139 Calvinism vs. Arminianism 3: Unconditional Election

12 thoughts on “139 Calvinism vs. Arminianism 3: Unconditional Election”

• Hi there!

  I really appreciated this episode, thank you.

  I was looking through the list of podcasts, looking for one about the Evangelical view of Israel + Bible prophecy. I don’t know what to think about this, as I’ve never studied it. I couldn’t find a podcast on this, is there one?

  Thanks

  Reply

  • Emily, welcome to Restitutio. No, sadly, I don’t have anything on prophecies about Israel here.

    Reply

• Blake:
  1. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble (James 4:6). This is the primary principle God uses as a basis to choose. It is a principle, however, not an obligation, so there may be occasional exceptions. We should not make the mistake of thinking that the exceptions are the rule, the norm.
  2. In Romans 8:29 we read, “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…” To “fore-know” is to know from before. This is a reference toward historical believers, such as Abraham, whom God foreknew in real history, and who are also predestined at the resurrection to be conformed to the resurrected Christ. This has nothing to do with choosing specific individuals before creation.
  4. Jesus had no regard for this doctrine of predestination, as is clearly shown when “he marvelled because of their unbelief” (Mark 6:6). And, when he chose to teach in parables to prevent people from believing (Mark 4:12).
  5. In Romans 8:38, these words are being ignored: “I am persuaded”. This is Paul speaking about his personal persuasion, that he and the church at Rome will not allow any of the listed things to separate them from the love of God. The passage should not be read without this preconditional statement, as Calvinists do, because it then gives a distortion to what he is really saying. History bears out that the church in Rome did endure faithful through the persecution that arose. But there are many Scriptural warnings about others who will not endure and will not remain faithful. We must not skip conditional statements and make a doctrine that is a distortion of what was written.
  I agree with Jacob that the results of salvation are predestined, or pre-decided, not the individual persons.

  Reply

  • Kevin,
    You may find the following quote and linked article edifying:

    ‘The hope of preserving man’s power of self determination in salvation is futile in view of verse 30, where it says, “Those whom he called he also justified.” If all the called are justified, and if justification is only by faith, then the call must secure the faith because it secures the justification. But if the call of God brings about faith, then it is not the self-determining power of man that brings him to salvation.

    ‘Therefore, even if God did base his predestination on faith which he foresaw, it was a faith which he himself intended to create. So the whole motive for the idea of foreknown faith collapses. It still leaves us with the freedom and right of God to elect or choose whom he will call effectually into faith. For God to predestine someone on the basis of faith which he himself creates is the same as basing predestination on the basis of election.’

    https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/those-whom-he-foreknew-he-predestined

    Reply

  • Essentially, the statement that the outcomes are determine but not the means suggests that God is sovereign, but only in the event that His sovereignty does not supersede the freedom of man, thus making God, by definition, not to be sovereign. If God is ultimately supreme over all that to which He gave life, then it must also be true that the same God Who has created all things maintains ultimate authority over all things.

    Imagine a father training his child to ride a bicycle. He gives his child a push at one end of the sidewalk and then runs to the other end of the sidewalk, failing to pay attention to the child as she rolls along the sidewalk. She falls and bumps her head because her father has not paid attention, since he was too busy running to the other side to catch her. Since the father has no control over the course of his daughter, she is left entirely to her own, in which case she will never make it to the end.

    If God, in a flavor of soterioloigcal deism, set things in motion and then runs to the end of our life on earth to catch us, leaving us alone all the way to be left to our own defenses and mechanics, is God sovereign at all? If only He controls the book ends of our lives, then He does not control every aspect of life, as Acts 17 says. He truly does not have all things set at His footstool, as Psalm 110 would suggest.

    In this example, God is sovereign, but He has left man to his own mechanics. If man, in his total depraved nature to which he is enslaved (Rom. 6-7) has been left to his own mechanics and will, would not his will be ever bound to his inherently fallen estate, never to allow him to choose God? Furthermore, if a man were enabled to choose God, would he? Or would he suppress the truth (Rom. 1) in order that the relinquishment of his own self-assumed power might not occur? but only in the event that His sovereignty does not interfere with our freedom of the will, to which we force God to react, making man to be the center of God’s actions. If God is not primarily and wholly for God, but is instead man-centric, is not man then made to be God to the one who would hold to the view conveyed in this person’s comment?

    Reply

  • My response to Kevin:

    1. Regarding your comment from James. What point are you trying to make here? It Is not entirely clear to me. If you mean to say that God makes choices based on the actions or attitudes of men – namely, whether they are humble or proud – my first concern is that this passage in James does not really fit into the larger discussion at hand, i.e. James is not addressing predestination. However, I can say that if God only makes choices based on the humility and pride of his creatures, then this means he is a being that only makes decisions in response to his creatures, not for his creatures. Romans 9:11-13 argues against this – regardless of how you view the predestination in this context (national vs. individual). Placing God in a position where he merely responds to his creatures is inconsistent with his nature as revealed in Scripture – this is more like the gods of pagan culture than the God of the Bible.

    2. Regarding your comment on Romans 8:29. There are several problems with your argument. First, it does not take into account the entire progress of thought that Paul is developing. He is talking about those who are “called according to his purpose,” (v.28) and he describes such people as those who are foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified. Foreknowledge cannot be removed from this larger chain of salvific events. Second, foreknowledge here is personal – meaning, it is in regards to individuals. We know this because Paul is talking in reference to individuals, and by doing so is directly avoiding a more general meaning of the word such as you have tried to force upon it. God “knows from before” all things – every bird, every molecule, every rock. If that was all Paul was trying to say, it would be equivalent to saying nothing; a kind of redundancy. Paul is clearly avoiding this, using the word in a personal sense to refer to God’s dealings with specific individuals. Furthermore, the idea that he could be talking about people without talking about specific people is to create a false category. Third, you contradict yourself while providing an unsubstantiated claim when you say that foreknowledge here is in “reference toward historical believers, such as Abraham,” yet, “this has nothing to do with choosing specific individuals.” Here is your contradiction: Abraham is a specific individual. Here is how your claim is unsubstantiated: nothing in Romans 8 refers specifically to “historical believers,” let alone Abraham himself. Paul’s discussion throughout this context is in reference to “us” and “we,” meaning himself and his readers.

    3. I think you missed this one.

    4. Jesus did have regard for the doctrine of predestination. While he did not make use of the word “predestined,” he made use of the idea of election frequently. Election is so closely knit with predestination that to attempt dividing them would do injustice to Scripture. Jesus speaks of God’s elect in Matt. 24:22, 31; Mark 13:20, 27, and Luke 18:7. Clearly Jesus had a category by which he understood God’s chosen people. What’s more, he demonstrates in John 10 the cost of not being among God’s chosen when he rebukes unbelieving Jews: he said to them “You do not believe because you are not my sheep.” It is not that they are not his sheep because they do not believe, but that their lack of belief is due to them not being his sheep. This is why, in reference to one of the verses you cited, Jesus often said, “he who has ears to hear, let him hear.” His sheep would hear his voice, those who were not his sheep, would not.

    5. Paul’s statement. “I am persuaded” (passive voice) is an interesting place to go to make an argument in your favor. This statement does not condition the conversation. If anything, it is a doxological response to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty over salvation and suffering. Based upon the sovereignty of God, Paul was persuaded. It has nothing to do with whether or not he or his readers would “allow” something to separate them – it has everything to do with the fact that through Christ and Christ alone, they had been made into conquerors. This is the perseverance that Christ works in those who are his (Phil. 1:6), and this is what had persuaded Paul to say that nothing “could separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” This is the glorious conclusion of God’s predestination: those whom he has chosen, those who are objects of his free and gracious love will never be separated from him by any force or circumstance.

    Reply

  • Forknow- does not simply mean to know beforehand. This video goes in depth on what it actually means when the Bible speaks of God’s foreknowledge. https://youtu.be/JopWNdaKoa0

    Reply

• Please reconsider. Your extreme definitions of total depravity and infinite sovereignty are driving your hermeneutic and they make God to be a part-time good devil. Scripture speaks for itself. A God who is a control freak is a weak God and is the ultimate author of all evil, no matter how much you want to deny it. An ultra-controlling God is a low view of God and a high view of man. If your God cannot allow puny man to make choices, then your God is puny and man is a threat to Him. But the God of the Bible is big enough to out-smart any scheme or choice of man. Prov. 1:26 says, “I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh.” In the Calvinist view of sovereignty, God is the source of the evil choices of the wicked, and then turns around and laughs at the result. That’s a sick view of God, an insult to His character. He calls us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand (1 Peter 5:6). But if God is so puny that He can’t afford to let men choose their ways and instead he has to micromanage all things to keep control, it is the Calvinist god who would have to humble Himself under the mighty hand of Man if this god were to “let go”. No. That’s all backwards. God is sovereign by right, but this does not necessitate that He be in control of everything. He can out-do any and all evil man can devise.

  Starting out with wrong presuppositions leads to wrongly reading the Scripture. If you won’t give up your twisted doctrine of total depravity, there is not much hope for getting the rest of Scripture right. Jesus was and is a MAN. If men are by design totally depraved, then Jesus also was and is totally depraved. But He is not, and neither are we. Our degree of depravity is by our choice, not by God’s design.

  The book of Romans needs to be read in its historical context. The Jews had been kicked out of Rome for maybe 5 years, leaving the church there to non-Jews. When the Jews returned there was tension. Paul had to clarify that the Jewish hermeneutic was superior (Romans 3:1-2), and that the Jews certainly are God’s chosen people group, through no goodness of their own, but by the choice of God through Abraham, Isaac, etc. This is the historical background of the discussion, not salvational predestination.

  Will it make any difference if I quote the words of Jesus? Mark 4:11-12 “And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” If Jesus had not spoken in parables, He said that they would have been converted! They obviously had the capability to believe, or He was lying. If they were already predestined to not believe due to inability, then there was no need to use parables and He could have spoken plainly to the public, as He did to the disciples. I don’t recommend arguing with Jesus. You won’t win.

  Reply

  • Kevin,

    Brother, it is you who espouse a view of God that makes God like a pagan, man-made god. This God you speak of running around, responding and reacting to the evil of men, rather than governing the affairs of all things not the God of the Bible. The true God is sovereign, and while sovereignty does not necessitate fatalism or determinism, it does necessitate that he governs, ordains, permits, causes or directs the affairs of all things. History is a story of God’s divine orchestration – yes, even with its evils. This God is not the weak God of the deist or the dualist who stands outside of evil, but a God who stands over evil, in the end, using it to work for his own glorification. Does God not say, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things” (Is.45:7)? Did Job not submit to this sovereignty (Job 2:10)? Does not Satan come before him seeking permission to bring calamity – only because God will work it out for his glory in the end (Job 2:6)?

    Reply

• Kevin – first of all, the view of Calvinism does not make God the author of evil. And it does not make the God-man Jesus evil. Thats a false dichotomy you’ve created. First of all man is responsible, Adam and Eve did have a choice, and because of them now we all are fallen. Jesus overcame that for His people on the cross. Secondly, Jesus had 2 natures and fulfilled the law by obeying it perfectly, something none of us can do, thus, He was indeed perfect and not evil.

  To say a view that God is in total control is a low view of God doesn’t even make sense. And He does allow us to make decisions. We make all the free choices we want, within our nature’s capability, which is one of a fallen nature. Dead in sins, not sick in sins.

  Next – your quote about Jesus’ parable actually proves Calvinism. They had the faculty to be converted, but it was Jesus (God) who made the decision for them by speaking in parables, asserting that He knew all possible outcomes and determined which one He wanted based on His own sovereign will and decree, thus they weren’t converted. As Edwards would say, man has the faculty of choice, but is unwilling, thus the total dependance on God for conversion.

  I’d ask you maybe not go so far as to say that Blake’s (or my) views are twisted. We are brother’s in Christ and these issues are not salvific issues – just because ones view of soteriology is different than yours, but can clearly and obviously be gleaned from the scriptures, and is held by the majority of the church fathers throughout church history and is considered orthodox, doesn’t mean it’s a twisted view. Just admit you don’t like the calvinist view or disagree with it, but perhaps be charitable instead of calling it twisted.

  Blessings, brother.

  Reply

• In response to the previous comment regarding my “twisted” view of the gospel and “false presuppositions” leading to a twisted reading of the Bible, I can think of at least seven (7) indictments against the opposing view of God’s ultimate sovereignty. Before the following 7 points, I want to draw attention to the fact that the belief that we are neutral is what is known as Pelagianism. Pelagius was cast out as a heretic at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. He believed that man was 1) not originally born into sin, and 2) capable of choosing Christ based upon a divine scale of good vs. bad, with a final determination of good outweighing the bad.

  Below are the indictments I would offer including, but almost certainly not limited to, the following:

  1. Total Depravity – The doctrine of man’s inherent sinful estate is littered all through Scripture. Since it is apparent that on the basis of context, we are disregarding all of the texts to be found in Romans on the subject of total depravity, which I will list for the sake of stating that they are there (Romans 3; Romans 6; Romans 7-9), we will refrain from referring to those texts to prove the doctrine of total depravity.

  Consider Isaiah 64:6, in which we see that all the deeds of man are as filthy rags. The Hebrew phrase for filthy rags (עִדִּ֖ים וּכְבֶ֥גֶד) is understood to mean “filthy garments, menstrual garment.” Just as one would not wish to set a menstrual garment at the top of the trash can, but would rather have it placed at the bottom of the bag, so too is the filth of our deeds done in the flesh. How then shall any of our deeds be acceptable before God? First, Isaiah 58 gives some context to Isaiah 64, showing that the deeds of the unrighteous who do not believe in the Lord are as filthy rags, but certainly this does not mean that the deeds of the Spirit-wrought believer are filthy before God. Our actions are presentable and pleasing to God only if and when they are worked in us by Christ, rather than the flesh (Heb. 13:20-21).

  Psalm 51:5 also affirms that we are born into an inherent state of sinfulness. We are not born neutrally, as the Muslims would claim. We do not live our lives on a cosmic scale upon which our good must outweigh our bad in order that we might earn our place in Heaven. No! One is redeemed by the blood-bought grace of God in the belief of man in Christ (Acts 2-3; Heb. 10).

  2. Control Freak God – Before we look at any Scripture for this, I would strongly urge against this sort of rhetoric when discussing the attributes of God. May God have mercy upon he who would disdain the sovereignty of the Almighty God, considering it to be of a freakish nature.
  ​Romans 9, even though it apparently carries no meaning for anyone except the Jews according ​to the diagnosis of the context, clearly depicts the sovereign hand of God at work in the ​salvation of man. But again, since Romans cannot be used and considered to carry its own ​weight, remember that Romans 9 is not the first time we see this text. Romans 9 is a reiteration ​of Isaiah 45. Who are you, oh man, to answer back to God?
  ​Along the same theme as Romans 9 and Isaiah 45 is Proverbs 16, which states that even the dice ​that are cast have their decisions made by God (v. 33) and that even the wicked the LORD has ​made for their day of destruction (v. 4). God has control over both the justice which He displays ​to the unjust and the grace which He displays to those whom He chooses.
  ​But is not God’s choosing of some arbitrary by this view? Certainly not. Ephesians 1 states that ​all things are according to the counsel (βουλὴν) of His will (θελήματος). The word counsel ​(boulen) carries along with it the idea that God has planned all things, meaning His sovereign ​plan of election is not arbitrary. Yet, as if this wording were not enough, Paul writes the word ​will (thelematos), which means “will, guarantee, desire, plan” to again emphasize that what God ​has done is not done arbitrarily and that His plan is never thwarted (2 Peter 3:9; Job 42:2; Is. ​14:27; Is. 46).
  Consider a woman who has called her local agency to state that she will adopt some children. The woman knows those whom she will adopt and has planned it well. The adoption agency, not knowing who the mother will adopt, prepares all of the children for adoption. The mother comes and adopts 3 of the 10 children at the orphanage.
  Now, does the orphanage call her unjust for adopting only a few, or do they praise her for choosing to adopt even one? Do the people of the town deem her as an author of evil for passing over others, choosing only some?
  This illustration serves two purposes. First, God’s adopting of some is in no way unjust or cruel. Rather than asking why God adopts only some, we should ask why God adopts even one! Second, it gives us a clue as to what we should do as we wait for the Lord (Acts 1). As we await the Lord’s return, due to our limited knowledge of those whom God will choose to draw to Himself, we should prepare al by the preaching of the Word (Matt. 28). Preach so that you’re preaching might be as a thief, robbing from those who hear it any liberty in self to claim that they have not yet heard the name of Christ. Preach, hoping that God will draw some who hear, knowing for certain that not only does God make redeemable all, but that He in fact shall redeem some, and with the ultimate aim of the glory of God ever on your tongue.

  3. Author of Evil – I affirm, as I would assume any reformed theologian who is not a heretic would affirm, neither that God is in fact not the author or originator of evil, nor that He plays “part-time good devil.” James 1 tells us that we are not tempted by God, but that we are tempted and enticed by our own desires. From where do these desires come if we are not inherently sinful? We are lured and enticed by our OWN desires, meaning our innate proclivity to sin drives us to sin. There is an internal issue and an external cure. However, Psalm 139 states that God knows all things. In a certain sense, God ordains our turning over to our sin in that He passes over those whom He would pass over, turning them over to their own sinful desires (Rom. 1).

  ​Consider the words of the Westminster
  Confession Ch. III Pt. I:

  ​God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and ​unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author ​of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of ​second causes taken away, but rather established (James 1; Eph. 1; Acts 2; Acts 15; Jn. 13).

  ​There is a reason for which they placed a semicolon after the statement that God did ordain ​whatsoever shall come to pass. The reason is this – He did so in a certain sense, meaning God is ​necessarily sovereign over all things. This does not carry with it the belief that God caused sin, ​but that God, in knowing all things for all eternity, chose to allow Adam to sin for the ultimate ​purpose of displaying His wrath to those who would deny Him in the freedom which they so ​have to live in their sin, while He would display to those whom He chose to adopt His abundant ​grace as they are drawn to Him (Rom. 9; Jn. 6:44; Ex. 33:19; Amos 4).
  ​God does not author or create sin, but He does pass over some, giving them up to their own ​sinful inclinations. If God, knowing all things from eternities past, foreknew the eventual sin of ​many and yet, despite His ability to stop them and end turn them into ash before their sin, is not ​there a sovereign hand permitting them to be turned over to their own sins, for which they will ​be justly condemned? If God’s will, which cannot be thwarted, is to be considered as thwarted ​when one sins, is not His will considered a failed will and His Word untrue? Therefore, we affirm ​that while God is by no means the author of sin, yet His providence is displayed in the allowance ​of sin for a season so that eventually He will crush the head of Satan and all of sin with him (Rev. ​20).

  4. 1 Peter Reference – I love the Book of I Peter. One thing that I find interesting about your quoting of a verse in I Peter is that on the basis of context, you cast aside Romans, but have failed to realize that I Peter is written to the “elect exiles” in Christ (1:1). If we are casting out books based upon their context, we should not read Galatians as it was written for the church in Galatia (1:1), Ephesians as it was written for Ephesus (1:1), and so forth. But certainly, we believe that each book carries along with it the value that is for our building up in Christ (II Tim. 3:16-17) as all Scripture is theopneustos and therefore profitable. Since all Scripture is profitable, we dare not cast aside any of upon the contention that it is not for us. All Scripture has meaning and is divinely ordained as the past of the inclusion of the canon of God’s Word. I Peter is speaking in regards to humbling ourselves before God, but I do not find that our saying that there be in us some righteousness apart from Christ allowing us to choose Christ over our sin is humble. Rather, the man who believes himself righteous apart from Christ displays in himself the very essence of pride.

  5. What is Sovereignty? – We say God is sovereign, but what is the definition of sovereignty? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines sovereignty in this way: “supreme power, freedom from external control, controlling influence.” If God is sovereign (supremely powerful and free from external control), then why would we assumed that He is a reactionary God? If God is made to be controlled by man, then is not man then made to be supremely powerful? In this view, the Mormons would have it correct it assuming we will eventually become gods if only we try hard enough. But certainly this is not the case. God, eternally existent and infinitely holy of His own accord, sovereign and just and gracious by His own holy definition, shall never cease to be God and, therefore, shall never cease to bear all of His attributes, namely in this case His sovereignty or omnipotence and omniscience, which both serve to define the Godly sovereignty to which we refer when we state that God is sovereign. God’s sovereignty assumes His all-knowingness and His all-powerfulness over that to which He has given life (Acts 17; Job 12:10).

  6. Hypostatic Union – Stated was that if all man is deprave, then Jesus must also be depraved. Forgotten is the hypostatic union of Christ, fully man, fully God. This being true that Jesus remained fully God, paints a clear understanding that Jesus, being God, was not subjected to the original sin of humanity. 1 John 3:5 says that Jesus was without sin, so we take the Bible’s word for it that though Christ was fully man, yet even still in His remaining fully God, He was not subjected to the reality of total depravity as is humanity. Total depravity does not state that man is as bad as he could be, but that no man is virtually good or bent toward honoring God in the flesh. The universal moral law that makes all men to know that murder is wrong is not the same as Spirit-wrought salvation. The law saves no man, but it is by the law that we know our sin and by grace that our sinful life is made anew (Romans 7).

  7. John 6 – I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot argue with the words of Jesus. So I urge you, brother, do not argue with His words. In John 6 we see a clear depiction of the sovereign election, calling, drawing, and redemption of all those whom the Father has given to the Son. Surely, none shall be lost who are the Lord’s. Since the Father has given to the Son those whom He has predestined before the very foundation of the world, based not upon the works of man (Eph. 1-2), we have full assurance that they will be redeemed in Christ. The propitiatory work of the cross of Christ did not merely make all men redeemable, but surely redeemed those whom He had chosen for redemption. It is the will (boulomenos – will, desire, guarantee) of God that none shall perish (2 Peter 3:9), meaning that surely none of the elect faithful (2 Peter 1:1) shall be lost, not that it is God’s will that no one should perish. Interpreted in the Arminian manner, this verse would surely mean universalism, since the word boulomenos (βουλόμενος) used here literally means that God guarantees, and we know that what God plans shall surely come to pass.

  With all of this, I would love to say that I am praying for you. Not just that you would adopt the doctrines of Reformed Theology (although certainly that would be a blessing), but that God would use you in a mighty way for the furtherance of His Kingdom. As we do not know all of those whom God will draw to Himself, we affirm that we must be ready in season and out of season, preaching the Word of truth to all, which is the power unto salvation in Christ Jesus. In no way do I undermine the words of our Lord and at no time would I assume that you do either. We are both discussing this because we have a deeply rooted desire to see that the Word of God is discussed publicly and that His Word is treasured by all who hear it. Grace and peace to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, our King!

  Reply

• Hi Justin,
  I’m not saying that the persons are twisted. Pardon me if it came across that way. I mean the logic is twisted. You cannot affirm and deny the same thing at the same time. (Ok, you can, but that is what I mean by twisted logic.)
  1. Your view makes God to be in active control of every minutia (which He could if He wants to) but at the same time deny that He is responsible. Those are incompatible.
  2. You claim we have a sin nature and Jesus is fully human just as we are, but without a sin nature. He was tempted. God cannot be tempted. This is incompatible.
  3. You deny the plain meaning of the words of Jesus in Mark 4:11-12. That is incompatible with believing in what He taught.

  Twisted logic is a big warning sign. Something is wrong. Yes, the person may truly love God and be ignorant of the facts, but God knows who loves Him from the heart, versus those who are more in love with a theological system. I am not the judge.

  Reply