Hi Guys,

Maybe my simple little mother brain and way of thinking is a bit off base but if I am going to believe whole heartedly that the Holy Bible is word for word God’s Word, I am left with believing predistination is right and free will is right.  Somethings just don’t make sense because of my frail, little pea size brain with it’s thimble-full of knowledge - i.e. I’m not God!

Just tonight I made “Haystacks” for supper (a great SDA meal!).  As I was getting tortillas out of the frig, my husband said, “I thought we were having haystacks?”.  “Oh, we are,” I replied, “but the kids would rather have burritos.”

So he asked them, “Would you rather have haystacks or burritos?”.  Of course....I am happy to point out!...I was right!  Their choice was exactly as I had said.  Did I predestine them to burritos or did they have freewill?

I realize I might sound as if I am being a bit flip about these things, but I really am not.  God’s sovereignty is increasingly a reality to me and I find it amazingly reassuring.  I have come to a place where the reality of my free choice does not seem to conflict with God’s sovereignty.  I can’t completely explain this but I know my life was written in His book before one of my days had come to be (Psalm 139:6).

Just a mother’s view...now you can return to your intellectual debate....

Denise

Thanks Denise,

That motherly insight is absolutely correct.

Classical Calvinism affirms God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility simultaneously. The bible teaches both.

Martin Luther made the point in his Reformation classic “Bondage of the Will”, that man does not have free-will with regard to salvation, since the will is in bondage to sin, and that the unregenerate soul will not seek after God or choose God. Luther said that God had to make the miraculous change in the heart of man in order for man to be able to have his free-will changed in order to follow Christ. Luther actually thought this doctrine of the bondage of the will was even more important than justification by faith alone as the basis of the Reformation. Monergistic regeneration actually guarantees the integrity of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Stan

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"] 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).

So then the ‘whosoever that believeth on Him’ is only pertaining to those that are drawn? That would mean that those that are elected or drawn have the option of NOT believing on Him. If man is so ‘dead’ that he cannot make the conscious choice to choose Christ, and if this verse is speaking of the elect, then it is basically redundant.

The only way to interpret this verse to have it make sense in terms of election, would mean it would have to say ‘That all the elect that are chosen will not perish but be given everlasting life’

hmmm...sounds alot like those who try to make ‘death’ mean ‘everlasting consciousness in fiery torment’ or ‘separation of the soul from the body’

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]....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.

Hold on here. We have some problems.

1) For a message to be ‘not popular’ means that there has to be listeners and doers ‘blessed are they who are doers and not merely hearers of the word’. That would imply there is a conscious choice to reject an ‘unpopular message’ or accept a ‘popular message’. 

2) If the Spirit ‘draws all men unto ‘Him’ yet the multitude turned away, then we can safely say that they were all not elected to begin with. Which brings up the point, why was Christ preaching a message they had no choice to accept or reject anyway?..and yet they clearly did . Does not Christ say elsewhere that ‘He knows His sheep’ and they ‘come when He calls’? Is this not the elect being spoken of here?

So I again ask the questions: if the people don’t have the choice, why was Christ preaching to them and why did they turn away believing this to be ‘unpopular’?

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]....
Martin Luther made the point in his Reformation classic “Bondage of the Will”, that man does not have free-will with regard to salvation, since the will is in bondage to sin, and that the unregenerate soul will not seek after God or choose God. Luther said that God had to make the miraculous change in the heart of man in order for man to be able to have his free-will changed in order to follow Christ. Luther actually thought this doctrine of the bondage of the will was even more important than justification by faith alone as the basis of the Reformation. Monergistic regeneration actually guarantees the integrity of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Funny you should bring this up. I was just reading this earlier today to find out what Luther believed. I tried posting it but my computer at work wasn’t functioning correctly.

So Luther is a Calvinist too? How exactly do they differ in their belief concerning ‘free will’?

Guibox,

Yes, Luther taught more on predestination than John Calvin.

“Bondage of the Will” is Luther’s answer to Roman Catholic theologian Erasmus of Rotterdam. Luther was just as firm as John Calvin, if not more so on the doctrine of monergistic regeneration. There is a modern English translation available now of “Bondage of the Will” with a forward by JI Packer that is really worth reading. Luther’s arguments are airtight in both logic and scriptural interpretation.

Guibox, I can make an analogous argument to the eternal conscious punishment doctrine with the doctrine of Calvinism or monergistic regeneration. Here goes:

Traditional orthodoxy says that when Paul says in Romans 6:23 that the wages of sin is death, it means that this does not really mean dead. The Arminian, including Adventists argue that when Paul says in Ephesians 2 that we were dead in our trespasses and sins, this does not really mean that an unregenerate sinner is really dead. The Arminian says that there is still a small part of us that can exercise our free will. Paul says that we are spiritually dead. How can spiritually dead people respond to the gospel? It is only by the same Holy Spirit who resurrected Jesus’ dead body from the grave that can also give life to the dead sinner.

I don’t understand how one can believe that a person cannot choose to be born physically, but somehow believe that a spiritually dead person can choose Christ unless he is made alive and resurrected to new life, or born of God from above?

The language of adoption is used in many places in the NT.

How many adopted children can chooose to be adopted and choose their own father? That is why a strong word like adoption is used, as the point is being made that the Father adopts us to be His children.

Guibox, you did not really deal directly with the logical implications of what Jesus is saying in John 6:37,44. I have yet to hear an Arminian deal directly with the logical implications of these two verses. It is not good enough just to run back to isolate John 3:16 from the rest of John 1-6, but this is done all the time. The “whosoever believeth” in John 3:16 can only mean those who the Father draws to Christ according to His good pleasure, otherwise, the discourse in John 6 would have no meaning. All the texts on a subject have to be reconciled. I also realize there are other problematic texts for Calvinists, but not nearly as many as for the Arminian to deal with.

Stan

Did anyone notice that both Erasmus and Arminius were Dutch?
Did anyone notice that both Luther and Calvin advocated capital punishment for “unbelievers”? Does anyone recall Calvin’s treatment of Servitius over their differences on the Trinity? Of course, Calvin wished Servitius be beheaded rrather than burned. His Council thought otherwise--so Calvin went on writing while Servitius burned. Talk about focused! On the Sovreignty of God? Did anyone notice the E. G. White was a Weslyian Arminian to the core? Did anyone notice that Barth did his studies in the heart of Calvin country? Did anyone notice that Paul should have stopped his letter to Rome after eight chapters? Just wondering!

P.S.  To get a better focus on Paul one should read his letter to the Ephesians every time they venture beyond Romans 8. Particularly Ephesians 2: 12-22. The Deacon. 

A final comment on this issue. I have been reading Alden Thompson’s book Inspiration. He makes an excellent point that Scriptures should be read as a case study rather than a code book. I think the doctrine of predestination is codebook theology. Going back to the case study approach I would suggest: Peter’s vision and his conclusion “Of a truth I preceive that God is no respecter of persons.”

Or the story of Ruth who is found in the linage of David and Jesus and of Rahab also in the linage of Jesus and one of the heros of Hebrews 11.

Certainly, If one reads Paul in context of Romans 1, 2,3 we find that we are all under the same condemnation and also accessable to the same salvation. I rest my case. The Deacon

Well, it looks like we have a real gentleman’s (and gentlewoman’s) disagreement here.  This is an age-old debate with many good minds on both sides and we will not likely resolve the issue now. I do want to affirm that all of God’s Word is literally breathed out by Him (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and we should not be afraid to venture beyond Romans 8.  Paul’s epistle to the Romans is arguably one of the most profound pieces of literature in the history of Western civilization, even according to non-believers.  About this book, theologian N.T. Wright says:

[Romans is] neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul’s lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece. It dwarfs most of his other writings, an Alpine peak towering over hills and villages. Not all onlookers have viewed it in the same light or from the same angle, and their snapshots and paintings of it are sometimes remarkably unalike. Not all climbers have taken the same route up its sheer sides, and there is frequent disagreement on the best approach. What nobody doubts is that we are here dealing with a work of massive substance, presenting a formidable intellectual challenge while offering a breathtaking theological and spiritual vision.
-The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, pg. 395

I don’t want to beat this topic to death.  I am content to leave the issue of God’s sovereignty in the capable hands of others who are much more knowledgeable on the subject than me.  Again, I feel compelled to affirm that we are all sinners saved by the grace of God through the blood of Jesus Christ.  If we hold fast to this one thing, we can argue about a multitude of other doctrines until we finally see clearly, face to face with our Creator.

In the next post, I’ll let the Reformed theologian Donald Grey Barnhouse bring out some of Romans 9.  Barnhouse spent over 10 years preaching verse by verse through Romans during his 33 year tenure at the 10th Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia.  Some Adventists will remember him as the mentor to Walter Martin who reversed his stance toward Adventists in the 1950s, extending fellowship to them as a Christian denomination.

Greg

[quote author="The Deacon"]P.S.  To get a better focus on Paul one should read his letter to the Ephesians every time they venture beyond Romans 8. Particularly Ephesians 2: 12-22. The Deacon.

Hi Deacon,

I appreciate your input on this. I agree with you that the book of Ephesians is one of the greatest books in the Bible along with Romans.

But it is the book of Ephesians where the doctrine of election is preached in most detail as we see here in Ephesians 1:3-14:

3"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4even as he CHOSE US in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5he PREDESTINED US for ADOPTION through Jesus Christ, according to the PURPOSE of HIS WILL, 6to the praise of his glorious GRACE, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9making known[c] to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

11In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been PREDESTINED according to the PURPOSE of HIM who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were SEALED with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the GUARANTEE[d] of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it,[e] to the PRAISE of HIS GLORY.” (emphasis mine)
----------------------------------------------------------

[quote author="The Deacon"]A final comment on this issue. I have been reading Alden Thompson’s book Inspiration. He makes an excellent point that Scriptures should be read as a case study rather than a code book. I think the doctrine of predestination is codebook theology. Going back to the case study approach I would suggest: Peter’s vision and his conclusion “Of a truth I preceive that God is no respecter of persons.”

Or the story of Ruth who is found in the linage of David and Jesus and of Rahab also in the linage of Jesus and one of the heros of Hebrews 11.

Certainly, If one reads Paul in context of Romans 1, 2,3 we find that we are all under the same condemnation and also accessable to the same salvation. I rest my case. The Deacon

Deacon,

If the words in Ephesians 1 and 2 that I quoted above are not absolutely true as a code book on salvation, then I believe we are really in trouble. This is the problem I have with the likes of Alden Thompson and Dalton Baldwin, and Richard Rice. They have a very liberal view of the inspiriation of scripture.

I recently went to an AAF meeting in San Diego where for three hours Dalton Baldwin gave examples as to how the Bible contains many errors and contradictions. He said about the same thing as Alden Thompson seems to be saying, where a person according to Baldwin one has to interpret the Bible in some larger sense of great general themes, and that when a person reads the bible, that person has to be the ultimate judge of what is true. This is creating a god and a Bible in the reader’s own image, instead of what the bible says is absolutely true.

If we lose the doctrine of inerrancy of scripture, then we have no assurance that the specific promises of God regarding our salvation are true.

Stan

This passage comes from the Donald Grey Barnhouse’s commentary on Romans 9:14-18.

Children of Mercy

Ever since sin came into the world, man has tried to throw the blame back on God.  We remember the story of the fall as recounted in Genesis 3.  The woman had sinned ignorantly and the man willfully as the New Testament tells us, and their sin had caused them to flee from God.  Their garments of light had disappeared with the coming of sin and they discovered their nakedness–not nakedness which comes from lack of clothing, but nakedness which comes from the loss of righteousness.  They had swiftly moved to cover their bodies, but fig leaves were no substitute for the light; and when the voice of God came, calling them in the cool of the day, they were afraid and hid themselves.

Ever since that time man has sought to cast the blame for the wrongs that are in this world back on God Himself.  The argument of man runs roughly like this: “God has all power and God created everything.  Well, if God has all power and if God created everything, isn’t He responsible for all that is wrong?  The answer is, “No, He is not responsible; man is responsible.”

This is the burden of one of Ezekiel’s greatest revelations.  Men were crying out against the supposed injustice of God and God answered them in a way that shut their mouths forever.  It must be remembered that these instructions were not addressed to the Egyptians or the Philistines, nor to the romans or the Americans, but that they were addressed to Israel, a people who were in a covenant relationship with God and who had the priesthood, the altar, the atonement, and the promises of God.  Some of them had turned back to the ways of sin and, as a result, were existing instead of living.  These knew nothing of the tremendous triumph that God has for those who enter into a life of total fulfillment through accepting sovereign grace.  They were justified men, but they failed to realize fully that the justified by His faith shall live (Hab. 2:4; Gal. 3:11, etc.).  The emphasis is upon the fact that the presence of the new life which God had put within them would bring them out into a life of triumph.  In spite of this, they complained that the Lord was unjust.  We read, “Yet you say, the way of the Lord is not equal.  Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal?  Are not your ways unequal? (Eze. 18:25).  Since He repeats this, it is best for us to repeat it also.  Four verses further along we read, “Yet says the house of Israel, the way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal?  Are not your ways unequal?” (Eze. 18:29).

God’s Word Sufficient

We should understand that God has reasons which are unknown to us.  It should be sufficient that we have God’s word for it.  As I have meditated long upon this section of the Word of God, I have asked the Lord to give me a human illustration that would cover the great revelation of this truth.  While all illustrations fall down if expressed in detail, let us imagine a case and compare it with what we have before us here.  A small boy has a pet dog which he loves very dearly.  He plays with that dog every day and the dog sleeps beside him at night.  One day the boy opens the door of the family garage just in time to see his father kill the dog.  The fatal shot rings out and the boy screams and rushes toward the dog.  The father catches the boy who kicks and screams against him.  “You killed my dog.  You killed my dog.  I hate you.  I hate you.” The father carries the boy into the house and says, “My son, I will tell you why I had to kill him.” But the boy runs from his father, screaming, “I hate you.  I hate you.  You killed my dog.”

In order to make our parable fit the spiritual fact we are trying to explain, we will continue in a somewhat absurd way.  Men who act in an absurd way toward God may not see their own absurdity, but they would be quick to detect the absurdity in the parallel.  This boy, we will say, continues to live in his father’s house, eating the meals that are provided by his father, wearing the clothes that are provided by his father, while constantly saying that he hates his father because his father killed the dog.  When the boy grows up and begins to have some understanding of disease, he is given clippings which show that there had been an epidemic of rabies in his neighborhood, that a mad dog had bitten several children, and that some of them had died.  He even finds a clipping which states that the mad dog bit several other dogs in the neighborhood and that it was necessary for the owners to destroy those pets.  From his maturity the boy can look back on his childhood and see how warped were his opinions of his father.  He had carried hatred of his father through the years because his father had crossed his childish will when he was four or five years old.  Yet now he sees the evidence that his father was acting in wisdom and love, and that his pet dog might have bitten him and caused his own death.

Rebellious Hearts

It is not necessary to pursue the parallel further.  God is the Creator of the universe and our Creator.  We stand before Him as creatures.  Everything that He does is right and nothing that we do is right unless it is in line with His will for us.  He has all knowledge and we have no true knowledge except that which we learn from Him.  What Christ said to His disciples in quite another circumstance may be applied to God the Father here at this point.  Peter did not want the Lord to wash his feet and Christ had to insist, saying to him, “What I am doing you do not know now, but afterwards you will understand” (John 13:7).  The same is true of this doctrine of election.  The fact that the Father tells us that He has His reasons for it should be entirely enough for the child.  If there are those who hate God because He announces the divine prerogative of choice, it only reveals their own rebellious hearts.  As long as we have God’s Word for it, that should suffice.

In the development of the thought that now follows, we must continue from the summary of the problem which we have seen to the further unfolding that is now given to us.  The choice was in God: Isaac, not Ishmael; Jacob, not Esau.  After setting forth these two examples from the book of Genesis, He passes over four hundred years and comes down to Moses at the time of the giving of the law.  The people had accepted a covenant of law from God, saying, “All the words which the Lord has said we will do” (Ex. 19:8; Ex. 24:3).  They had thus bound themselves under the law.  When they made a calf of gold and cried, “These be they gods, O Israel, that brought thee up out of the land of Egypt” (Ex. 32:8 ), they broke the covenant of law and brought themselves into a place of condemnation.  God announced that He would destroy the people.  This would have been a righteous act.  If they had been destroyed, and if God had made a new people from Moses, as He suggested, God would have been just in so doing.  He knew, of course, what He was going to do, but He did it in the way that He did in order to teach the great lesson of His absolute sovereignty.  They all deserved death; of that there could be no doubt.  If they all perished, they would have perished righteously.  It is in just such a framework that God said to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” The words are quoted from the Book of Exodus taken out of a statement made by God on Mount Sinai (Ex. 33:19).  The people had been brought to the end of themselves.  There was no resource left in man.  They were entirely lost.  It is then that God announced that He would act for Himself.  If we may say so, the doctrine of election was God’s secret weapon which made it possible for some men to be saved.  If He had not retreated into His sovereignty, as one expositor has described it, there would have been nothing but a curse and no one would have been saved.

Moses asked God if he might be shown the divine glory.  God answered, “I will make all my goodness pass before thee and I will proclaim the name of Jehovah before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (Ex. 33:18-19).

-Donald Grey Barnhouse, Commentary on the book of Romans - vol. IV, pp. 35-38

[quote author="The Deacon"]Did anyone notice that both Erasmus and Arminius were Dutch?
Did anyone notice that both Luther and Calvin advocated capital punishment for “unbelievers”? Does anyone recall Calvin’s treatment of Servitius over their differences on the Trinity? Of course, Calvin wished Servitius be beheaded rrather than burned. His Council thought otherwise--so Calvin went on writing while Servitius burned. Talk about focused! On the Sovreignty of God? Did anyone notice the E. G. White was a Weslyian Arminian to the core? Did anyone notice that Barth did his studies in the heart of Calvin country? Did anyone notice that Paul should have stopped his letter to Rome after eight chapters? Just wondering!

Deacon,

I am not sure exactly what point you are getting at in the quote above. I am glad Paul went beyond Romans 8 as the Holy Spirit inspired him to write chapters 9-16.

Have you read any of the major works of Luther or Calvin?

Luther’s commentary on Galatians is a truly inspired work of which John Bunyan (Pilgrim’s Progress) author said was second only to the Bible.

John Calvin’s writing also speaks of a man who really had a heart for God.

Yes, these men were flawed, and in need of God’s grace just like all of us. The hall of faith of Hebrews 11 is also filled with flawed individuals. And King David was a man after God’s own heart.

It is a popular sport of many liberal theologians today to attack the characters of Martin Luther and John Calvin. But without these men, the Reformation with the great creeds of the faith and the assurances of the gospel, may not have flourished in the western world the way it did.

Stan

Great Stan:

Universalism is a corruption of “election” Not a great distance from “once saved always saved”. See 2 Peter 1: l0(Both are a presumption on the part of man.) That does not mean that God is willing that any should perish. My argument stems from the persumptive arrogance that blatant Calvanism has wrought. The basic problem with the doctrine of “election” (predestination) is exclusivity. A presumptive orientation that “I/We” are the chosen one/ones!  It relieves all necessity to fulfill any of the great commissions: “Go ye therefore!” and “to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction”.

It is the foundation stone of the triumphalism of the religious right/dispensationalism.  It is the arrogance of the “remnant church”. It is the assumption that led to “Glacier View” and the purge that followed.

It is a major substrate of the genocides of history. It is the denial of “Amazing Grace” and every parable of Jesus that began: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like---“

To link God’s foreknowledge to His ordination is an arrogant presumption that has doomed many a sensitive soul to despair. (It is also a serious denigration of His self-discipline and His prevenient Grace.) “As an eleven year old picking strawberries on the College farm at Emmanuel Missionary College, I was witness to the anguish of a woman who had just discover her sister who had hung herself in the cellar stairwell because she believed she had committed an unspoken “unpardonable sin”.

There after the invitation of Jesus. “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest” became the balm of my soul. As I read the Gospel of Matthew, I don’t see anyone left out of that invitation: certainly no one I have met in over 82 years. The problem of sin is universal. The solution is available to all through one door only. The question is “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” Certainly not Paul!  The Deacon. 

Again Deacon, like Greg said, you are right when you speak of arrogant Calvinism or what is known as “Hyper-Calvinism”.

That is not the position Greg and I are taking. You did refer us to Matthew 11 in your quote above:

“There after the invitation of Jesus. “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest” became the balm of my soul. As I read the Gospel of Matthew, I don’t see anyone left out of that invitation: certainly no one I have met in over 82 years. The problem of sin is universal. The solution is available to all through one door only. The question is “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” Certainly not Paul! The Deacon.”
----------------------------------------------------------

But here is the full quote and context of that Matthew 11:28 quote going from vv. 25-30:

25"At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have HIDDEN these THINGS from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26yes, Father, for such was your GRACIOUS WILL[g] 27All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and NO ONE KNOWS the Father except the Son and ANYONE to whom the Son CHOOSES to reveal him. 28Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
---------------------------------------------------------

The above is consistent with what Jesus teaches in John 6. In this passage, it is clear that the truth of God is being hidden from the wise, and the only way any of us can know the Father is if the Son CHOOSES to reveal Him to us.

The passage Greg quoted from Donald Barnhouse above is a classic work on this topic, and is well worth considering.

Stan

Stan Thanks Again;

My reference to Luther’s and Calvin’s harsh treatment was to emphasis the lengths to which “chosen” brings one. Not unlike the conflicts Jesus has with religious rulers of His day. I have no desire to extend the debate. I certainly didn’t join For The Gospel for that purpose. I joined because of “Blessed Assurance Jesus is Mine!” The reference to the “wise” was to make it clear that salvational truth is revealed not discovered. It carries no intent to keep it hidden from anyone. There is no Scriptural evidence to my eyes that states that Christ deliberately chose not to reveal Himself to anyone. Even Pharaoh. But I am a Presbyterian in good and regular standing despite my views on election.  I hope and trust I can continue to find a comfortable place of conversation in For the Gospel. I certainly enjoy it and benefit from each contributor. I believe the invitation of Jesus Christ is as universal as the problem of sin. Ours the the responsibility to “Go Tell It on the Mountain.” The Deacon with charity for all.  Shall we move on?