Predestination: Why Do Some Believe and Some Don’t?

One of the things I hope you’ve noticed so far in this series on predestination is that before mentioning what we do and don’t believe about it we need to be firmly grounded in several basic, biblical, and evangelical truths: we are sinners, God is just, and God is love. Not only do I believe this is a biblical method, I believe it is wise. There is so much misunderstanding and mockery of this doctrine that we need to lead into it gently.

In this post I want to lay out another of these foundational truths, which is one that leads us into the actual subject of the who, what, when, and why of predestination. Given humanity’s sin and both God’s justice and love, why is it that some believe in Jesus Christ and some don’t? These are the two responses to Jesus’ call:

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God…Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:18, 36)   Continue at Daniel Hyde

Why Would Yahweh Call People to Repent if They are Not Able?

Question: The Bible clearly shows that the choices we make will alter our destiny. For example, God appeals to wrongdoers, saying: “Turn back, please, every one from his bad way and from the badness of your dealings . . . that I may not cause calamity to you.” (Jeremiah 25:5, 6) This appeal would be pointless if God had already fixed each individual’s destiny. Moreover, God’s Word states: “Repent, therefore, and turn around so as to get your sins blotted out, that seasons of refreshing may come from the person of Yahweh.” (Acts 3:19) Why would Yahweh ask people to repent and turn around if he knew beforehand that they could do absolutely nothing to change their destiny?

Response: Left to ourselves, our choices would only lead us to perdition. None of these Texts you cite show the moral ability of man to follow Christ, apart from the Holy Spirit. They are simply imperatives - God telling us what we OUGHT to do ... not what we are ABLE to do. You have to read into the text to and presuppose another meaning - that any time God give a command it automatically means man has the ability to fulfill it ourselves, in the flesh. But this is to forget the whole reason for Jesus coming.   Continue at John Hendryx

Predestination: Should We Even Talk About It?

I’d like to begin a series on—get ready—predestination. Yes, I said that word. 

I know this is not the most popular topic to bring up among polite company; in fact, it’s downright divisive, isn’t it? In the fifth century, Augustine recounted in his letters that some said, “The doctrine of predestination is an obstacle to the usefulness of preaching.” And who wants an obstacle? In the sixteenth century, John Calvin had to go out of his way to state that preachers should preach no less on the deity of the Son, the deity of the Holy Spirit, or the creation of the universe than on predestination.

Should we even talk or preach about predestination? Because predestination is a biblical doctrine, the answer is a resounding “Yes!” You see, without predestination, you would have no Bible. Abram was chosen out of Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen. 12). Israel was chosen out of all the nations of the earth (Deut. 4:37; 7:6–8; Ps. 105:6). A new Israelite remnant was chosen after their exile (Isa. 41:8–9; 42:1; 43:1–7; 44:1–2; 45:4). Jesus taught predestination (Matt. 11:25–27; 13:11–16; Mark 4:11–12; John 6:37, 66; 10:26–30; 14:1; 17:6, 9, 11–12). The Apostles taught predestination (Rom. 8:28–39; 9–11; Eph. 1; Phil. 1:6; 2:13; 1 Peter 2:5–10). Since predestination is a biblical doctrine, we must talk about it. The question is how?  Continue at Daniel Hyde

Understanding 1 John 2:2

From the archives on this blog (from October 2005) by Rev. John Samson

Many of you know something of my struggle in coming to understand and appreciate the doctrines of grace. One of the biggest hurdles I encountered was my traditional understanding of 1 John 2:2. For a long time, it acted much like a roadblock in my thinking, preventing me from believing what I now consider to be the clear and consistent teaching of scripture. 

How are we to understand the verse then?

Let me start by affirming that scripture is explicit in saying that Jesus died:

for God's people ("He was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of My people" - Isaiah 53:8; "He shall save His people from their sins" - Matt. 1:21);

for His sheep ("I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." - John 10:11 - note that Jesus categorically states that some are not His sheep - "but you do not believe because you are not My sheep." - John 10:26)

for His friends ("Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you." - John 15:13-14;

for the Church ("... the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood." - Acts 20:28; "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her..." - Eph. 5:25, 26).  Continue at John Samson

IMAGE

Does Calvinism Kill Missions?

It is often asserted that Calvinism creates a barrier to evangelism and missions. The accusation usually comes in the form of questions. How could those who believe the Scriptures teach predestination and election truly have a heart for missions? If God has determined who shall be saved, why would there be any need to engage in evangelism or missions? And yet, we can safely say that this is an argument lacking historical proof (and theological basis).

It must be acknowledged that Calvinists have not only robustly encouraged, engaged, and propagated missions, but have led some of the great mission’s and evangelistic movements in the history of the church. Even a cursory glance at the history of missions and missionaries produces a hall of fame filled with Calvinists. It could rightly be argued that Calvinism is not only not a barrier to missions and evangelism, but has actually proven to be a spur to missions and evangelism. In fact, it has often been the driving force in missions. This is just a sampling of the history of missions and some notable Calvinists, who have led the way into foreign fields. One doesn’t have to be a thorough going Calvinist to be struck by the impact of Calvinism upon missions.

• John Calvin: Calvin sent missionaries from Geneva into France and as far away as Brazil. Most of these young men sent to France died a martyr’s death, but the church of Geneva continued to send them.
• John Eliot: A missionary sent to the American Indians in the 1600′s. He is believed to be the first missionary among this people group. As many have said, if William Carey is the father of the modern mission’s movement, then John Eliot is its grandfather.  Continue at Jason Helopoulos

Regeneration Precedes Faith

One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: “Regeneration Precedes Faith.”

These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this:

“Faith - rebirth -justification.”

I hadn’t thought that matter through very carefully. Nor had I listened carefully to Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. I assumed that even though I was a sinner, a person born of the flesh and living in the flesh, I still had a little island of righteousness, a tiny deposit of spiritual power left within my soul to enable me to respond to the Gospel on my own. Perhaps I had been confused by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome, and many other branches of Christendom, had taught that regeneration is gracious; it cannot happen apart from the help of God.   Continue at R. C. Sproul

Predestination Destroys Legalism

Predestination destroys legalism. If salvation is by Christ alone, it leaves no room for boasting or trusting in ourselves, even a little. It strips us bare and forces us to abandon all hope in our efforts or rules ... man-made rules non-predestinarians tend to make to demonstrate they are more worthy than others of God's grace (an oxymoron). The Scripture declares: "It is because of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor 1:30-31)

This is not to say that Reformed people cannot be legalistic. Human beings find any way possible to do so, Reformed included. It means to say, rather, that if UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY the doctrine of Grace ALONE in Christ ALONE will have the real effect of stripping us of legalism etc. Again only God's grace can do so. This likewise was not an attempt to show Reformed superiority but the effect of a true understanding of the Bible will have on someone who beholds the majesty of God and is struck down by the fact that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.

----------------------

After I wrote this, I had the following discussion ensue which I believe worth posting.

Visitor: Please explain to me what you mean by God will have mercy on who he will have mercy on. Would you try to say that God would send someone to hell without a choice of accepting and serving Him?

 

Response: Thank you for your question. First, "He will have mercy on whom he has mercy" is not my words but a direct quote from Scripture (Romans :9:15, 16). That being settled, let me answer your question.... everyone who hears the gospel are presented with the command or summons to believe.   Continue at Reformation Theology

How is Predestination Encouraging?

My friend B.J. Stockman guest posts a great piece at Zach Nielsen’s blog on 5 Encouragements from Predestination:

1. God chose you because he loved you. Ephesians 1:4-5, in the ESV translation, says, “in love God predestined”. Therefore predestination is motivated by love. This means that God’s choice of you derives from his love for you. Sovereign choice doesn’t detract from God’s love it is the fountainhead of God’s love. We don’t go deeper into love by sidestepping predestination. We go deeper into love by diving into its deeps. We are familiar with the fact that God so loved the world that he gave his Beloved Son, but need to become more familiar with the fact that God so loved the world that he predestined adopted sons in the Beloved from all eternity (Eph. 1:5).

2. You are a gift of love from the Father to the Son. John 17 reveals that your salvation was planned in the heart and mind of the Triune God before there ever was a you (17:2, 24). This means that God’s love for you is bigger than you. It is tied to the love for which the Father has for his Son. And the reason this is encouraging is because the size of God’s love for you is not to be gauged by his love for you but by his love for Jesus. From his very own mouth, Jesus said, “[Father] you sent me and loved them even as you loved me” (17:23). The astonishment that we should feel at being loved by God becomes even more mind-blowing because God’s love for us flows in the same stream as God’s love for God.

3. Your present sins may be many but your future sinlessness is certain. Romans 8:29 tells us that we have been “predestined to be conformed to the image of [Jesus].” As a son of God, you are guaranteed one day to look like the Son of God. Therefore you fight sin in hope not in defeated depression. Your Christlikeness is not dependent upon your performance but upon God’s predestination.   Continue at Jared Wilson

The Justification-Sanctification Debate

Some prominent bloggers have been debating the relationship between justification and sanctification. I have suggested that part of the confusion comes when we separate what God has joined. 

 

Salvation is experienced sequentially in three dimensions but must always be understood (with deep gratitude) as one completed act of God for undeserving, helpless, powerless, ungodly sinners who are God’s enemies (Romans 5). 

The apostle Paul explained it as five completed divine actions for sinners (who could not have participated in any of them in any way).

God:

1. Foreknew: (us) (Προεγνω)
2. Predestined: (us) (Προωρισεν)
3. Called: (us) (Εκαλεσεν)
4. Justified: (us) (Εδικαιωσεν)
5. Glorified: (us) (εδοξασεν)

Some of the tension seems to come from the fact that this one-time-gift received from God by grace (Romans 8:29-30) permanently unites us to God in Christ but is experienced sequentially. Read the rest at Think Point

Freedom of the Will and the Five Finger Death Punch of Theology

At some point in nearly every debate about “who does what” in salvation a certain phrase is dropped which strikes fear into the heart of all involved. “I believe men have free will.” Like a triple dog dare issued on a schoolyard, people back up to give the concept space. The discussion of free will is an intensely polarizing subject. It’s more often put forward as a theological trump card against Calvinism than any other concept. “More moderate” theological constructs may take refuge within its walls. For many it is the final and insurmountable fall back defense against the logical minions of Reformed theology. Free will is the mother of all theological comebacks.

In the realm of debate the issuance of free will is a classic emotional appeal intended to play upon the sympathies of the listener. For certain, it is palpable. Within this discussion it is the emotional equivalent of setting a basket of puppies in front of an oncoming and uncaring steamroller of hard determinism. Who would dare advance against a reality as noble as man’s capacity to freely choose and love God? Who would dare trample over the treasured premises that underlie free will?

Free will as a doctrine (men have/retain the capacity to choose God) is intended to protect the quality of love between God and sinner. If it is not a free choice it cannot be real love. If it is not real love it was not a real choice. This sequence eventually leads to the five-finger death punch of theological debate, “Are we just a bunch of robots?” Free will and its corollaries pin the opponent down in an (apparent) inescapable contradiction between sincere love and unfeeling predestination. How can one possibly object to freewill without appearing as the Ebenezer Scrooge of theology? Debate over. Right? Not hardly. “Bah humbug!”  Keep Reading >>>

IMAGE

You Might Be a Pragmatist

I’d imagine most of us on the conservative end of evangelicalism—whether you’re part of the YRR crowd or the OBR (Old, Boring, Reformed) crowd—we understand the wrongheadedness of church growth methodology. It’s easy to see how men like the early pioneers of church growth (Donald McGavran, C. Peter Wagner, Robert Schuller) and their most famous disciples (Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen) got it wrong.

The theology of the Bible teaches us God is absolutely sovereign over salvation; He alone predestines, calls justifies, and glorifies fallen sinners who are dead in trespasses and sin. Christ is the sovereign head of the church who receives the elect bride from His Father; He alone directs, equips, and grows the church according to the will of the Father. The Holy Spirit is the executor of the Father’s will, drawing the elect to Jesus Christ; He alone regenerates the sinner, seals the elect, and empowers the church for growth and service.

We don’t deny the human element, even as we affirm monergism and divine initiative. God uses means and we’re part of the means He uses to do His work, right? As Paul said, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” And it’s important to see that the apostolic pattern of planting and watering were not according to a pragmatic, “the end justifies the means” approach. Paul, Apollos, and every other exemplary minister of the apostolic age did ministry according to the means God prescribed (i.e., Eph. 4:11-16) and not according to what seemed reasonable to the culture (i.e., 1 Cor. 2:1-5).

The end goal, as well as the means employed to achieve that end, are important to God. So, when we use pragmatic-oriented church growth principles to plant and water, we go against the grain, planting and watering according to the pattern of the flesh rather than the power of the Spirit. That’s wrong. We, along with Paul, want the faith of those who hear us to rest, not “in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:5).    Keep Reading...

IMAGE

John 3:16 Does Not Say God Loves The World

Before we get started, we must understand that no one is righteous, no not one, and none seek after God (Rom 3:10-11) – no one.

 Romans 3:10-11 KJV As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after (ekzeteo) God.

after (ekzeteo) – it is a verb that means to seek out, investigate, to seek out for one’s self, beg, crave.

The bible states that men do not seek God unless God, who has sets everything according to His will,  has chosen us (His elect) from the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1:4-6 KJV According as he hath chosen (εξελεξατο) us in him before (προ) the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (5) Having predestinated (προορισας) us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will (θεληματος), (6) To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

εξελεξατο – eklego – this is a past tense verb that means He ( God ) has already chosen before the foundation of the world. The word is derived from eklektos that means chosen, elect.   Keep Reading...

All Always Means "ALL", Right?

Question: I understand the following to be a brief summary of Jesus’ words regarding God’s Sovereign purpose in election from John 6:35-45: Unless it is granted, no one will come to Christ. All to whom it is granted will come to Christ, and all of these will be raised up to eternal life on the last day. So, this being the case, can you please explain to me the meaning of John 12:32, where Jesus said: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”?

 

Answer: What I will say here may surprise you, but the word “all” has a number of different meanings in the Bible. We tend to assume that when Jesus speaks of drawing “all men” that He is referring to every last person on the planet. Well, that may or may not be true, but it is in the CONTEXT where we find the phrase that tells us if this assumption is correct or misplaced. 

Even today we use the words “all” or “every” in many different ways. When a school teacher asks the people in his classroom, “Are we all here?” or “is everyone listening?” we understand he is not talking about every one of the 6.5 billion plus folk on the planet, but all the students who have signed up for the class. Context determines the proper interpretation or meaning of words. When the word “all” is used, it is used within a context. 

In this illustration, the “all” had a context of the school classroom, which did not include “all” the hockey players in Iceland, “all” the dentists in Denmark, or “all” the carpet layers in Atlanta, Georgia. To rip the word “all” out of its setting and say that the teacher was referring to all people everywhere, would be to totally misunderstand and misinterpret how the word was being used. Again, it is context that determines correct interpretation.    Keep Reading...

Is Divine Election Fair? by Pastor John Samson

Ephesians 1:4-6 "just as He chose us in Him 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 to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved."

 

Perhaps the biggest hurdle people stumble over concerning the Biblical doctrine of Divine Election, is the idea that it just doesn't seem fair. It is the issue I struggled with for many years, as like many others, I had the idea that in order for God to be fair, He has to treat all people equally. 

Lets consider this fact though: When a person gives that which he has no obligation to give, he is considered gracious in giving to other people; but he is certainly not considered unjust because he doesn't give to an additional party. 

Dr. Michael Horton gives an illustration which makes the issue very clear. He tells of a man who has a million dollars that he wants to give away and he decides to give $100,000 to ten different organizations. An eleventh organization hearing about this act of charity would not have a just case against the man if they were to make the claim that he hasn't been fair. 

That's obvious isn't it? The man owes nothing to this 11th organization, just as he didn't owe anything to the ten others he gave to. This 11th organization doesn't have a just claim to that money. The man has every right to do what he wants with his own money and he can give it to whomever he will. That is exactly what takes place in Divine Election. 

Romans 9 is a chapter given entirely over to this subject of Election. Paul is explaining why it is that not everyone comes to faith in Christ, even amongst the Jews. He writes:   Continue Reading...

See Also: Predestination Is True; Free Will is a Lie

IMAGE

Questions of Conviction on Eternal Security

Because "eternal life" is integral to the gospel's promise, I believe eternal security is an integral blessing of the gospel, and to deny it is to embrace a truncated gospel. Eternal security is near and dear to my heart, and I have been grateful and sobered by the many opportunities I have had to teach it to others in counseling situations over the last several years. Eternal insecurity, the doubting of grace for me, has been the number one counseling issue I have encountered in both Bible Belt Nashville and the traditionalist wasteland of rural Vermont.

When I reflect on God's promise of eternal security for those in Christ, I go to these common Scriptures and posit these questions of conviction. Keep Reading>>>

The Satisfied Lamb