Twelve basic verses I once thought couldn’t mean what they actually seemed to say.
There was a time in my life (long ago) when I thought God just made salvation possible for anyone who wanted to believe and anyone who wanted to believe could just do so. I figured the people who actually did believe must just be more “open” or humble than the people who didn’t. The twelve basic verses that follow started me thinking that maybe there was more to all this than I had thought. What if the reality was no one wanted to believe and no one would believe if left to themselves? What if God had to actually choose to save some and then worked powerfully, mysteriously and effectively to bring those chosen people to saving faith. When I got tired of trying to explain away the implications of these verses (and many more like them that I was continually coming across) I started to think that maybe, as Isaiah said, in Isaiah 55:9, God’s ways and thoughts really are above ours and past finding out. The result was an open-mindedness toward what the Bible actually taught about predestination and election and what is today called “Reformed Theology”. At any rate, the best I can remember, here are an even dozen verses that first led me down the path to a larger view of grace and a deep acceptance of the sovereignty of God. I believe human responsibility and divine sovereignty are compatable. The way in which it all works out is mysterious but part of the music of the gospel for me is believing the words of the poet:
Tis not I that did choose Thee, For Lord that could not be;
This heart would still refuse Thee, Hadst Thou not chosen me.
– Quoted by Edwin Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p 28
Here are the twelve passages:
1. John 6:35-39 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. John 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
John 6:43-45 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.
John 6:65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
2. John 10:25-29 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me .28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.
3. Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
4. Acts 16:14 One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.
5. Romans 8:28-30 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
6. Romans 9:11-13 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad–in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls–she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
7. Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened,
8. Ephesians 1:4-6 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will– 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
9. Ephesians 1:11-12 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
10. 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5 because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake.
11. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
12. 2 Timothy 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life–not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, ….
Thou dids’t seek us when we sought thee not;
didst seek us indeed that we might seek Thee.
God chooses us not because we believe but that we may believe
– Augustine, quoted by John Blanchard in Gathered Gold, pp. 74 & 75
Larry is the senior pastor at 
In this regard our stories are similar. Even now these verses comfort many troubled hearts. Every classical piece has its movements and these verses are the movements and melodies that waltz us closer and closer to the face of God.
I was taught Reformed Theology from my youth up. Then, one day, during my sophomore year at a Christian college in an Intro to Systematics class my Arminian Professor (who loves Christ dearly) showed the class how only 3 or maybe 4 of the Five Points of Calvinism were correct.
I raised my theologically arrogant little hand and objected (as only a true sophomore could). He proceeded to gut me worse than Gibson at the end of Braveheart.
This public flogging spun me into a presuppositional tailspin and for months I questioned my Reformed roots. It was late one night in my dorm room that God graciously answered my objections via the Gospel of John. Some of those very verses you cited, Larry, were used profoundly to confirm all those truths about God’s sovereignty in salvation that I had known for so long. It was a rich and humbling time as the Lord, through His Word, made shirt tale truths my very own.
It breaks my heart to see so many, out of a genuine desire to defend the goodness and love of God, paint a picture of Him that pales in comparison to the Masterpiece He has given us of Himself through clearly exegeted Scripture. Praise the Lord for revealing such glorious truth to the simple that He might confound the wise.
Mr. Kirk, this is quite a timely post: I just had a Bible study on the Reformed doctrine of election using Grudem’s Systemtic Theology (led by my Reformed spokesperson, Ryan Fields).
I have now heard both you and Ryan talk about the process of being convinced by Reformed theology–basically, you run up against the Bible too many times, and I find such testimony is convincing (even though I’m not convinced yet).
Sorry–what I want to say is this. It’s not just that people stay Arminian “out of a genuine desire to defend the goodness and love of God”; desire has nothing to do with it. You start with facts (I’m going to overstate this): (1) God is good and loving, (2) the Bible instructs us to worship God for being good and loving, and (3) given Reformed theology, I am unable to worship God for being good and loving. I can worship God through thankfulness, but I can’t worship Him for being good and loving. My reasons are these: on Reformed theology, God totally (important adjective) enables me to worship him, and God is the only standard of goodness. So, if God retained all His properties but was what we’d call evil, I would still worship Him as fully as I do now. And that can’t be.
I simply do not see how Reformed theology lets me worship God for being good and loving, other than telling me to put my head down and just do it, or just let His Spirit work in me. But that latter response is precisely the problem.
And of course, I don’t think the choices are between Reformed theology and Arminianism; my ignorance tells me certain modifications of other traditions (Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, anyone?) might avoid my issues with Reformed theology–lurking in the background of my thinking is notion of heurmeneutics and the place of the Bible in the Apostolic Tradition.
All that to ask: How can I worship God for being good and loving under Reformed thinking?
Always, much thanks.
Hey Jarrod, I’m not sure why you would feel that Reformed Theology forbids you from worshipping God for being good and loving. What if God is good and loving but we don’t value true goodness and love when combined with holiness. As John says, in John 3, this is the condemnation that light came into the world but men loved darkness rather than light. So God is light (a metaphor which I believe includes goodness and love) but we don’t love Him or want to truly worship him. God writes his goodness and glory in the sky, sends the prophets and even comes in the flesh but …. so God in love refuses to allow us to all remain blind to his goodness. He chooses some out of pure grace and refuses to let them be lost. He enables them to see the truth that he is good and loving and so they worship him.
I don’t agree with the second half of the following statement: on Reformed theology, God totally (important adjective) enables me to worship him, and God is the only standard of goodness. So, if God retained all His properties but was what we’d call evil, I would still worship Him as fully as I do now. And that can’t be.
1. God enables doesn’t seem the same to me as the idea that God forces. God gives life to the dead and sight to the blind, if you want to say that means he “makes you live and makes you see” you may do so, but that seems to misrepresent a true gift of grace and turn it into something else.
2. To say that God is the only standard of goodness means that this goodness that you speak of has a personal source and that source is God who is good. There isn’t some idea of goodness that existed before God. But God really is good. To say that God retained his properties but was what we called “evil” is like saying if God “if God is all powerful he can create a four legged tripod.” The problem there is that words no longer carry their meaning. Good is good that is one of God’s properties. Good cannot be evil and God is the source of good. We don’t see that so God graciously enables us to see it and thus to rightly to worship him for his goodness and love. So I completely agree with the words, “that can’t be”. I think you are right about that however it seems to me, that if you hold on to that but also fully accept the biblical revelation about divine sovereignty and election it will push you to reconcile both truths and not to sacrifice either.
For me, “Reformed Theology” as a term is simply a quick way to describe a theological understanding that has roots way back before Calvin and the Reformation. Calvin is really working off of Augustine and those before him who helped shape his understanding. A core Augustinian insight, whether flowing through Catholic, or Protestant channels, is that the Bible teaches and grace requires divine election. (Check out Augustine: The Predestination of the Saints)
One thing the most ancient church traditions have always stressed is mystery and here’s one of the biggest places in Protestantism where we also affirm mystery and submit to divine revelation and apostolic tradition. It’s in the attempt to remove mystery that we get pushed toward either denying the sovereignty of God or denying the responsibility of people. Like the Trinity and the incarnation it’s not either or. People who like mystery should love this doctrine!
All joking aside, please help me out here if I missed something that seems obvious to you.
No, I don’t think you missed anything; I think I just didn’t get it in there. I’ll try again. I’m on board with everything you said–except maybe I’ll try to vindicate that statement of mine.
So, you know the Euthyphro deliemma? Responding to people who said that goodness is just that which the gods say is good, Socrates asked this question: is it good because the gods say it’s good, or do the gods say it’s good because it’s good?
God is good. Is God good because He says He’s good, or does He say He’s good because he’s good? If the former, then whatever God said was ‘good’ would be good (because goodness is, unlike, tripodedness, not so logically/necessarily strict, and because God is omnipotent), and goodness would be nothing more than divine arbitrariness. If the latter, then God is not the ultimate standard of good, even though ‘good’ avoids the divine arbitrariness problem.
But before I give it another go at making my point, let me ask you this: to what extent do we (as opposed to God) have a role in the worship process? My opinion right now is that we must have some degree of free agency whereby we (choose to) worship God, if we are to worship God. I hear (maybe correct me) Reformed theology biting the bullet and saying something to the effect of that we can modify our accounts of free agency without losing too much. But that’s precisely what I’m worried about: I’m worried that, with all this talk about pre-choosing and God’s enabling us to worship, worship is nothing more than a response to God, rather than an act of praising Him for particular attributes. The issue is twofold: my meaningful agency as a worshiper and the way by which I come to grasp that God is good.
I know the dilemma but not by the name “euthyphro”. There have always been some who lean toward an almost arbitrary view of goodness. This has been an issue no only in reformed theology but in any theology that acknowledges both omnipotence and foreknowledge while wrestling with the problem of evil. A theologian named Gordon Clark has been accused of this view and another, logician and friar from the 14th-century, the famous William of Ockham ( Of Occam’s razor fame) is said to have held a view of God’s will as arbirary also. Most theologians disagree.
Consider this:
1.) On the one hand good really is good. And there is a logical strictness about it.
2.) God is good. He is really good all the time and has been from all of eternity.
3.) There is no higher standard of goodness than God because he is the source of all love and goodness and it all comes from him.
If this is true it would not be true to talk about some abstract standard of goodness to which God conforms. On the other hand it would not be right to speak of God’s goodness as simply arbitrary and to suggest he is only good because he says so. I think we have to have a source of authority to inform us of these things. We do have that first in Jesus and second in Scripture. Jesus and the cross reveal the goodness of God. The cross especially (Romans 5) demonstrates his love. So, as I come to grips with his election of a people, I don’t drop what I already know from the cross, Jesus, and Scripture.
As for free agency; The main idea in Scripture as discussed in Reformed Theology is not that God plays with your will but that your sin blinds you to what really is. God graciously restores sight. If you were blind and then saw and viewing the Grand Canyon, praised its beauty was your free agency tampered with, or your appreciation inauthentic because you were given sight?
I’ll think about this some more but I have to run.
I like this idea of “an authority”: aybe something other than God can declare ‘good’ what is good without thereby declaring abritrarily. So, if the Bible, tradition, and a commmunity of believers all “fix” the meaning of ‘good’, maybe it’s not arbitrary to then say that God necessarily makes ‘good’ good; maybe it avoids the whole dilemma in the first place. I’m not sure it actually helps things, but I’ll be considering it.
The idea of blindness, the Grand Canyon, and beauty might be really useful. Say I was blind and then I saw the Grand Canyon, and I was led to praise the Canyon for its beauty. Why would I do so? Because, I would see the Grand Canyon and “know” that I was seeing something beautiful. But, what if you then told me that the Grand Canyon was the very thing that determined ‘beautiful’ for everything else? I would say, No way!–I have an idea of beauty, and the Grand Canyon accords with it; if you tell me that my idea of beauty ultimately comes from (nowhere other than) the Grand Canyon, then it’s trivial that I find the Grand Canyon beautiful. It’s saying: there is this feature of the Grand Canyon, and that feature will be ‘beauty’ for everything that is. However, my experience of the Grand Canyon would lead me to say: there is this feature of the Grand Canyon, and, knowing what ‘beauty’ is on independent grounds, I call beautiful that feature of the Grand Canyon. Only in the latter case can I praise the Grand Canyon for being beautiful. In the former case, I can only praise the Grand Canyon for having a particular nameless feature; certainly I can praise the Grand Canyon for having that feature, but I can’t praise the Grand Canyon for having the feature of beauty (if, again, the Grand Canyon is the sole determiner of the meaning of ‘beauty’).
I’m not looking for a “higher” standard of goodness; I’m just looking for another standard of goodness.
Here’s what I think the answer is: God has imparted people with faculty for grasping goodness as ‘good’, and this faculty is not completely broken. God has given ‘good’ a particular meaning in the world, and this meaning does have a “logical strictness” about it. I agree with you that God can be the ultimate determiner of ‘good’ without thereby making ‘good’ completely arbitrary. But I disagree with what I hear Reformed theology saying: that God must restore our faculty of goodness-grasping in order for us to worship Him. I think not: I think we have a goodness-grasping faculty that works well-enough for worshipping God to a certain degree. Any person can worship God for being good. My point has been that if our goodness-grasping faculty is completely broken, if not anyone can worship God (“can worship,” not “will worship”), then, when I worship God, I’m not worshipping God for being good; I’m just worshipping God for having whatever feature He has for which He made me worship Him.
Maybe I misunderstand God’s comprehensive “enabling”. But if God really is good, why do I need Him to take the blinders off in order to see Him as good? It sure seems like people everywhere can recognize goodness.
I don’t know if that makes things clearer, but there it is. My deal is that it seems precisely that I have to drop things I’ve learned at the cross when it comes to His election of a people, to His comprehensive “enabling”.
The Authority I was speaking of is God. The Bible reveals His truth and tradition and community can only recognize that truth and confirm it. What if the Grand Canyon itself spoke and said that the reason you “know” that it is beautiful is because it made you and gave you that innate recognition of and response to something that is real. Your word for it is “beauty” and there are many facets of it but only one source. I fear that in that case, to say “no way” is a kind of proud insistence on having some independent means (chosen and affirmed by who?) by which we judge God. If God is the source of all that is beautiful that doesn’t make it less beautiful. What if there really isn’t any independent grounds precisely because everything true and good is interconnected and derived from Him. If so than this kind of argument is, at essence, ruling out God unless he is less than the God he is, or ruling out worship because there isn’t an independent agency that can certify that God is worthy of it.
As for the “goodness grasping” faculty being broken. I wouldn’t say it is so completely broken that no goodness can be grasped. But read my twelve verses again, some of them address the issue of the human heart and understanding of God and tell us that the human heart is too deeply sinful to turn to God in saving faith, without saving grace. (Consider also 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Romans 8:7)
My thing is that when I hold on to what I learn at the cross and hold on to what the Bible says about election, what I have to drop is my commitment to former ways of thinking. What I choose to start questioning was my proud reasonings. What I was left with was a mystery a little like the trinity and the incarnation. That’s not surprising. As Paul says:
Indeed. This is (unfortunately, time-wise) a big deal, since it is so different from how I see things. I do see the resemblance to the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. I’m not convinced, and I won’t be for awhile, but man, it’s a live issue for me right now. Thanks, Mr. Kirk–I hear your points, and they’re good (and always pastoral!).
I’ll mention one last thing. I’ve usually thought of proud reasoning as the motivation behind the Calvinistic thinking. Currently, it’s precisely because I don’t trust my own faculties (which are more than reasoning) that I fall on the Arminian side. We’ll see how long that lasts.
Best.
Hey Jarrod – I fully understand the time thing. Maybe for you the issues are different than they were for me and not at all like my struggle with “proud reasonings”. I’d love to hear how this “live issue” works out for you. I’m pretty convinced on the larger issue but still working to more deeply understand and harmonize all the implications. I have many issues in which faith is seeking understanding. Peace
Wow. Quite the discussion. I’m sorry I cannot get more involved, but I did come across the following excerpt from David Powlison’s book on Biblical Counseling entitled Seeing With New Eyes. I just add this for perspective and encouragement:
“Paul [in Ephesians] does not give a catalog of divine information in a book of scholastic theology. He does no say, ‘Predestination means that God chooses some people, not others.’ Not that it’s wrong to say that, but said that way, a warm and personal love sounds chilly and capricious, and people tend to react needlessly. They ask, Is God fair? How does it all work? Is it determinism? Our minds fill with distracted questions – or dogmatic defensiveness, equally distracted from the pastoral point of the original.
But Paul says instead, ‘He chose us [in Christ] before the foundation of the world that we would be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ’ (Eph. 1:4-5). Hearing this, we respond with delight. We might still say that God is ‘not fair,’ but accusation has turned into adoration: “You are so spectacularly unfair, because you do not treat us as our sins deserve! Thank you, thank you, thank you!’ (cf. Ps. 103:10).” – pp. 40-41
May the Lord keep the deep, knotty, mysterious truths warm and applicable as you wrestle through them. Gospel blessings!
That’s great Jason. I really appreciate Powlinson. I’ve got that book but I’ve only read one or two of the articles. They were both good. Have you ever read his article on love? I think it’s called “better than unconditional”. Peace
Would you believe that article is actually my next reading assignment? Kind providences. Lauren (my wife) and I are currently taking a Dynamics of Biblical Change correspondence course from CCEF. Wonderful stuff, but quite a bit to take in with an already overfilled plate! I’ll let you know how it pans out. Thanks, Larry.
Perhaps how we should understand the above verses from John’s gospel isn’t that there are a select few who the Father has appointed to come to Jesus while others cannot because of not having this same purpose in existence. Nor, should we comprehend these verses as meaning that those who come to Jesus do so only because of God’s intervention only, without human response. Jesus also says, For my Father’s WILL is that Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:40). Jesus is wanting all of his listeners to understand that God is supporting his movement; those who choose to follow him have the Father’s participation and assistance in doing so. Jesus is also, because he desires for ALL of his listeners to follow him, trying to help them see where they are in relation to the Father. He said, Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. In other words, if one is not following him it the effect of not truly listening and learning from God, the Father. If they were truly seeking the Fathers direction in this matter of following Jesus or not, they would make the decision to do so. But, these new followers would not be alone the Father would be with them on this journey. Jesus isn’t teaching about some being chosen while others aren’t. Jesus is describing what going on behind our senses as we follow Jesus and continue a relationship with him. We are to know that God is drawing us to Jesus, he supports our choice in doing so, and remains present on the journey. He is not saying that if you do not come to him then you haven’t been chosen. Instead, Jesus is articulating that the Father endorses him and is trying to recruit followers, and the Father is present and in participation with all who make the choice to follow Jesus. Just because the Father is involved behind the scenes doesn’t mean we are without autonomy.
The verses by Paul need to be seen not as individual Christians but as the whole family of God. In the same way that God chose Abraham and his descendents to be his chosen people who would embody his image and values to other nations, that same God chose the community of Jesus’ followers to live out the same mission. Not all in the Jewish community had the type of faith to live by the values of God and his expectations in relating to creation, but some did, one may refer to them as God’s remnant. The followers of Jesus became God’s remnant, “true” Israel. If you are in this community, you are predestined to certain things. This community has a purpose and receives God’s enablement in following through with His will, and his promise of becoming his image bearers for all who join the fellowship. Paul is speaking to the church and reminding them that they are players in God story of restoring creation to His likeness and beauty. Paul also is reminding them while they have responsibilities as members of this community, for example to live a holy life, they can be sure that God’s will of restoring heaven and earth will happen. And, however the church may fail or whatever the church may face, God is able to respond in bringing about His specific purposes. Finally, these verses by Paul describe, very much like Jesus, God involvement in bringing people into the family.
One ought not to conclude that God isn’t involved in the lives of those who reject him, his family, and his purposes. God has predestined the Church and anyone who wants to join to His eternal purposes and way of being. God isn’t responsible for those who reject Him.
I actually agree with most of what you are affirming here. But I also affirm much of what you are denying. I think a lot of people have misconceptions about Calvinism.
For instance you said: “Nor, should we comprehend these verses as meaning that those who come to Jesus do so only because of God’s intervention only, without human response.” What all the historic Reformed Confessions agree on is that those who come to Jesus absolutely have to have a human response, that’s what coming to Jesus means, it’s just that God is the ultimate and gracious source of that human response that results in a person coming to Jesus.
I also agree (how could I not) that Jesus also says, For my Father’s WILL is that Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:40) But what he tells us in the other passages is that only those who are drawn and enabled by the Father will look to the Son and believe in him. It’s also an important part of the Bible and Reformed Theology that God works his will through human instruments and means. So it’s not surprising that Jesus is encouraging and persuading people to come and believe in Him. That’s how God’s purposes works out in our lives. That’s why it’s not a choice between God’s sovereignty and human responsiblity, both are true and interlaced.
As for Paul I think in some passages you could take his reference in the sense of “community” but in others we have to push way too hard to make that all that he is saying.
Daniel Wallace has an article on corporate election at this link: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=384. Here’s one excerpt.
Of course there are also the verses from Acts. This is why my original post was titled: “Twelve basic verses I once thought couldn’t mean what they actually seemed to say.” Thanks for participating in the discussion. You brought out a good emphasis on human responsiblity that should not be forgotten. Peace.
How does election work in regards to being “cursed” by God for something done in a previuos generation of your family? For instance, in the 2nd commandment it says,”for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the 3rd and 4th generation of those who hate me”? Are these people included in these generations doomed or is there some way they can still be saved? I understand this was written before Christ but was still wondering how this works.
Hey Chuck. Election is about God rescuing lost people even when they, if left to themselves, would not come to him to receive grace. It’s about him drawing and enabling them. In other words because of election even the “doomed” have hope.I think the biblical perspective is that all of humanity is doomed but God, in grace, is choosing to save some. Parents who are believers have good reason to hope that their children will also believe. Parents who hate God have good reason to fear their children will follow their example. God works through all these natural and human dynamics but also, often intervenes to show grace in the least likely places and to the least likely people.
Here are some thoughts on Exodus 20 that I’ve come across in various places:
Regarding Exodus 20:5, The people of God were persistently and emphatically warned of the consequences of idolatry in the Old Testament. One of the warnings was that God would “visit the iniquities to the third and fourth generation.” On the surface it appears that God would punish the children and grandchildren for sins that they did not personally commit. But Deuteronomy 24:16 provides good reason to reject this interpretation: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.”
Biblical scholars have pointed out that if the children turn to God they shall avert this punishment. For example, John Calvin commented about Exodus 20:5 that,
Contemporary Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser writes,
Kaiser takes “those who hate Me” to apply to the children as well as the fathers. The children themselves carry on with hating God as shown by their continued idolatry and covenant breaking. God is just and merciful and nothing in this passage suggests otherwise.
Here are a couple of links you could check out on this issue.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/2004/mayjun/4.16.html
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue68.htm
Thanks. The 2nd link you gave me was really helpful.
Thank you for responding with grace. Let me reply (with grace) by commenting on Acts 13. One can infer that Luke noted that “all who were appointed for eternal life believed” because seeing the gentiles believe was unexpected. Paul and Barnabas were amazed and awe struck to see that ALL who were appointed for eternal life believed. Perhaps Paul (and Luke) percieved of a God who appointed all for eternal life, and they expected as a result of earlier experience that most humans would reject God’s will. Thus in the case of Acts 13 the guys were taken back when all of the gentiles hearing the good news believed.
Luke moreover is building the case in his letter that God is at work through the Jesus movement. To do so he emphasized God’s involvement in conversion. Mentioning the fact the Lydia most certainly needed to not harden her heart in response to God’s softening or “opening” of it, would have taken the focus off of God’s imminence in conversion and work through the Christians.
Grace and peace. See you tonight.
I forgot to thank you for the article. I look forward to reading it. You never cease to give me something to think about.
Grace and Peace
Great article. However, I disagree with the assumption that chosen ones cannot reject the call or it is God’s will to restore some of His creation.
Peace. Awesome word tonight.
I hope to gain more clarification, I do not believe in pre destination, I believe that Jesus laid His life upon the cross for all who would come unto Him. In saying that, I believe that at some point and time in a persons life the Holy Spirit reaches out to us. Jesus says in Rev.3:21 behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him and he with me. It seems to me that it is our choice to open the door when given the oportunity and if we deny, He will only knock so long then He will move on. This leads me to think that we may choose salvation or turn from it, but if we choose the latter we take a very big chance of the knock never comming agian.
To use the picture you suggest from Revelation 3 the question we have to wrestle with is why some people open the door and others do not. You said: “It seems to me that it is our choice to open the door when given the oportunity and if we deny, He will only knock so long then He will move on.” I don’t think it is wrong to talk about it being our choice to open the door but it is important to also see that Scripture says that no one will actually make that choice unless God has first chosen them. If God knocks on everyone’s door all through their life and never moves on they still will not open the door.
John 3:19 talks about the human heart “loving darknes rather than light” Left to ourselves with only the outward offer we would all leave the door closed prefering to rule our own lives rather than ackowledge our need for a Lord and Savior. However, God is so gracious that even though none of us would open the door of our life to Him, he chooses some people and so works in them and in their lives that he draws them to himself and enables them to believe. When they do, it is not because they were more humble, wiser, more spiritual or better than the people who would not open the door, it’s ultimately because God choose them, in love, before the foundations of the world.
To go back to the idea of opening the door, you said,” This leads me to think that we may choose salvation or turn from it, but if we choose the latter we take a very big chance of the knock never comming again.” I think the biblical teaching is more humbling toward us and even more gracious of God, because what it says is that we all “turn away” from salvation but God doesn’t just move on and never knock again. We all turn away from God but God says, “I will not turn from all of them, I will save some”. So, in His perfect knowledge and power He works persausively to bring a change of heart to some so that they freely choose to open the door, but only because he chose first to so work in and on them that they would open the door. That’s what these twelve basic verses are about.
Thank you Larry for your reply, I understand better more clearly now. look forward to weds. night.
This is for Jarrod and whomever else is interested.
I came across an interesting article by John Frame that relates to our discussion and specifically to the Euthyphro dilemma. It’s titled: Euthyphro, Hume, and the Biblical God. Check it out here. Let me know what you think.
Hi Pastor Larry – I’ve enjoyed reading the “discussion” in this thread. In my opinion, and Biblical study, Calvinism as a whole is somewhat contradictory to the message of Christ. Let me clarify – why would John 3:16 say that “God so loved the “WORLD” that He gave His only begotten Son, that “WHOSOEVER” believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life” – Why would it not read, For God so loved the “ELECT”? ….. is it possible to love the world yet still predestine much of it for Hell?
I think you may have answered one of my other questions in a previous thread… but I’m not sure……. how can Joshua say, “CHOOSE this day whom you will serve (indicating we have a choice)
I don’t know if you have children, but being a father of 2 it would scare me to just have to “hope” that my children were predestined. What is the point of teaching them about Christ and His love and salvation knowing good and well that nothing i say or teach or instill really matters – if they’re chosen they are going to heaven, if not, they are going to hell – end of story…. no matter how much I pray.
I know i can’t figure God out and don’t pretend to have done so – but it just makes absolutely no sense that God would even have created earth and man and everything just to play theatrics – its almost like we’re in a scripted play and we’ve memorized our roles – we just don’t know it – like God is just watching a movie that he directed
I hope you read this in the light in which it was written. I by NO MEANS wish to attack or belittle…. I would just like a little clarification on my thoughts.
I appreciate your heart in your response to EVERY post, whether they agreed with you or not, and that you responded with grace and love.
God Bless
Hey Glen, Thanks for your input. You mentioned that Calvinism is “somewhat contradictory to the message of Christ”. I’m sure you noticed that the first two verses I mentioned are the very words of Christ. There is no question Jesus also said whoever believes in him will have eternal life. That promise is given over and over in the gospel of John. Calvinism doesn’t contradict that it simply reveals the grace of God at work before and behind our believing. All who believe have eternal life. Who believes? All who are called and drawn by God. We do have choice that we have to exercise but God works in and through our choices according to His will.
In Acts Peter talks about God’s predestination and our human responsibility in the same passage.
The idea of God’s set purpose and our real choices may seem like a contradiction to us but as you said, “I know I can’t figure God out and don’t pretend to have done so….”
I agree in that I don’t believe God is playing games or treating us as pawns. You may think that’s where Calvinism leads but that’s not really anywhere near what most Calvinistic believers and theologians I know or have read would say. The mystery of how God works out his “set purpose” to use the words of Peter in Acts, and we make real choices may be beyond us but the best answer for me is to believe the whole Bible which means I have to believe, in God’s election (there are many verses that talk about it, see the 12 I mention in the original post) and in human choice and responsibility. Both are clearly taught so I won’t deny either. And as for the love of God: there is no question that in the cross of Christ he reveals his heart. He isn’t doing theatrics he is bringing redemption and revealing his love. If you and I believe in him we will, at least one day, see clearly the reality that we chose him because he first chose us.
For me this has led to a sense of the mystery and majesty of God and at the same time a sense of deep humility and appreciation for his grace. And as for my children. It gives me hope that the gracious God who called me to faith will also work in their hearts. Of course they must believe in Him. That’s how God’s choice of them will be revealed. But I take hope from the words Peter spoke later in the same chapter of Acts I have already quoted. In Acts 2:39 he said; “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
thanks for the quick reply – i was probably over-exaggerating or choosing a poor choice of words to say “contradictory to the message of Christ”. There are obviously scholars greater than myself on both sides of this argument, to which I typically find myself somewhere in the middle – I’m not Armenian (spelling??) nor would I consider myself Calvinist – obviously through Scripture I know that man cannot come to God unless it is revealed to him through the Holy Spirit – but I believe we have the choice to quench, ignore, or even flat out deny or blaspheme the Spirit as well –
so a question: Is it possible for someone who is “predestined to know Christ” to choose differently?
Again, as far as children are concerned, I’ve know several Christians (let’s assume they’re predestined) have children who died “away from” or never receiving Christ – so was Acts 2:39 not true in their case?
I’m honestly not trying to be argumentative – i truly want to live my life and believe by the Word and the Word only – obviously you believe what you believe and do so through study and prayer – but I think at face value there are scriptures that at face value seem to fly in the face of each argument
Thanks again
Is it possible for someone who is “predestined to know Christ” to choose differently? It is possible only in the sense that they are hypothetically able to choose differently but it will not happen that in the end they actually do choose differently. What predestined means is that when all the choosing is done the person making the choices freely chooses to do what God has ordained.
I’m not trying to say that Acts 2 gives a promise for all the children of Christians to be saved. I don’t know of anyone on either side of this issue who believes that. I said, perhaps unclearly, “the fact that God makes this promise gives me hope that the gracious God who called me to faith will also work in their hearts. Of course they must believe in Him….”
Predestination in the Bible is not the reason people don’t believe. Sin and blindness is the cause of unbelief. God’s choosing people by grace is the only reason anyone does believe. Apart from God no one believes or comes or seeks. As Romans 3 says there is none who seeks God…. My only hope for my children is that God has chosen them because on their own, without his effective call they would never turn to him and trust in him. If they believe in Him I know it is because he chose them first.
I don’t think you are being argumentative. I’m just not sure this forum is the best for a more detailed study of this issue. I recommend Wayne Grudem’s, Systematic Theology as a great introduction of balanced Calvinism that affirms not only God’s sovereignty but also our responsibility.