jesus then commented about how hard it is for a rich person to enter heavenâindeed, as hard as a camel going through the eye of a needle (Luke 13:24â28). Of course, if Jesus were a Calvinist, he never would have suggested that it was harder for rich people to be saved by Godâs irresistible grace than for poor people. Their wills would be changed immediately and invincibly upon hearing Godâs effectual call. It would be no harder for a rich person to be saved by Godâs monergistic and irresistible calling than it would be for any other sinner. But the real Jesus was suggesting that their salvation was tied in some measure to their response and commitment to his calling.
The same idea of resistible grace arises frequently in the parables of Jesusâs teaching ministry. In the parable of the two sons (Matt 21:28â32), Jesus described their differing responses. One son initially refused to do the work he was told to do, saying âI donât want to!â but later âchanged his mindâ and did it (v. 29 HCSB). Meanwhile, the other son said he would do the work, but later he did not do the work. What was the main point of this parable? The point was that tax collectors and prostitutes were going to enter the kingdom of heaven before the chief priests and elders who resisted Jesusâs teaching (vv. 31â32). The distinction between the two was not that one was a son and one was not, for they both were sons from whom the father desired obedience. The distinction between them is the response of each sonâ resistance from one, repentance and obedience from the other. Evidently Jesus thought that a personal response to the Fatherâs will is important!
A similar teaching follows in the parable of the vineyard (Matt 21:33â44). Using the familiar Old Testament symbol of a vineyard to represent Israel, Jesus told of the owner of the vineyard going away and leaving it in the hands of the tenants. He sent back a series of messengers and finally sent his own son to instruct the tenants about running the vineyard, but they rejected each messenger and killed his son in the hope of seizing the vineyard for themselves. The owner then returned and exacted a solemn punishment on the rebellious tenants. Jesus then spoke of the cornerstone, the rock that was rejected by the builders but became the chief cornerstone, obviously speaking of himself (vv. 42â44). Jesus then told the Pharisees that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and âgiven to a nation producing its fruitâ (v. 43 HCSB). Again, the key differential was whether persons were willing to be responsive to the Word of God.
The parable of the sower (or of the soils) in Matt 13:1â23; Mark 4:1â20; and Luke 8:1â15 highlights the issue of personal responsiveness to the Word of God. The invariable element is the seed, which represents the Word. The variable factor is the receptiveness of the soil on which the sower sowed the seed. The seed on the path, on the rocky ground, and among the thorns never became rooted enough in the soil to flourish. The seed on the path was snatched away by the evil one. The rocky ground represents the person who âhears the wordâ and âreceives it with joyâ (Matt 13:20 HCSB) but does not flourish because âhe has no root in himselfâ (v. 21). The seed that fell among thorns represents the person who also hears the Word of God, but the message becomes garbled by worldly interests. Only the seed that fell on good, receptive ground flourished. Again, the variable is not the proclamation of the Word but the response of the individual.
Resistible Grace in the All-Inclusive Invitations in Scripture
One of the most off-repeated themes throughout many genres of Scripture is the broad invitation of God to âallâ people. This invitation parallels in many ways David L. Allenâs discussion on the issue of a limited atonement in this volume and in other works.27 However, the question relating to irresistible grace is why, when receiving irresistible grace is the only way persons can be saved, would God choose only a small number of people to be saved? In essence, Calvinists blame God for those who do not come. These lost souls cannot come because God did not give them irresistible grace, the only way they can be saved. Roger Olson compared the roles of Satan and God in Calvinism: âSatan wants all people damned to hell and God wants only a certain number damned to hell.â28 While Calvinists would insist that the sinners who reject the message of salvation merely receive their just deserts, there is really more to it than that. Calvinists affirm that God elected some for his own reasons from before the world began, and he gave them irresistible grace through his Spirit so they inevitably would be saved. Obviously, those whom he did not choose to give the irresistible effectual call but merely the resistible outer ineffectual call can never be saved. These are no more or less sinners than others, but God for no obvious reason does not love this group (Calvinists call this âpreterition,â or intentionally overlooking some persons), while he loves the other group through election. God chose not to give them the means of salvation, and thus they have zero chance of being saved. The alternative perspective that I affirm is that God does extend the general call to all persons and unleashes the Holy Spirit to persuade and convict them of their need for repentance and faith. The Holy Spirit, however, does not impose his will irresistibly. At the end of the day, response to the grace of God determines whether the call is effectual.
The key issue, then, is whether salvation is genuinely open to all people or just to a few who receive irresistible grace. What does the Scripture say concerning this issue? First, Scripture clearly teaches that God desires the salvation of all people. The Bible teaches that:
He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2 HCSB)
âIt is not the will of your Father who is in heaven for one of these little ones to perish.â (Matt 18:14 NASB)
âThe Lord is . . . not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.â (2 Pet 3:9 KJV)
â[God] wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.â (1 Tim 2:4 HCSB)
The Greek word pas (Ï៶Ï) and its similar cognate synonym words (pantes, panta, and hos an), meaning âallâ or âeveryone,â such as in 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Pet 3:9, in all the standard Greek dictionaries means âallâ without exception!29
Those who would like to translate the word pas as something other than a synonym for âallâ should ponder the theological cost of such a move merely because it disagrees with their theological system. For example, Paul used the same term in 2 Tim 3:16, when he declared that âall Scripture is given by inspiration of Godâ(2 Tim 3:16 KJV, emphasis added). He did not mean that God inspires merely some selected portions of Scripture but that God inspires all Scripture. Likewise, the Greek word pas (âallâ), used in the prologue to John, makes the enormous claim about creation that âall things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was madeâ (John 1:3 KJV, emphasis added). Jesus was not involved in merely creating a few trees and hills here and there, but all things were created by him. We see the word again in Ephesians when Paul looked toward the eschaton and claimed that in the fullness of time will be gathered âall things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earthâ (Eph 1:10 KJV, emphasis added). Thus, an accurate doctrine of the creation of the world, the inspiration of Scripture, and the consummation of the world hinges on an accurate rendering of the Greek word pas as âall.â So does the doctrine of salvationâthat God desires the salvation of all people and has made an atonement through Christ that is sufficient for all people.
This same all-inclusive Greek word pas (translated as âeveryone,â âall,â or âwhosoeverâ) is used repeatedly in the New Testament to offer an invitation to all people who will respond to Godâs gracious initiative with faith and obedience (italics in the following Scripture passages are mine):
âTherefore whoever [pas hostis] hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock.â (Matt 7:24 NKJV; see Luke 6:47â48)
âWhosoever [pas hostis] therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever [hostis an] shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.â (Matt 10:32â33 KJV; see Luke 12:8)
âCome to Me, all [pantes] who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.â (Matt 11:28 NASB1995)
John the Baptist âcame as a witness, / to testify about the light, / so that all [pantes] might believe through him.â (John 1:7 HCSB)
Jesus is âthe true light, who gives light to everyoneâ [panta]. (John 1:9 HCSB)
Whoever [pas] believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever [pas] believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:15â16 NKJV)
âEveryone [pas] who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever [hos an] drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.â (John 4:13â14 NASB1995)
âFor this is the will of My Father, that everyone [pas] who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.â (John 6:40 NASB1995)
âEveryone [pas] who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?â (John 11:26 NASB)
âI have come as Light into the world, so that everyone [pas] who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.â (John 12:46 NASB1995)
And it shall be that everyone [pas, hos an] who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Acts 2:21 NASB)30
âOf Him [Jesus] all [pantes] the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone [panta] who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.â (Acts 10:43 NASB1995)
As it is written: âBehold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, and whoever [pas] believes on Him will not be put to shame.â (Rom 9:33 NKJV)
For the Scripture says, âWhoever [pas] believes in Him will not be disappointed.â (Rom 10:11 NASB1995)
Whoever [pas] denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:23 NASB)
Whoever [pas] believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. (1 John 5:1 NASB1995)
Many more of these broad invitations are found throughout Scripture than space permits to list here. In addition, the New Testament often uses a form of hostis, which when combined with an or ean is an indefinite relative pronoun best translated as âanyone,â âwhosoever,â or âeveryoneâ and refers to the group as a whole, with a focus on each individual member of the group.31
An All-Inclusive Invitation in the Prophets
In the famous prophecy of Joel, the prophet commented on whom God delivers:
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. (Joel 2:32 KJV)
Note that the âwhosoeverâ (translated âeveryoneâ in NASB and HCSB) refers to âthe remnant whom the Lord shall call.â These are not two distinct groups but are one and the same.
All-Inclusive Invitations Offered by Jesus
Jesus offered an all-inclusive invitation in the Sermon on the Mount and throughout his teaching ministry. Note that Jesus did not say âwhoso-electâ in these invitations; the invitation is always addressed to âwhosoever.â32
âAnd blessed is he, whosoever [hos ean] shall not be offended in me.â (Matt 11:6 KJV; see Luke 7:23)
âFor whosoever [hostis an] shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.â (Matt 12:50 KJV; cf. Mark 3:35)
âIf any man [tis] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever [hos an] will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.â (Matt 16:24â 25 KJV; cf. Mark 8:34â35; Luke 9:23â24)
âI am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone [ean tis] eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.â (John 6:51 NASB1995)
âIf anyone [ean tis] is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.â (John 7:17 NASB1995)
Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, âIf anyone [ean tis] is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.â (John 7:37 NASB)
âTruly, truly, I say to you, if anyone [ean tis] keeps My word he will never see death.â (John 8:51 NASB1995)
All-Inclusive Invitations in the Proclamation and Epistles of the Early Church
âAnd it shall be that everyone [pas, hos an] who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.â (Acts 2:21 NASB)
âOf Him [Jesus] all [pantes] the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone [panta] who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.â (Acts 10:43 NASB1995)
For everyone [pas, hos an] who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Rom 10:13 HCSB)
Whoever [hos an] confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. (1 John 4:15 NASB1995)
All-Inclusive Invitations in Johnâs Revelation
âBehold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone [ean tis] hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.â (Rev 3:20 NASB)
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Rev 22:17 KJV)
To be sure, Calvinists attribute all these verses to the âgeneral callâ or âuniversal callâ that God gives to all people although he has no intention of actually saving many of them. But in so doing they impose their own theological beliefs on the text. These verses mention no difference between a â general callâ and âspecific call,â or between âcommon graceâ and âenabling irresistible grace.â Therefore, when we see the same all-inclusive invitation over and over again in the various genres of Scripture, the question must be asked if the Calvinist theological system is doing justice to the biblical text. Calvinists should take seriously Paulâs admonition in Rom 9:20 (NIV): âBut who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?â In Romans 9 Paul was addressing believers from a Jewish background who believed they were among the elect people, the âfrozen chosen.â But much to their surprise, God in his sovereignty extended salvation to othersâthe Gentiles whom they hated. If God has chosen to save those who come to him by faith in Christ, as Romans 9â11 repeatedly assert, who are we to disagree with his sovereign choice? Just so, if God says he desires the salvation of all people, I believe he means it, not just in his revealed (for Calvinists, evidently deceptive) will, but also in his secret (real) will. The call is indeed universal or general for everyone to be saved. But the elect are not limited to a select group that God has chosen because he especially and savingly loves them and rejects by preterition all others, but are coterminous with those who have trusted Christ as Savior and Lord.
Resistible Grace in Descriptions of How to Be Saved
Another line of evidence in Scripture that supports the idea that grace is resistible is in biblical descriptions of how to be saved. Whenever anyone in the New Testament asks a direct question about how to be saved, the answer never refers to election. The answer always calls for an action on the part of the person to receive the salvation that God has provided and offers to each person. In Scripture, eternal life is proffered to all those who hear the gospel, not just to a few select persons who receive effectual grace irresistibly. What do the New Testament salvific formulas say is required to be saved?
The Teachings of Jesus
Jesus directly tied salvation to faith in him realized through human response to the proclamation of the gospel:
âAnd as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
âHe who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.â (John 3:14â18 NKJV).
The Need for Persuasion
At the end of the sermon at Pentecost, some of the hearers âwere pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, âBrethren, what shall we do?ââ (Acts 2:37 NASB1995). Peterâs answer was not, âAre you elect or not?â His answer was, âRepent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spiritâ (v. 38). Even after this, âwith many other words he [Peter] solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, âBe saved from this perverse generation!ââ (v. 40, emphasis added). The word translated âexhortingâ in the NASB1995 is variously translated in other Bible versions as âstrongly urgedâ (HCSB), âentreatedâ (Weymouth), âpleadedâ (NIV), or âbeggedâ (NCV). The word that is translated âexhortâ is parekalei, meaning to invite or summon someone to a decision, to beseech or implore someone, or to plead with or call someone to a decision.33 The same meaning applies to all six other usages of parekalei in the New Testament. Of course, had Peter known that grace was irresistible, he wouldnât have wasted his time with such a solemn exhortation, knowing that God had already regenerated them by irresistible grace. What persuasion is necessary for one who is already convinced?
Likewise, Paul wrote that his preaching was an effort intended to â persuadeâ people (2 Cor 5:11 NIV). The word Paul used here is peithĆ, meaning to persuade or convince someone, to try to win someone over to your point of view.34 Why would there be a need to persuade someone who had already been regenerated by irresistible enabling grace?
The Appeal to the Philippian Jailer.When the Philippian jailer saw the miraculous intervention of God in releasing Paul and Silas from his jail, he fell at their feet and asked the salvation question in the most direct way possible: âSirs, what must I do to be saved?â (Acts 16:30 NASB). Peter did not respond by talking about election. Instead, he answered, âBelieve in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your householdâ (v. 31; emphasis added). Being saved was conditional on his belief.
The Appeal to the Ethiopian Eunuch.After Philip had witnessed to the Ethiopian eunuch from the Old Testament prophecies, the eunuch exclaimed, ââLook! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?â And Philip said, âIf you believe with all your heart, you may.â And he answered and said, âI believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of Godââ (Acts 8:36â37 NASB1995). And so he was baptized. Note that his being baptized was conditional upon his trust in Christ.
The Teaching of Paul. âIf you confess with your mouth, âJesus is Lord,â and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvationâ (Rom 10:9â10 HCSB). Again, salvation is conditional on trusting in Christ.
To summarize, the Scriptures contain significant evidence against irresistible grace. The Bible specifically teaches that the Holy Spirit can be resisted. It repeatedly calls upon all people to respond to Godâs gracious invitation. The descriptions of how to be saved focus on the requirement for a positive human response to Godâs initiative. The texts do not seem to support irresistible grace, but they call upon persons to respond to the grace of God in specific ways. The plain reading of these texts tends to support the belief that Godâs grace, by his own intent and design, is resistible, and choosing Christ is voluntary (guided by the conviction and convincing of the Holy Spirit).
Assessing Calvinist Arguments and Proof Texts for Irresistible Grace
In the previous version of this article in Whosoever Will, I explored seven theological concerns about irresistible grace.35 While I still affirm those concerns, in this article I have chosen to address some arguments and proof texts proffered by Calvinists to defend the notion of irresistible grace. Specifically, we will examine Calvinist proof texts in John 6 and 12; Rom 8:29â30; and Eph 2:1 in the light of the best hermeneutics.36 Then we will examine two theological arguments made by Calvinistsâthat irresistible grace is required for God to be sovereign, and it is necessary for God to receive glory.
Calvinist Argument #1: John 6:37â44, 65 and 12:32
Probably the Scripture most frequently cited by Calvinists regarding
irresistible grace is John 6:44, along with related verses in John 6 and 12:
âAll that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day. . . . No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. â . . . And He was saying, âFor this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.â (John 6:37â40, 44, 65 NASB1995)
âAnd I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myselfâ (John 12:32 NASB1995).
John Frame,37 R. C. Sproul,38 Matthew Barrett,39 Loraine Boettner,40 William Hendrikson and Simon J. Kistemaker,41 and Robert Yarbrough42 (among others) list these verses as among the primary proof texts for irresistible grace. To make their case, several of them referred specifically to a citation in Kittelâs ten-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.43 As Sproul noted, one translation for the word âdrawsâ (helkuĆ) is âto compel by irresistible superiority.â44 Barrett waxed eloquent to infer from that one definition that John 6:44 teaches Godâs drawing is âindefectible, invincible, unconquerable, indomitable, insuperable, and unassailable summons,â45 words which appear neither in this text or any other biblical text regarding Godâs grace, but appear only when Calvinistic presuppositions color the reading of Scripture. Calvinists like to appeal to other New Testament references in which the word âdrawâ is used literally, such as Acts 16:19 and Jas 2:6, in which prisoners are being physically dragged against their wills by authorities.
The Calvinist use of helkuĆ in Jas 2:6, Acts 16:19, and other places as justification for understanding helkuĆ in John 6:44 as meaning âto compel by irresistible superiority,â or a âforceful [irresistible] attraction,â commits a word-study fallacy known as âword loadingâ or âillegitimate totality transfer.â46 Word loading occurs when an interpreter takes a meaning of a word in one context (physical) and then seeks to apply that same meaning into a different context (spiritual). A simple example of this fallacy is to overlook the fact that the same word âspiritâ (pneuma) that refers to the human spirit can also refer to the divine Holy Spirit. It is the same Greek word with two very different meanings, depending on the context. âThe immediate context always determines the meaning for any wordâno matter how many times a word carries such a meaning in another context.â47
Perhaps more embarrassingly for the Calvinistsâ exegesis of John 6:44, the article on elkĆ in the abridged one-volume TDNT, which focuses more on biblical interpretation than general usage, was authored by the same Albrecht Oepke who authored the article in the ten-volume edition. Oepke noted that helkein in the Old Testament âdenotes a powerful impulse . . . [that] expresses the force of love.â Oepkeâs specific interpretation of John 6:44 deals a stunning blow to the Calvinist interpretation of that would-be proof text:
This is the point in the two important passages in Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic.48
By no means is the abridged version of Kittel the only lexigraphical reference favoring a non-Calvinist reading of John 6:44. Note how the following well-respected lexicons address âdrawâ in John 6:44 to be interpreted metaphorically or figuratively rather than literally:
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., by Bauer and Danker: âto draw a pers. in the direction of values for inner life, draw, attract, an extended fg. [figurative] mng. [meaning] . . . J[ohn] 6:44 . . . J[ohn] 12:32.â49
The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament by Mounce: âmet. [metaphorically] to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32.â50
Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament by Hickie: âmet., to draw, i.e. to attract, Joh. 12:32. Cf. Joh. 6:44.â51
Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Friberg, Friberg, and Miller: âfiguratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (JN 6.44).â52
Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament by Robinson: âto draw, by a moral influence, John 6:44. 12:32.â53
The New Analytical Greek Lexicon by Perschbacher: âmet. to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32.â54
Note that these respected lexicons all take âdrawâ in John 6:44 to be a figurative or metaphorical usage when applied to spiritual issues within persons. In short, these standard lexicons provide no support for the Calvinist reading of John 6:44.55
Other exegetical points can be raised to show the error of the Calvinist interpretation of John 6:44,56 but one more must be mentioned here. Who is it that the Father draws? Is it some arbitrary choice he makes in his âsecret willâ? Schreiner and Ware asserted that the âdrawingâ in John 6:44 is only for the elect:
Is [this an] unlimited or common grace, given to all? Or is it a particular grace, an efficacious grace given only to some? The second half of verse 44 answers our question, for there we find that . . . the one who is given grace (who is drawn by the Father) is actually saved (raised up). The drawing of the Father, then, is not general, but particular, for it accomplishes the final salvation of those who are drawn. Godâs grace, without which no one can be saved, is therefore an efficacious [irresistible] grace, resulting in the sure salvation of those to whom it is given.57
Who are âall thatâ the Father will draw (John 6:37 NASB1995)? Woven throughout John 6 (and prior chapters) are repeated references to the necessity of believing in Jesus as Savior and Lord to receive eternal life (John 3:16, 18, 36; 6:27â29, 40, 54). Schreiner and Ware also acknowledged that those who are âcomingâ to Christ (John 6:35, 37, 44, 45) are essentially synonymous with those âbelievingâ in Christ. John 6:39â40 are verses woven together with the preposition âfor,â and these verses mirror the structure of each other in an ABCCBA pattern (âAâ being the repeated phrase âraise them up,â for example).58 What this makes clear is that the identity of those whom the Father gives to Jesus are precisely identical with those who believe. Calvinist F. F. Bruce supported this reading of John 6:37â40: âIn the first part of verse 37 the pronoun âallâ is neuter singular (Gk. pan), denoting the sum-total of believers. In the second part (âthe one who comesâ) each individual of the sum-total is in view. This oscillation between the [believing] community and its individual members reappears in verses 39 and 40.â59
Likewise, Lenski noted that those who are given by the Father to the Son sum up âthe whole mass of believers of all ages and speaks of them as a unit.â60 Vincent described it as âall believers regarded as one complete whole.â61 Jesus stated Godâs will clearly and unequivocally: âFor this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last dayâ (John 6:40 NASB). To be sure, because of human depravity, it is essential that the Father must draw humans unto himself through the convicting and convincing of the Holy Spirit. Godâs grace is a necessary condition of our salvation, but Godâs saving grace does not become operational in our own lives until we place our faith in Jesus Christ.
Ben Witherington pointed out the necessity of both Godâs grace and human response by faith in addressing this passage:
Both Godâs sovereign grace and human response play a role in human salvation, but even oneâs human response is enabled by Godâs grace. Godâs role in the relationship is incomparably greater than the human one, but the fact remains that God does not and will not save a person without the positive human response, called faith, to the divine leading and drawing.62
Richard Lenski affirmed that both Godâs grace and human response are voiced in John 6:37 and 6:44:
But in these expressions, âall that the Father gives,â and, âall that he has given,â Jesus speaks of all believers of all ages as already being present to the eyes of God, he also thus is giving them to Jesus. . . . Godâs grace is universal. He would give all men to Jesus. The only reason he does not do so is because so many men obdurately refuse to be part of that gift. . . . âHim that comes to meâ makes the matter individual, personal, and a voluntary act. The Fatherâs drawing (v. 44) is one of grace alone, thus it is efficacious, wholly sufficient, able to change the unwilling into the willing, but not by coercion, not irresistibly. Man can obdurately refuse to come. . . .63
Here [in John 6:44] Jesus explains the Fatherâs âgivingâ mentioned in v. 37 and 39: he gives men to Jesus by drawing them to him. This drawing [helkuĆ] is accomplished by a specific power, one especially designed for the purpose, one that takes hold of the sinnerâs soul and moves it away from darkness, sin, and death, to Jesus, light, and life. No man can possibly thus draw himself to Jesus. The Father, God himself, must come with his divine power and must do this drawing; else it will never be effected. . . . The drawing is here predicated of the Father; in 12:32 it is predicated of Jesus, âAnd I will draw all men unto myself.â . . . The power by which these Jews are at this very moment being drawn is the power of divine grace, operative in and through the Word these Jews now hear from the lips of Jesus. While it is power (Rom. 1:16), efficacious to save, it is never irresistible (Matt. 23:37, âand ye would notâ). Nor is this power extended only to a select few, for in 12:32 Jesus says, âI will draw all men.â The power of the gospel is for the world, and no sinner has fallen so low but what this power is able to reach him effectually.64
Therefore, we need not speculate about what Godâs âsecret willâ might be, because Jesus clearly revealed what his will actually is: âFor this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.â (John 6:40 NASB; emphasis added). The Father draws those whom he has foreseen will believe in his Son as Savior and Lord! Godâs grace is necessary for salvation, but Godâs grace does not become operational in our own lives until we respond by placing our faith in Jesus Christ.
Calvinist Argument #2: Romans 8:29â30
Another proof text cited by many Calvinists is Rom 8:29â30, sometimes called the âGolden Chain of Redemptionâ:
For those He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, He also called; and those He called, He also justified; and those He justified, He also glorified. (Rom 8:29â 30 HCSB)
For example, Matthew Barrett argued that Rom 8:29â30 is an ideal example of the âeffectual calling.â65 He cited Doug Moo in arguing that the links in the chain are all connected by the demonstrative pronoun âtheseâ (toutous): âThis leaves little room for the suggestion that the links in this chain are not firmly attached to one another, as if some who were âforeknownâ and âpredestinedâ would not be âcalled,â âjustified,â and âglorified.ââ66
The Priority of Divine Foreknowledge
I absolutely agree with Mooâs assertion. But it is ironic to me that Calvinists consider Rom 8:29â30 to favor their position. I cite it as a text favoring a non-Calvinist interpretation, so it obviously depends on the proper interpretation of the text. Note that the first link in that chain of redemption is not predestination, but foreknowledge. God does not first predestine the elect and then foreknow them. Rather, Godâs foreknowledge of human responses comes first, with Godâs election, calling, and justification flowing from his foreknowledge. The entire discussion of election in Romans 9â11 is framed by references to foreknowledge, both as a prologue to the discussion in Rom 8:29â30 and near its conclusion in Rom 11:1â2: âI say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknewâ (Rom 11:1â2 NASB1995; emphasis added).
Who are these people whom God foreknew? The apostle Paul made it very clear in Romans 9â11 that God will save whosoever will come to Him by faith:
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, âBehold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.â (Rom 9:30â33 NASB1995; emphasis added)
But what does it say? âThe word is near you, in your mouth and in your heartââthat is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, âWhoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.â For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for âWhoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.â (Rom 10:8â13 NASB1995; emphasis added)
Exegetical Evidence
Godâs foreknowledge is consistently affirmed in the Bible (Ps 139:1â10; Acts 2:23; Rom 8:29; 11:2; 16:27; 1 Pet 1:2). The Greek word translated âforeknewâ is the verb proginoskĆ. In any standard lexicon, the root Greek word for âforeknewâ (proginoskĆ) simply means knowing something before it happens.67 In his classic commentary on the letter to the Romans, Frederic Godet noted that âknowledgeâ is the âfirst and fundamental meaningâ of prognosis.68 In his commentary on Romans, R. C. H. Lenski likewise affirmed that âboth linguistically and doctrinally the knowing cannot be eliminated and an act of willing, a decree, be substituted. . . . âForeknewâ ever remains eternal advance knowledge, a divine knowledge that includes all that Godâs grace would succeed in working in us.â69 Ben Witherington also distinguished Godâs foreknowledge from predestination:
Paul distinguishes between what God knows and what God wills or destines in advance. Knowing and willing are not one and the same. The proof of this is of course that God knows very well about human sin but does not will it or destine it to happen.70
The belief that divine election is based upon his foreknowledge of a believerâs faith is not a new idea. This understanding of Scripture goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. Lenski noted of the earlier church fathers, âThe older dogmaticians interpreted: quos credituros praevidit, âwhom he foresaw as believers.ââ71 Gerald Bray and Ben Witherington also have documented that the belief in divine foreknowledge is seen in both Judaism and in the early church fathers, including Diodore of Tarsus, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ambrosiaster, Cyril of Alexandria, and John Chrysostom.72 Election based on divine foreknowledge is also affirmed by Molinism, in which Godâs foreknowledge is described as âmiddle knowledge.â
The Requirements for Salvation
What requirements has God sovereignly established for salvation? The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God requires repentance and faith for salvation. As noted earlier, every formulaic statement of what is required for salvation makes the necessity of repentance and faith crystal clear (Matt 10:32â33; Mark 16:15â16; John 3:14â17; 6:40; 11:26; 12:46; Acts 2:21, 27â30; 10:43; 16:30â31; Rom 9:33; 10:9â11; 1 John 5:1). The question is not what God could or might have done, but what he has done. God does foreknow, elect, and predestine a particular type of person from before the foundation of the worldâand that is believers! Based on his foreknowledge of those who will (under the conviction of the Holy Spirit) repent of their sins and trust Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, God elects, predestines, justifies, and glorifies (Rom 8:29â30).
Since the traditional interpretation of Rom 8:29â30 as God electing based on his foreknowledge of the future faith of believers does not square with Calvinist theology, they reinterpret Rom 8:29â30 in various ways. Calvinist scholars have raised at least three challenges to the traditional interpretation of Rom 8:29â30: that âforeknewâ really means âforeloved,â that Godâs foreknowledge is not chronologically and logically before Godâs predestination, and that genuine human freedom would violate Godâs foreknowledge and sovereignty. What is wrong with each of these alternative explanations?
Does foreknew mean foreloved? No. As noted earlier, standard lexicons make it clear that the primary meaning of âforeknewâ is âforeknew,â not âforeloved.â Witherington pointed out that the next reference to foreknowledge in Romans, Rom 11:2, makes this distinction between God foreknowing believers and election even clearer:
Love for God can be commanded, but it cannot be coerced, compelled, or engineered in advance, or else it loses its character as love. The proof that this line of thinking, and not that of Augustine, Luther, or Calvin, is on the right track is seen clearly in 11:2, where Paul says plainly that God foreknew his Jewish people, and yet not all of them responded positively to his call. Indeed, only a minority have as he writes this letter. Godâs foreknowledge, and even Godâs plan of destiny for Israel, did not in the end predetermine which particular individual Israelite would respond positively to the gospel call and which would not. In 10:8â15 Paul will make clear that the basis of that response is faith and confession.73
Does Godâs predestination precede his foreknowledge? Some Calvinists suggest that foreknowledge is an overarching summary, so that the first link in the âGolden Chain of Redemptionâ is really predestination. However, although this view squares with Calvinist theology, it does not square with Rom 8:29â30. As noted earlier, the âGolden Chain of Redemptionâ is intended as a series of events, one following after the other, linked in each case by the Greek word hous, translated, âwhom.â God foreknowing believers is clearly the first link in that chain.74 Witherington commented, âHous, âwhom,â at the beginning of v. 29 must refer back to âthose who love God,â that is, Christians, in v. 28. The discussion that follows is about the future of believers.â75 Witherington lamented that what some commentators âseem to have clearly missed is that we continue to have reference to the same hous: once in v. 29, and three times in v. 30. . . .â One implication of this series of connected statements is that
since vv. 29â30 must be linked to v. 28, the âthose whoâ in question are those about whom Paul has already said that they âlove Godââi.e., Paul makes perfectly clear that he is talking about Christians here. The statement about them loving God precedes and determines how we should read both hous in these verses and the chain of verbs. God knew something in advance about these persons, namely that they would respond to the call of God in love. For such people, God goes all out to make sure that in the end they are fully conformed to the image of Christ.76
Does human freedom obviate Godâs sovereignty? Calvinists question how God could foreknow all things before the foundation of the world and yet allow us genuine libertarian free will. If he knows for sure what we are going to choose to do before we do it, do we really have a choice? How could God foreknow that we are going to change our minds? Once God knows what we are going to do, does it not become fixed and determined so that we have no real free choiceâwe can choose nothing else?
The fundamental problem with these objections is that they put nonlogical limitations on Godâs omniscience and foreknowledge. Human choices reflect our God-given creaturely freedom, and God foreknows the future free choices of individuals. As an omniscient being, God timelessly knows all future human choices (not only the actual choices, but also the possible choices in any conceivable circumstance). To deny the complete foreknowledge of God is to deny the omniscience of God.
Second, from a logical perspective, the claim that Godâs foreknowledge takes away any real human choices fundamentally confuses the difference between knowledge and causation. Two plus two is not four because I know it; it is true because it is true in reality. In fact, two plus two equals four whether or not I believe it. Knowing something does not cause it to happen, even for God. Knowledge, no matter who holds it, is causally indeterminative. Therefore, it is a misconception to think that Godâs foreknowledge of future human choices causes a personâs acceptance or rejection of faith in Christ.
Third, the claim that Godâs foreknowledge takes away any real human choices fundamentally confuses the important distinction between necessity (what must happen) and certainty (what will happen). Since Godâs omniscient knowledge does not cause future events, his (fore)knowledge does not make these events necessary. God knows future events with certainty, but that does not mean that those events had to happen by logical necessity. Future events are contingent on the future decisions of his free creatures.77 As explained earlier, God simply knows before we make those choices what our choices are going to be.
Ponder this analogy, although human analogies about God are inherently limited because he is not bound to our limitations of time and imperfect knowledge. Jim and Rusty were fans of a basketball team playing a game that would determine the league championship, but their schedules did not permit them to watch the game. So they taped it to watch later. Jim got out of the meeting early and witnessed the team making a remarkable comeback to win in the last seconds of the game. When Rusty came in, he did not know the outcome of the game (or that Jim had seen it). As their team trailed the opponent for most of the game, Rusty kept lamenting that their team was going to lose, but Jim told Rusty that he is confident that they could come back and win. Jim encouraged Rusty to have faith in their team. Sure enough, as Jim foreknew, the team came back in the last seconds of the game and won a dramatic victory. Rusty was amazed that Jim seemed so sure that their team would rally and win the game. In truth, of course, Jim did not really have âfaithââhe had knowledge of what would actually happen that was inaccessible to Rusty.
The point is this: Jimâs certain knowledge of what would happen at the end of the game had exactly nothing to do with his team winning the game. His knowledge did not predetermine the fouls, the plays, or the last-second shot that won the game. Jim knew the result with certainty, but not of logical necessity. He simply knew ahead of time what would actually happen without causing what happened. Likewise, God knows our future choices with certainty without making them logically necessary. So the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom is coherent, and more importantly, it aligns with the description of Godâs foreknowledge of human choices in the pages of Scripture.
[….]
FOOTNOTES
21 William E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1966), 286; Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1977), 51; BDAG, 90.
22 John Chrysostom said in a sermon on 1 Cor 1:4â5, âBut some man will say, âHe ought to bring men in, even against their will.â Away with this. He doth not use violence, nor compel; for who that bids to honours, and crowns, and banquets, and festivals, drags people unwilling and bound? No one. For this is the part of one inflicting an insult. Unto hell He sends men against their will, but unto the kingdom He calls willing minds.â John Chrysostom, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, homily 2, point 9 (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1854), 17.
23 Piper and staff, âFive Points of Calvinism.â
24 Israelâs election to service as a chosen people and individual election to salvation for Christians are interwoven in Romans 9â11. Calvinists often do not give adequate attention to the former. See the article by William Klein in this volume.
25 Gottlob Schrenk, s.v. âtheĆ, theleĆma, theleĆsis,â in TDNT, 3:48â49.
26 TDNT, 3:48â49.
27 Allen, The Atonement (see intro., n. 20); Allen, Extent of the Atonement (see intro., n. 10); David L. Allen, âCommentary on Article 3: The Atonement of Christ,â in Allen, Hankins, and Harwood, Anyone Can Be Saved, 55â64 (see intro., n. 20).
28 Roger Olson, Against Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 159.
29 Bo Reicke, s.v. âpas,â TDNT, 5:886â96; Thayer, âpas,â Greek-English Lexicon, 491â93; BDAG, 782â84. Danker noted that pas pertains âto totalityâ with a âfocus on its individual components.â BDAG, 782. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida similarly observe that pas denotes âthe totality of any object, mass, collective, or extensionâ (L&N 1:597).
30 Note the commentary on Acts 2:21 by John Calvin himself: âHe [God] says, all things are in turmoil and possessed by the fear of death, only call upon Me and you shall be saved. So however much a man may be overwhelmed in the gulf of misery there is yet set before him a way of escape. We must also observe the universal word, âwhosoeverâ. For God himself admits all men to Himself without exception and by this means invites them to salvation, even as Paul deduces in Rom. 10, and as the prophet had earlier recorded. âThou Lord who hearest prayer, unto Thee shall all flesh comeâ (Ps. 65.2). Therefore since no man is excluded from calling upon God the gate of salvation is set open to all. There is nothing else to hinder us from entering, but our own unbelief.â Calvin, âThe Acts of the Apostles 1â13,â in Calvinâs New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., trans. J. W. Fraser and W. J. G. McDonald, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 6:61â62, emphasis added. Evidently Calvin does not always agree with Calvinists.
31 Thayer, âhostis,â Greek-English Lexicon, 33â34, 454â57; BDAG, âhostis,â 56â57, 725â27, 729â30. Danker noted that hostis means âwhoever, everyone, who, in a generalizing sense,â and when combined with an âthe indefiniteness of the expression is heightened.â BDAG, 729.
32 See also Mark 8:38/Luke 9:26; Mark 9:37/Luke 9:48; Mark 10:15; and Luke 14:27.
33 Otto Schmitz, s.v. âparakaleĆ,â TDNT, 5:773â79, 793â94.
34 Rudolf Bultmann, s.v. âpeithĆ,â TDNT, 6:8â9.
35 Lemke, âCritique of Irresistible Grace,â in Whosoever Will, 109â62.
36 For more on sound hermeneutics, see Steve Lemke, Grant Lovejoy, and Bruce Corley, eds., Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, 2nd ed. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2002).
37 John Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R, 2006), 184.
38 Sproul, Chosen by God, 69; Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 153â54.
39 Barrett, âMonergism,â 141.
40 Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Faith (Philadelphia: P&R, 1984), 11.
41 William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Gospel according to John, 2 vols., New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 1:238.
42 Robert Yarbrough, âDivine Election in the Gospel of John,â in Still Sovereign: Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 50n10.
57 Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware, introduction to Still Sovereign, 15. Schreiner and Ware thus interpret John 6:44 to mean, âNo one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise the one whom the Father draws up on the last day.â However, John 6:44 must be read in light of a preceding verse with a parallel construction, John 6:40: âFor this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last dayâ (NASB). Therefore, the proper interpretation of John 6:44 should be, âNo one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise up on the last day the one who comes to me (through faith).â As noted above, the lexical definition of âdrawâ does not mean the irresistible drawing that Calvinists try to make it mean to suit their theology. This promise of the resurrection is given to believers who respond to the gracious invitation of God.
58 Witzki, âCalvinism and John 6, Part One,â 4â5.
59 F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 154.
60 Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Johnâs Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 463.
61 Marvin Vincent, Vincentâs Word Studies in the New Testament, 4 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1886), 2:150.
62 Ben Witherington III, Johnâs Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 158, emphasis added.
63 Lenski, Interpretation of St. Johnâs Gospel, 464â65; emphasis added.
64 Lenski, 475â76; emphasis added.
65 Barrett, âMonergism,â 128â30.
66 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 535; cited in Barrett, âMonergism,â 129.
67 Rudolf Bultmann, s.v. âproginoskĆ, prognosis,â TDNT, 1:715â16.
68 Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 325. Godet notes that âthe act of knowing, exactly like that of seeing, supposes an object perceived by the person who knows or sees. It is not the act of seeing or knowing which produces this object; it is the object, on the contrary, which determines this act of knowing or seeing. And the same is the case with divine provision of foreknowledge; for in the case of God who lives above time, foreseeing is seeing; knowing what shall be is knowing what to Him already is. And therefore it is the believerâs faith which, as a future fact, but in His sight already existing, which determines His foreknowledgeâ (emphasis added).
69 Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paulâs Epistle to the Romans (Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1936), 558â59.
70 Ben Witherington III, with Darlene Hyatt, Paulâs Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 230.
71 Lenski, Romans, 559.
72 Gerald Bray and Thomas Bray, eds., New Testament VI: Romans (Revised), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 233â44; Witherington, Romans, 227â28. Additional early church fathers who endorsed this perspective on human freedom and foreknowledge include Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Jerome.
73 Witherington, Romans, 229â30.
74 F. F. Bruce noted that these phrases are also connected in what is called a sorites construction, in which the predicate of one clause becomes the subject of the next clause. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Tyndale, 1963), 176.
75 Witherington, Romans, 227.
76 Witherington, 229, n. 28.
77 For more on the confusion of contingency and necessity, see Kenneth D. Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 8â9, 31â38; and Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free WillâContrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House, 2002), 36â63.
Whether you are familiar with Augustine or not, chances are you have encountered Calvinism and its core doctrinesâespecially the idea of unconditional election. Perhaps you have Reformed friends who hold to the belief that God has sovereignly chosen some individuals for salvation and others for damnation, entirely apart from their free will. This deterministic view of salvation has become deeply embedded in much of Western Christianity. But what if we could trace this theological development to a specific moment in church history? What if we could say, with confidence, when and how this view was introducedâand argue that it was not part of the original Christian faith?
On todayâs show, we take a critical look at one of the most influential figures in Christian history: Augustine of Hippo. Weâre joined by Dr. Ken Wilson, Oxford-trained scholar and author of The Foundations of Augustinian Calvinism. In his historical research, Dr. Wilson demonstrates how Augustineâs later theologyâparticularly his embrace of determinism and unilateral graceâmarked a significant departure from the teachings of earlier Church Fathers and laid the foundation for what would become Calvinistic theology.
The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism with Dr. Ken Wilson
Before going on with âanotherâ post on Calvinism, a reader on my siteâs Facebook (FB) was asking why all the hub-bub regarding the topic of Calvinism as of late… although worded differently:
QUESTION:
RANDALL L. ASKED ME ON MY FB PAGE:
…so what happens to a soul when you are so tired of hearing all the arguments instead of just hearing the Gospel?….there are many who believe that the Calvinists are heretics…there are many who believe that the Arminians are heretics…there are many who believe that the Charismatics/Non-Charismatics are heretics…what if John 3:36 is actually true?…He who believes on the Son has eternal life…
I RESPOND:
I am posting a lot on the topic because it is “new” to me. I say “new” [in quotes] because I live in the Santa Clarita Valley. Which is under the shadow of MacArthur. And the churches I have enjoyed in our valley are more reformed Baptist. And a Bible study I was in for 10-years was led by a part time Masters College professor. He was [and is] a discipling mentor to me and many men.
When pressed on the issues â for instance, we studied through the 1689 Baptist Confession for a long study â I would always joke that when I read James White, I was a 4-point-5 [4.5] Calvinist, and when I read Norman Geisler, I was a 3-point-Calvinist [3.0]. But the truth is being an Apologetic animal and getting a masterâs in theology from a Lutheran seminary, I never accepted the idea of theistic determinism. As I had read CS Lewis and Norman Geislerâs many works in the 90s. I was inoculated against it, so-to-speak.
Some events happened about 6-months ago that when I told my running joke, it was stale in my mouth. Left a bad taste. So, I said to myself, âyou know, I have said that for decades. No more. I need to really know-know the entirety of why I reject the 5-points.â And so, I have a two year+ reading plan and am gobbling up tons of videos and series.
And so, just 6-months into the new passion, I can confidently say that if the 5-points [or even 4 points] are true, then there is no rebellion by man against God. Calvary and the Gospel are secondary to election, etc.
But I have a lot more reading ta do.
Thank you for the question/statement â and I understand the frustration. My website has posts galore on the topic as well.
I may add that I love the Christian faith and all it’s history and theological turns. Of which I am still coming to grips with, as it is a large subject. Speaking of LOVE, here is Pastor Rogers chapter on love — well worth your time:
And this happens to be my current pinned post on my sites FB as well as my personal page. I wrote it when I saw this question on Dr. Flowers live stream:
FB PINNED POST
Most church goers do not realize what Calvinism teaches. A pastor might say we have free will, but that is from the pulpit. Get them in an honest conversation, they revert right back to TULIP, which negates free will. Then another pastor may note we do not have free will, and then define it in a fuzzy way, and then two sentences later say we are elected to salvation. THIS MEANS that we cannot make a choice to positively affirm [respond to] the Word of God â at all… but to reject it.
So, TULIP says that if you have three choices:
reject the Gospel message.
be ambivalent to the message of Godâs Word.
see the truth in the grace enabled message of Godâs Word.
TULIP only â only â allows for A. and B. The Holy Spirit inspired Word of God, sharper than any two-edged sword [cutting between soul and body], the facts of Godâs work at Calvary, the preaching of Godâs message via pastorâs or the broader body of Christ… NONE OF THAT IS EFFECTIVE.
Piper, MacArthur, many pastors I know, in the end say that one has to be unconditionally chosen before the time-space-continuum and drawn irresistibly to salvation â because they would never be able to even see the truth in the Gospel and have faith by what they see.
Which means those who are not drawn with the âUâ and the âIâ of TULIP, and chosen likewise to go to hell and be tormented eternally not because they rejected Godâs message. But because our nature was designed this way through first and secondary causes, not by a “mother nature,” but by God’s decree.
The âTâ ensures no one can respond to Godâs many grace enablements.
They must be chosen by nothing in themselves. No ability to respond at all to the Holy Spirit drenched Word of God.
This makes Calvary and the Gospel secondary [ineffective] according to Baptist Reformed thinkers [Calvinists].
It is, really, for lack of a better idea: an anti-Christ theology.
Not only that, but, what is there for God to harden, provoke, or restrain if not the autonomous will of creatures?
If God knows the future because He planned the future [Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, etc.], when God hardens, provokes, or restrains…. is He working against Himself? Since He decreed it all to happen?
If the “T” of TULIP [total depravity] is a reality, wouldn’t hardening, provoking, or restraining someone be the same thing as digging up bodies in a cemetery and putting blindfold on the rotting cadaver?
In other words, does He plan the abuse of a child just to redeem that act in some way to bring glory to Himself? Is Satan superfluous?
Are all the prescriptions in the Bible making God out to be duplicitous – since he has planned our actions thru determinative means?
Or…
Is it more like Tozer notes — which lowers man’s position by making him/her responsible to God’s law; and keeps God’s holiness and glory intact as He truly redeems or judges such actions (is He judging Himself in Calvinism?)
God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Manâs will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.
Here I wanted to share a large clip from a slightly longer post… and may I set it up with a Piper endorsed book that [I think still] Desiring God [Piper’s site] still has it up on their website:
Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ
âworks all things according to the counsel of his will.â Here the Greek word for âworksâ is energeĂž, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universeâs objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isnât just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his peopleâs good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includesâas incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seemâGodâs having even brought about the Nazisâ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: âThe LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evilâ (Prov. 16:4, NASB ).14 âWhen times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the otherâ (Eccl. 7:14, NIV).
John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42.
This is probably the most employed logical fallacy of the Calvinistic believer when engaging in a debate over the claims of their TULIP systematic. Here is how the conversation typically goes:
Calvin: God brings about every meticulous detail for His own glory, including manâs sinful inclinations and choices.[1]
Hobbs: That claim undermines the character, holiness and goodness of God who abhors moral evil (Prov. 6:16-19; Jer. 7:31), is holy or separate from all evil (Is. 6:3; Ex. 15:11) and who does not even tempt men to sin (Jm. 1:13). He is the redeemer of sinful choices, not the one who brings them about!
Calvin: YOU TOO have the same problem because you believe God knows every evil thing that is going to happen but did not prevent it.
Notice that the Traditionalist (Hobbs) is critiquing an ACTUAL CLAIM of the Calvinistic systematic. The Calvinist does not answer that critique, but instead they commit the âyou tooâ fallacy by appealing NOT to an ACTUAL CLAIM of the Traditionalistic scholars, but to their own philosophical conclusion about the infinite attribute of divine omniscience â a philosophical conclusion that Traditionalists deny. Â
So, the Traditionalist is critiquing an actual claim of Calvinism while the Calvinist is appealing to something all Traditionalists deny (i.e. if God knows something and does not prevent it then it is the same as Him determining it).
Letâs take a look at this same fallacy in a âreal worldâ discussion and see how it plays itself out:
Calvin: I hired a mean kid at my sonâs school to bully him so as to toughen him up so he can represent my name in a strong powerful way.
Hobbs: You did what?!? How can a good and loving father do that to his own child?! If your son finds out what you did he will never trust you again.
Calvin: YOU TOO did the same thing last year when your son told you about that bully and you sent him to school anyway. You didnât have to send your son to school knowing there was a bully there. You could have prevented him from being bullied, but you didnât, so YOU TOO are as bad as I am!
Hobbs: WHAT!? I did not hire some mean kid to mercilessly torture my son. I hated that he went through that. I wept with him. I worked with him every night on what to say and do in order to confront his bully. I helped redeem that horrible situation to make him stronger. I did not cause it, or bring it about, or make it happen for my own namesake. If someone went to my house and convinced my son that I had actually hired that bully last year then he would never trust me again. It would undermine my character and trustworthiness and completely ruin our relationship. I am the helper and redeemer of my sonâs bad situation, not the cause of it! How dare you even compare what I did to what you did!
The idea that Godâs choice to permit free creatures to make free choices and suffer the full weight and consequences of those choices is somehow equal to the divine meticulous determinism being promoted by pastors like John Piper is blantantly absurd. ……
Here’s the full study on this topic from my verse by verse teaching through Romans: Why God Hardens Hearts: Romans 9:17-24This is my best understanding of this topic and I think that it fits really well with a wide variety of Scripture that speaks to the issue. For a fuller defense of my own view please see the video I have linked above. My website https://BibleThinker.org
In a good conversation about Pharoah’s hardened heart, although not in alignment with what I was asking at âSOTO 101â Discussion thread, I got a response to this by MARK H. Here is the convo thus far:
MARK H. Pharaoh stiffened his heart first?
Nope, God hardened Pharaohâs heart first…Exodus 7:3.
Pharaoh only ‘repented’ because of the plagues God sent upon him and Egypt, God raised Pharaoh up for one reason and one reason only, to show His power and to make His name to be declared throughout the world.
RELIGIO-POLITICAL TALK (RPT):Â “But I will harden Pharaohâs heart” Future tense… A strict Calvinist would say God was looking down the corridors of time [a bit of sarcasm there] and seeing the after FX of Pharaohs choices and God allowing and hardening that resolve.
MARK H. Religio-Political Talk (RPT) I believe God hardened Pharaohs heart first. This is what Paul’s argument is in Romans. God could have shown him mercy by softening his heart but He sovereignly chose to harden him so He could display His power and wrath by destroying Egypt. Potter and the clay.
RELIGIO-POLITICAL TALK (RPT): Â LONG COMMENT
POTTER & CLAY
Also, don’t forget what was said of Israel a few verses later to be able to choose… đŒđ đđđ»đžđ đđđ đ·đ, keep reading for Scripture to explain Scripture:
âThis is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: âGo down to the potterâs house, and there I will give you my message.â So I went down to the potterâs house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him. Then the word of the Lord came to me. He said, âCan I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?â declares the Lord. âLike clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israelâ (Jer. 18:1â6).
[CALVINISTS STOP AT VERSE 6]
âIf at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. âNow therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, âThis is what the Lord says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.â But they will reply, âItâs no use. We will continue with our own plans; we will all follow the stubbornness of our evil heartsââ (Jer. 18:7â12).
Some Calvinistic scholars attempt to disassociate this text with Paulâs use of the analogy in Romans. For instance, James White writes, âWhere is there a discussion of vessels of honor and dishonor in Jeremiah 18? Where is there a discussion of vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy? There is none.â[1]Â Only someone set on dismissing human responsibility would be unwilling to acknowledge the clear connection. Richard Coords explains:
The vessels of honor can be seen in Godâs fashioning to âblessâ (v. 10), âbuild,â and âplantâ (v. 9), while the vessels of dishonor can be seen in the fashioning to âuproot,â âpull downâ and âdestroyâ (v.7) including âfashioning calamityâ and âdevising a plan againstâ (v. 11), which is also consistent with the Jewish hardening described in Romans chapter 9 and at Romans 11:25.[2]
Paul is not oblivious to the need of the clay to respond to the expressed will of the Potter, as Paul draws upon this analogy again in his letter to Timothy:
âNow in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor.  Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good workâ (2 Tim. 2:20â21).
Clearly, the biblical authors speak of the clay as if it is able to respond (and thus be held responsible) to the will of the Potter. The vessel must âcleanse himselfâ so as to be âuseful to the Master,â which clearly illustrates that Paul does not necessarily intend to remove manâs part in the process by way of this kind of analogy.
God, a patient and trustworthy Potter who genuinely loves the hardened clay (Rom. 9:1â2; 10:1, 21), has remade some of it to be used for ânoble purposes,â such as proclaiming the inspired truth to the lost world. The rest of the lump, still genuinely loved by the Potter despite their turning to other gods (Hos. 3:1), is used to bring about the ignoble purpose of crucifixion and the grafting in of other vessels for redemption (Rom. 11:25). All the while, the Potter is holding out hope for the spoiled lump to turn from its evil and be cleansed through repentance and faith (Rom. 11:11â23).
[1] James White, The Potterâs Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000), 225.
[2]Richard Coords, âJeremiah 18:6,â Examining Calvinism, web page; accessed 08 June 2015.
Take note that PAUL would have been familiar with Isaiah 29:16-19, which as I see it, was a âMessianic prophecyâ fulfilled in Jesus and Paulâs discussion of Israelâs true believing remnant:
You have turned things around, as if the potter were the same as the clay. How can what is made say about its maker, âHe didnât make meâ? How can what is formed say about the one who formed it, âHe doesnât understand what heâs doingâ? Isnât it true that in just a little while Lebanon will become an orchard, and the orchard will seem like a forest? On that day the deaf will hear the words of a document, and out of a deep darkness the eyes of the blind will see. The humble will have joy after joy in the LORD, and the poor people will rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. (Isaiah 29:16â19, CSB)
THAT BEING SAID, if you come at Scripture with a systematic, I can understand your viewpoint … if you believe in the T, the U, and the I… then every one’s “hard heart” is ultimately by God’s design. Unless He unconditionally through irresistible grace changed your heart by a miracle — against your will. [I add that last part is because of Ronnie W. Rogers. Because of âtotal depravity “, any good response to God is impossible… our will would not allow for it, so it must be “disallowed” to be saved. Not by the Gospel message, but through the work of God long before you were born… nothing you âresponded to.â]
IN OTHER WORDS, if you believe all that…. then yes, each time his heart was hardened, by God or himself, it was God anyways.
However, I enjoyed this Jewish commentary, and, my favorite part is this: âHowever, as Luzzatto implies, the situation is never permanentâ (excerpted below). As Romans agrees and emphasizes… which Calvinism struggles with acknowledging â without breaking apart the smooth flow of 9-11.
… A number of classical sources deal with this question, including the Rabbinic commentary Exodus Rabbah, which observes a critical detail: Exodus 9:12 is the first time that the Torah tells us that God hardened Pharaohâs heart, but we see evidence of Pharaoh impacting his own heart five times earlier in this portion. Twice (Exodus 7:13 and Exodus 22) in response to Mosesâ challenges and requests, the Torah tells us, his heart âhardened.â And three times after that (Exodus 8:11, Exodus 15 and Exodus 28), weâre told that Pharaoh âmade his heart heavy.â
Five times Pharaoh turned away from Mosesâ call and the suffering of the Israelites. Five times he made his own heart less and less supple and soft. As such, Rabbi Simon ben Lakish claims in Exodus Rabbah, a collection of Midrash compiled in the 10th or 11th century (scholars are unsure of the exact date), âSince God sent [the opportunity for repentance and doing the right thing] five times to him and he sent no notice, God then said, âYou have stiffened your neck and hardened your heart on your ownâŠ. So it was that the heart of Pharaoh did not receive the words of God.ââ
In other words, Pharaoh sealed his own fate, for himself and his relationship with God.
As the 18th-century Italian philosopher Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto wrote, âOur external actions have an effect on our inner feelings. We have more control over our actions than our emotions, and if we utilize what is in our power, we will eventually acquire what is not as much in our power.â
This is true in both directions. When we make the choice to turn away from suffering, when we engage in the action of walking away from othersâ pain, we impact our inner life â our own heart is hardened, we become estranged from the divine and from our own holiest self. True, itâs scary to look that pain in the eyes, and then to grapple with the feelings of responsibility it might engender in us. But thereâs a cost to that turning away.
However, as Luzzatto implies, the situation is never permanent. Even when youâve turned away from others and toward your own self-interest to the point that you can no longer hear the still small voice whispering in your direction. Even then, the gates to the divine â and to ourselves â are always open. As the Talmud (Brachot 32b) teaches in the name of Rabbi Elezar, âFrom the day on which the Temple was destroyed, the gates of prayer have been closed⊠But though the gates of prayer are closed, the gates of weeping are not closed.â
We can do the work of goodness in the world. It will change us. And when weâre finally ready to let our heart break open, the gates will be there, ready to receive us.
I affirm that God’s predetermination and foreknowledge are coextensive, which is to say that God is essentially omniscient rather than knowing things perceptively. God has always known all contingencies (decisions yet to be actualized) because even though they do not exist external to the mind of God, they have eternally existed in the mind of God by virtue of the nature of His being. Moreover, I affirm that the distinction between predestining something to happen a certain way and predestining to allow some human freedom to determine outcomes are both within the scope of the biblical meaning of predestination and foreknowledge. I further affirm that both understandings of predestination are compatible with and demonstrative of sovereignty so long as He made the decision freely, which He did in fact do, thereby being part of His plan rather than contrary to His plan.
The Calvinist position that God elects to regenerate some, the elect, and all that He regenerates will necessarily believe inescapably leaves God determining to send some to hell who could have been spared that torment if He had chosen for them to be spared because all that He elects to regenerate must believe and all that He chooses not to regenerate cannot believe. This position is in contrast to the position I am advocating, whereby God enables all to have a real choice of whether to believe or not, and those who go to hell are there because they rejected a real chance to not be there.
I further affirm God’s omniscience, which includes perfect, exhaustive knowledge of every actuality, potentiality, contingency, and conditional reality. Thus, God knows everything about the future including every potential and actual choice of every person. He also knows the consequence of every potential and actual choice. God’s foreknowledge is in reality just knowledge for God. He has known every future event in an eternal present. W. T. Shedd notes, “Omniscience excludes both foreknowledge and subsequent knowledge.”14 Augustine said, “What is foreknowledge but the knowledge of the future. But what is future to God? For, if the divine knowledge includes all things at one instant, all things are present to him, and there is nothing future; and his knowledge is knowledge, and not foreknowledge.”15
Thus, the future, or tomorrow for us, has always been known to God. In this sense, there is no future with God, although He differentiates between what is past, present, and yet to sequentially happen. As far as knowledge, He knows the future as well and certain as He knows the past. Charnocke says, “the knowledge of one thing is not, in God, before another; one act of knowledge doth not beget another. In regard of the objects themselves, one thing is before another; one year before another; one generation of men before another; one is the cause, and the other is the effect; in the creature’s mind there is such a succession, and God knows there will be such a succession; but there is no such order in God’s knowledge; for he knows all those successions by one glance, without any successions of knowledge in himself.”16 This is what I mean by saying God’s predestination and God’s foreknowledge are coextensive. God does see the sequence of events, but he does not learn from looking at sequential actions or choices and then choose to act because He sees them all simultaneously.
Shedd says, “God has a knowledge of all things that are possible ….He knows all that he can do ….It is knowledge that… never causes an act of the will….God has knowledge of what is conditionally possible, that is, of those events which have never come to pass, but which might have occurred under certain possible conditions ….For example, God knows that if a certain person should live to middle life, he would become exceedingly vicious and wicked. He prevents this by an early death of the person. Biblical instances are Matthew 11:21-23 (the repentance of Tyre and Sidon; of Sodom and Gomorrah); 1 Samuel 23:5-14; Jeremiah 38:17-20.â17
So when we speak of God’s foreknowledge, it does not convey the idea of learning, or becoming aware, but rather as Shedd notes, “Foreknowledge, strictly taken, implies an interval between the knowledge and the event.”18 Lewis Sperry Chafer says, “Omniscience brings everythingâpast, present, and futureâwith equal reality before the mind of God.”19Again, he notes “The omniscience of God comprehends all thingsâthings past, things present, and things future, and the possible as well as the actual.”20
Therefore, “by divine arrangement, events do follow in sequence or chronological order. Yet, to God, the things of the past are as real as though now present and the things of the future are as real as though past. (Isaiah 46:10; Romans 4:17)â21 Creation was the omnipotent act of bringing knowledge or the conceptual that had existed eternally in the mind of God into experiential knowledge or reality. God was not surprised or in any sense unaware of the choices of Lucifer or Adam and Eve. Although He abhors sin and is perfectly holy in all of His thoughts and actions, He chose to create man as a free moral agent, with real free choice. God never desires sin, but rather He always unwaveringly desires holiness. When time is no more, we will understand more fully how even the evil of man and Lucifer fit into God’s plan, which ultimately assures that man created in His image with libertarian freedom will live eternally, freely choosing only righteousness. Chafer notes, “The perfect foreknowledge of God was aware of the fact that sin would call for the greatest sacrifice even God could makeâthe death of His Son …. God was not overtaken by unforeseen calamity and failure. His purposes are being executed and will be seen in the end to have been holy, just, and good.”22
I disaffirm that God’s infallible foreknowledge or predetermination caused man to sin or spend eternity in hell, and further, that foreknowledge or predetermination eliminates real free choices of man in salvation and the first sin. I also disaffirm that God’s foreknowledge of events, which makes certain their coming to pass, means that He was the efficient cause or in any way the direct cause of every event that comes to pass. He is the ultimate cause of all good, the direct (efficient) cause of many things, but other events (sin) happen because He sovereignly and freely created efficient causes, e.g., man and his ability to choose.
Further, I disaffirm that foreknowledge is the same as causation because epistemology (study of knowledge) deals with foreknowledge and etiology (study of cause) deals with causation, and to conflate the two is a fallacious confusion of categories. I am not saying that all knowledgeable Calvinists do this, but it is a common mistake among young Calvinists, as well as many others who label themselves as Calvinist. In fact, the Scripture ties salvation to God’s foreknowledge on more than one occasion (Romans 8:29; 1 Peter 1:2). Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination; the very sentence before us distinguishes the two. “His foreknowledge marks out the persons; His predestination determines His purposes and acts on their behalf.â23
Moreover, I disaffirm that God’s absolute foreknowledge of future events or choices necessitates or often even includes, in any sense, that God determined those events or choices in such a way that man did not make an actual free choice, although at times, God certainly does intervene, and has every right to do so. In particular, God’s foreknowledge of a person’s choice regarding the gospel does not cause the choice. Many often conclude that foreknowledge is causal and therefore there is not a real choice between two actual alternatives, e.g. to accept or reject the gospel. Chafer notes, “Divine prescience of itself implies no element of necessity or determination, though it does imply certainty.â24
What God knows will certainly come to pass, but that certainty is not causality. God’s foreknowledge and man’s ability to choose are both presented in the Scripture with clarity and frequency. Chafer says of this, “On the one hand, revelation presents God as foreknowing all things including the actions of human agents, and apart from such knowledge God would be ignorant and to that degree imperfect. On the other hand, revelation appeals to the wills of men with the evident assumption that man is capable of a free choiceâ’whosoever will may come.'”25Needless to say, I am disaffirming that the plea of Scripture “whosoever will may come” cannot be answered by grace enabled faith. According to Calvinism, this plea is true, but equally true is that no one will come until God selectively regenerates him, and then he will most certainly come. This belief transforms this beautiful plea of the Savior into a recitation of brute facts. Of course, consistent Calvinism asserts, “whosoever can come”, but the unspoken counterpart of Calvinism is that whosoever really does not mean anyone because only some of the “whosoevers” will be selected to come; the unselected cannot come. This is a disquieting reality.
Some ask, would God be wrong, and therefore not perfect, if He knew Adam would sin, and Adam chose at the last moment to not sin? The answer is no. Because if Adam’s real free choice would have resulted in Adam choosing not to sin, God would have eternally known that. Chafer says concerning this, “If the question be asked whether the moral agent has freedom to act otherwise than as God foresees he will act, it may be replied that the human will because of its inherent freedom of choice is capable of electing the opposite course to that divinely foreknown; but he will not do so. If he did so, that would be the thing which God foreknew. The divine foreknowledge does not coerce; it merely knows what the human choice will be.”26 Therefore, contrary to Calvinism, foreknowledge establishes certainty but not causation.
Although all human examples of God’s foreknowledge seem to break down at some point, e.g. humans never can know the future perfectly; the following illustrates the difference between foreknowing and causing even though the foreknowledge is not absolute. I tell people that I know whom Gina (my wife for over 41 years) will vote for when she goes into the voting booth. I know this with mathematical certainty. I can tell you whom she voted for before I ever see her or talk with her after casting her vote. Why? Is it because I forced her, I coerced her, or that I somehow rigged the booth to cause her to vote a certain way? Absolutely not! I know how she will vote because I know her intimately. My knowledge of how she would vote actually has no bearing on her choice of whom to vote for, but rather I know because I know her. Therefore, knowledge and causation of certain actions are not synonymous.
ăă ăă Â FOOTNOTES Â ăăăă
14 William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (n.d., reprint with introduction by Edward E. Hindson, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980), 355.
Reviewing John MacArthur’s view on Foreknowledge in Romans 8:29
Dr. Leighton Flowers critiques MacArthur’s rather simplistic explanation of Divine Foreknowledge from the non-Calvinistic worldview. For Dr. Flowers commentary over Romans 8:28 and following you can go here:
