I thought some might find John MacArthur’s exposition of 1 Timothy 2:3-4 helpful:

When God desires all men to be saved, He is being consistent with who He is. In Isaiah 45:22 God said, “Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth.” Isaiah 55:1 invites “every one who thirsts” to “come to the waters” of salvation. Again, in Ezekiel 18:23, 32 God states very clearly that He does not desire that the wicked should perish, but that they would sincerely repent (cf. Eze. 33:11). In the New Testament, Peter writes, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

No true biblical theology can teach that God takes pleasure in the damnation of the wicked. Yet though it does not please Him, God will receive glory even in the damnation of unbelievers (cf. Rom. 9:22-23). How His electing grace and predestined purpose can stand beside His love for the world and desire that the gospel be preached to all people, still holding them responsible for their own rejection and condemnation, is a mystery of the divine mind. The Scriptures teach Gods love for the world, His displeasure in judging sinners, His desire for all to hear the gospel and be saved. They also teach that every sinner is incapable yet responsible to believe and will be damned if he does not. Crowning the Scriptures teaching on this matter is the great truth that God has elected who will believe and saved them before the world began. What mystery! -MacArthur Bible Commentary

[quote author="Greg"]
But Calvinists don’t use this as an opportunity to sit back and wait for something magical to happen.  God doesn’t say to Christians, “get out of the way, I’m going to save some people, so stay out of it”.  No, he has chosen to use the witness and preaching of Christians to reach his lost sheep.... to clear one more point up, the doctrine of election is not opposed to evangelism or sharing the gospel.  Sharing the good news of Jesus Christ is precisely how God’s elect are able to hear and respond in faith.  Paul discusses this in the very next chapter (again anticipating the objections

Greg, it sounds like Shakespeare “All the world is a stage and we are merely players”. What we are doing when we preach is basically discovering the inevitable. All our preaching does is ‘kick start’ the indwelling ‘savingness’ of the person. We are not winning their souls or converting them in any way. We are merely starting the process of what was already determined.

Getting the ball rolling doesn’t seem to be the emphasis that Christ and the apostles were getting at in their language of the scriptures. We go from ‘preaching the good news’ to ‘speaking to those who are going to be converted anyway’

From John MacArthur

No true biblical theology can teach that God takes pleasure in the damnation of the wicked. Yet though it does not please Him, God will receive glory even in the damnation of unbelievers (cf. Rom. 9:22-23). How His electing grace and predestined purpose can stand beside His love for the world and desire that the gospel be preached to all people, still holding them responsible for their own rejection and condemnation, is a mystery of the divine mind. The Scriptures teach Gods love for the world, His displeasure in judging sinners, His desire for all to hear the gospel and be saved. They also teach that every sinner is incapable yet responsible to believe and will be damned if he does not. Crowning the Scriptures teaching on this matter is the great truth that God has elected who will believe and saved them before the world began. What mystery! -MacArthur Bible Commentary

I’m sorry. This makes absolutely no sense to me. It is not a mystery but a depressing mess for those not called. How can MacArthur basically say that man is already condemned, yet God still holds him responsible even though the message will automatically fall on deaf ears, not because of them hardening their hearts and choosing to ignore the Spirit’s working, but because they were not predestined to ‘hear’ and accept the message (Again, I refer to my previous comments on who exactly we are preaching to. We preach the word to a group of people even though that only some are destined to hear and be drawn)

How can MacArthur say this:

(The scriptures teach)..His desire for all to hear the gospel and be saved

And yet say this, what what I feel is an outrageous quote:

They also teach that every sinner is incapable yet responsible to believe and will be damned if he does not.

How in the world can this amount of depressing news and outlook be classified as ‘God’s mystery’? This is not a mystery but a complete contradiction! This is more soul destroying than even the historical investigative judgment, IMO. It also makes God impotent to even govern Himself.

The only consolation I can have is that ‘at least it doesn’t apply to me because I feel like I am a Christian, so I MUST be called’. However, when I think I am following God, but I still think,say and do horrible things, I guess I might be tempted to think that I wasn’t chosen after all.

BTW, the other Christian forum I post at has this thread on Calvinism started though the intellectual arguments aren’t as stimulating on this as is found here.

Calvinism

Guibox, as always, thank you for your comments.  I have some brief responses.

Greg, it sounds like Shakespeare “All the world is a stage and we are merely players”. What we are doing when we preach is basically discovering the inevitable. All our preaching does is ‘kick start’ the indwelling ‘savingness’ of the person. We are not winning their souls or converting them in any way. We are merely starting the process of what was already determined.

Getting the ball rolling doesn’t seem to be the emphasis that Christ and the apostles were getting at in their language of the scriptures. We go from ‘preaching the good news’ to ‘speaking to those who are going to be converted anyway’

God has chosen to use the gospel message as the conduit through which the Holy Spirit works.  It isn’t about the evangelist “winning souls” or “kick starting anything”.  It’s about being faithful to our calling to share the good news and letting God do the rest.  If it is not God’s work to save sinners, then the weight of this responsibility falls on the shoulders of humans to essentially argue people into the kingdom.  The problem with this approach is that the next argument to come along may argue them right back out.  No sinner who has discovered God’s grace would, in their right mind, claim that they saved themselves.  Of course they give God all of the credit.  Yet we are uncomfortable giving God the credit for awakening us to the gospel message.  This is a paradox that is resolved by believing in God’s sovereignty.

Guibox, I’d like to hear your understanding of Romans 9 when you get the chance.

Regarding MacArthur’s quote, the reason I posted it was because he ended it by acknowledging the mystery of God’s sovereign choice.  Just as we have trouble getting our minds around the concept of the Trinity, we have difficulty understanding how some can be saved by God while others are not.  It is truly a divine mystery.  But if we find ourselves soundly saved by God’s grace through the merits of Jesus Christ, we should have at least two strong responses.  First, we should be humbled that we have been saved by the God of the universe.  Second, we should turn to our brothers and sisters who don’t profess faith in Christ and carefully pass along the gospel message to them, in the sincere hope that the Holy Spirit will work in the process.

[quote author="guibox"]
How in the world can this amount of depressing news and outlook be classified as ‘God’s mystery’? This is not a mystery but a complete contradiction! This is more soul destroying than even the historical investigative judgment, IMO. It also makes God impotent to even govern Himself.

Again, this goes back to Romans 9.  MacArthur is simply echoing Paul’s inspired teachings in this chapter.  I realize this is very tough stuff to swallow, but we must deal with what the Bible says instead of using human arguments to explain it all away.

Thanks everyone for the kindness being displayed here.  No matter where we come down on this issue, may Jesus Christ be the focal point of our faith and may His name be glorified.

Greg

I just noticed today’s “Bible verse of the day”:

“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” Romans 8:28

We exist for His purposes, according to His calling, and for His glory.  Let His name be lifted high above our own.

Greg

I am not a theologian. I am not even an active scholar. I am an active Christian. Several things I have learned in over four score years: 1. Let God be God. 2. Don’t try to intrepret the Bible from Paul but Paul from the Bible.
3. The words elect, chosen, and adopted have the same connotation. 4."All things work together for good”. Even if Pharaoh heart is harden, God makes good come out of it. Paul writes from the viewpoint that God is in charge--even when things look bad. (recall the Children of Israel at the edge of the Red Sea and Pharoah’s arny in hot pursuit) 5. Try to look at the Great Controversy as a chess game between God and Satan. Reread the book of Job. Calvin dwelt on the sovereign will of God. Arminus dwelt on compassionate nature of God. I believe we have a compassionate sovereign God. So I guess I am an Arminian/Calvanist instead of a Calvanistic/Arminian. The Deacon. 

I did it again. I wrote a nice long comment and then lost it. Oh well. Probably just as well.

Anyway, what I had started to say was thanks to Greg, the Deacon, Guibox and Stan for your comments.

What really concerned me about this piece was this statement:

And when we come to preach the gospel, our false preconceptions make us say just the opposite of what we intend. We want (rightly) to proclaim Christ as Savior; yet we end up saying that Christ, having made salvation possible, has left us to become our own saviors. It comes about in this way. We want to magnify the saving grace of God and the saving power of Christ. So we declare that God’s redeeming love expends to everyone, and that Christ has died to save everyone, and we proclaim that the glory of divine mercy is to be measured by these facts . And then, in order to avoid universalism, we have to depreciate all that we were previously extolling, and to explain that, after all, nothing that God and Christ have done can save us unless we add something to it; the decisive factor which actually saves us is our own believing. What we say comes to this - that Christ saves us with our help; and what that means, when one thinks it out, is this - that we save ourselves with Christ’s help. This is a hollow anticlimax. But if we start by affirming that God has a saving love for all, and Christ died a saving death for all, and yet balk at becoming universalists, there is nothing else that we can say.

In the bolded, underlined portion, Packer seems to disparage the idea that God loves all and desires that all be saved.

This may not be what he really means, but it carries pretty disturbing implications. If we believe God doesn’t love everyone or desire everyone one to be saved, why should we do either? It almost seems as if the Free Gift of salvation is seen as a forced one, that salvation by grace through faith becomes salvation by grace through election.

I do recognize Packer goes on to couch this statement in a wider context designed to affirm God’s sovereignty and power. And I can appreciate that. But in God’s Word as I read it and have always read it, God isn’t undermined by man’s unwillingness to heed His called, accept His sacrifical merit, and be in communion with Him.

But despite our apparent differences on some of these elements, I think it’s important to affirm the headline of this post, that being God’s Work in the Gospel and being truly God’s Work, not our own. 

This is an obvious feature of Christ’s work in the sanctuary (whether we see that as literal or spiritual and symbolic) but too often our discussion of the heavenly sanctuary and Christ’s sanctuary ministry gets turned on its head and becomes about our “afflicting our souls” (Leviticus 16:31), as if there is some saving work in that. I don’t believe that to be the case.  While I believe we are called to “work out our own salvation” I’m also confident that “He who began a good work in you will see it to completion” (paraphrase).

It also has implications for understanding God’s salvation rest, which he offers us, not as a work to perform on our own behalf. 

Deacon and Glenn, I want to thank you for the tone of your responses.  I know we don’t all see eye to eye on the doctrine of election, but you have been kind in the face of what may seem offensive at first glance.

Deacon, I’m not a theologian either and I am painfully aware of my inadequacies in this department.  I sometimes hesitate to speak out on these complex topics because I realize they require great care in handling.  We live in an age where everyone is their own expert on everything from politics, law and medicine to theology and biblical exegesis.  I must admit that others are much more well trained in biblical interpretation than I am.  If I stand at all, I stand on their shoulders, not because I’ve figured out something new from my own private interpretation.  Many have wrestled with these doctrines for their entire lives and have come to opposite conclusions, which humbles me all the more in my own position.  I respect those who have come to different conclusions and I am thankful we can be charitable with each other even as we disagree on some things.

Again, I’d like to quote something from R.C. Sproul that will bring what I’m saying into sharper focus:

When I teach the doctrine of predestination I am often frustrated by those who obstinately refuse to submit to it.  I want to scream, “Don’t you realize you are resisting the Word of God?” In these cases I am guilty of at least one of two possible sins.  If my understanding of predestination is correct, then at best I am being impatient with people who are merely struggling as I once did, and at worst I am being arrogant and patronizing toward those who disagree with me.

If my understanding of predestination is not correct, then my sin is compounded, since I would be slandering the saints who by opposing my view are fighting for the angels.  So the stakes are high for me in this matter.

The struggle about predestination is all the more confusing because the greatest minds in the history of the church have disagreed about it.  Scholars and Christian leaders, past and present, have taken different stands.  A brief glance at church history reveals that the debate over predestination is not between liberals and conservatives or between believers and unbelievers.  It is a debate among believers, among godly and earnest Christians.
Chosen by God, pg. 14

Knowing that a great proponent of predestination can speak this way gives me motivation to follow his example.

Deacon, I’m very comfortable with what you said: “I believe we have a compassionate sovereign God. So I guess I am an Arminian/Calvanist instead of a Calvanistic/Arminian.”

I also appreciated your comments Glenn, about the Levitical system pointing to God’s sovereignty.  Indeed, we worship a God who calls us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling but who is also faithful to see it to completion.  God’s sovereignty should humble us and also give us ultimate security in Him, since He is the one who justifies and sanctifies us.  He doesn’t leave us without a mediator to stand on our own merits.

Greg

And Greg, I appreciated the McArthur quote, since he made a reference to II Peter 3. I was looking for this passage last night as I thought it pertained to our discussion. So I’m glad McArthur recognized it as well. 

I will second Greg’s thoughts about the civility of the discourse.

This topic always gets people upset.

Michael Horton of the White Horse Inn in his book “Putting Amazing Back into Grace” writes in the same charitable way as Sproul on this topic. He says that in evangelical circles today, the quickest way to clear out a room in a hurry, is to announce that “we will have a discussion on pre-destination.”

But I still would like those who object to this doctrine answer the arguments of Paul in Romans 9 as Greg mentioned.

But, here is one very specific question I would appreciate an answer from those who object:

John 6:44 says ‘No one can come to me unless the Father draws him’… and John 6:37 says ‘all that the Father gives me will come to me’, and I shall lose none that the father gives me.’

What other way is there to get around the actual words of Jesus? Either Jesus is teaching universalism, which we know is not so, or He really means what He says, that only those that the Father DRAWS (this greek word is very strong as pulling against gravity) can come to Jesus, and none of those that the Father draws to Jesus will be lost. This would mean that everyone God intends or predestines to save from before time began will be drawn to Christ and be saved. There will be no lost causes in God’s salvation plan.

The problem seems to be that we tend to forget that God is not obligated to save anyone. The just punishment for sin is death. God’s grace is amazing indeed that he would save even one dirty rotten sinner like me. Who are we to talk back to God as Paul says in Romans 9. God has the right to save whom He will according to His good pleasure (Ephesians 1).

If the doctrine of predestination and election is not true, and not worth debating, then I have to scratch my head and wonder why so much language emphasizes God’s sovereign purposes all throughout the Bible?

I found that once I submitted myself to God’s inerrant word on this topic after eight years of resistance, I find it so much easier just to accept exactly what the Bible says. I know from anecdotal experience that Calvinism is true, because I would have never been converted to Christ, unless God drew me by His marvelous grace. I could not have chosen Christ by my own free-will, as I can only choose to follow Him because He changed my heart and my will.

Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be the glory)

Stan

So how do you interpret John 6 in light of John 3:16?

Isn’t it redundant to say ‘whoseover should believeth on Him’ when this is speaking of those that are called and drawn and they cannot be cast out?

Unless those that are called have the choice to reject Christ, John 3:16 is meaningless.

At the least, Stan, you have to say that there is a stalemate here with these verses. One cannot ‘believeth’ when they are elected and drawn without their choice and cannot be cast out once they are drawn.

I don’t think there’s anything in Romans 9 that demands predestination. It seems rather the opposite.

In Romans 9, as in Galations, Paul is contrasting the entitlement mentality of the Jews with the mercy of God. The Jews, or at least a segment of them, believed in an entitlement to God’s blessings on the basis of their human blood line as the seed of Abraham, and their special status as God’s originally chosen people who were the keepers and guardians of the Law and traditions. This entitlement caused the Jews to reject Christ specifically and to reject the universaliality of His mission in particular. The Jews believed they were the only rightful heirs and recipients of God’s promises. Both Jesus, and Paul here, and elsewhere, says to this claim—“No you are not. I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy”.

This entitlement claim, this claim to specialness and exclusivity Paul is refuting vigorously.  And mournfully. Paul says he would that:

“...I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.”

Paul is saddened that many of his Israelite brothers “stumbled at that Stumblingstone” and that they sought, and were seeking, “righteousness” by the “works of the law”, rather than seeking it by “faith”.

What does the great Dr. Luther say on the subject?

I discovered this paper on Free-will by Luther. Based on his comments it would seem he denies it. Does he believe in election like Calvin?

I only read the section dealing with John 6:44 and the section before and after it. I haven’t read the rest.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/bondage.html

However, I’m sure some of you who are more schooled in Luther’s writings will know his views.

I just have a quick thought to interject here.  Glenn, I think you are right about Romans 9 pertaining to the Jews, but it also has a message for those who believe it is unfair for God to choose some for salvation while rejecting others.  It’s not exclusively a Jewish question, but a salvation question.  We still need to deal with Romans 9:14-24, for instance, and the Jew-Gentile discussion doesn’t fully explain it.

Greg

[quote author="guibox"]So how do you interpret John 6 in light of John 3:16?

Isn’t it redundant to say ‘whoseover should believeth on Him’ when this is speaking of those that are called and drawn and they cannot be cast out?

Unless those that are called have the choice to reject Christ, John 3:16 is meaningless.

At the least, Stan, you have to say that there is a stalemate here with these verses. One cannot ‘believeth’ when they are elected and drawn without their choice and cannot be cast out once they are drawn.

Guibox,

One rule of interpretation that might pertain to John 3:16, and John 6:37,44,65, is that the more general texts are interpreted in light of the more specific texts. Jesus goes into the details of how a person can be drawn (only if the Father draws him, and none of whom the Father gives Jesus will be lost). John 1:13 clearly states that no man can be born again by his own will, but he has to be born of God, again, how can a person who is dead in sin help God in any way resurrect himself from the dead? Did we choose physical birth? Can those who are dead in trespasses and sins come to life except for the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead. Romans 8 says that the same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead, also raised us up from the death of our trespasses and sins. See also Ephesians 2. In Ephesians 2 Paul makes the point that it is by grace that we are saved. In this way there is no boasting. We cannot say, ‘I am saved because I believed and that person over there did not believe.’ I have actually seen this kind of talk among professing Christians. If God does the work, and our spiritual eyes are open, and we are born from above, then we can gladly choose to follow Christ.

In John 3 before the most famous verse in the Bible, Jesus sets the context of how a person comes to faith in order to believe on Him. A person must be born again. And John 3:8 says the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation is a mystery like the wind, which bloweth where it will, according to the good pleasure of the Father and the Son. It is in this context that John 3:16 comes up, and then you have the discourse in John 6 where Jesus gives his famous sermon on predestination, and as a result of that sermon, the 5000 people who were there at the beginning of his sermon, slowly slink away when they hear Jesus’ words which are so difficult. John 6:65--notice where Jesus says that no one can come to Him unless granted by the Father, then in John 6:66 and ff. notice that there are only the twelve disciples left. Clearly this message that Jesus taught was not very popular. Michael Horton makes this point as an example of what happens today when predestination is taught.

But anyway, thanks everyone for participating in this discussion and not going away(smiley)!

I believe the reason this doctrine is taught as frequently as it is in the Bible is to increase our reliance on the Lord, and as a sweet assurance of faith, when the Spirt of God testifies with our spirits, that we are indeed children of God, and we cry out Abba Father! The blessed assurance of knowing that we belong to Christ as part of the bride of Christ, in a marriage we know that can never be broken, as Romans 8:28-38 makes very clear along with several other scriptures.

Stan

I stand with Karl Barth. While touring the United States. Dr. Barth was asked after all his years of study what did he know for sure? Dr. Barth answered: “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so!” The Deacon