Keep up to date...
People are talking…
Bear Valley Chapel
- Be Holy - Rick Walker March 10, 2010
Preacher Caleb’s Blog
- Study... March 10, 2010
Active Service
- What’s a Pearl Really Worth? March 10, 2010
Rick said:
Thanks Jeremy. This is clear to me.
Karl said:
<>
I disagree! Certain scriptures do indeed declare that God predestined individuals unto salvation!
“Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…” EPH 1:4
Now, we can certainly disagree as to if God is calling His elect based on the actions He foresaw they would take, or the actions He would take, but we cannot dismiss predestination as referring to a path, and not a people!
K:
Erynn said:
Karl, if I’m understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that God has predestined individuals to either heaven or hell, and I must disagree with this idea.
The doctrine of predestination as described by many denominations (certain individuals destined for salvation, others for condemnation) makes God a liar. If God says one can repent, be baptized and receive forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and, by implication, salvation, He must mean it. If one cannot impact his or her eternal destination by such actions because God has already chosen the destination, God is a liar.
Additional questions…
If God has already decided each individual’s eternal fate…
…what is the point of repentance?
…why love a God Who may have already destined you (or others you love) to Hell regardless of your actions?
…why evangelize? Why would Jesus ask us to spread the gospel if there is to be no eternal impact?
…what does Jesus mean when He says His words will judge us (John 12:48)? Judge us to what purpose?
If we are subject to this kind of predestination, we are just as likely to be condemned as not and Christ’s resurrection has no bearing on our life. Paul’s assesment is correct: “If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.” (NASU)
Karl said:
Hi Erynn!
If we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? Did you come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit? And if not, you shoud be able to admit that it is NOT within the natural or moral ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sin’s bondage. Therefore, the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man is hostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. Left to himself, man has no free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise.
Karl
Jeremy Sprouse said:
Karl,
I appreciate your desire to discuss this matter and come to a common understanding. This attitude is greatly needed in Christianity today. I would encourage you to use Scripture in your comments. It is only on the basis of Scripture that we can have any meaningful discussion and stand on common ground.
The one Scripture you have used so far is a phrase from Ephesians 1:4, “Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…” The key words in this phrase are: “in Him.” This is not saying God has chosen some to be in Christ and some not. It is saying that it was God’s plan from before the creation to have mankind saved in Christ. Only those in Christ will be saved. To be in Christ, we must choose to obey Him (Hebrews 5:8-9) and put on Christ in baptism (Galatians 3:26-27). To say the same thing in another way: before the world’s foundation, God elected to save those who would be obedient to His Son. This Scripture no more teaches that God predestined individuals to salvation or destruction than the Scriptures under discussion in the article.
In addition, you have not addressed the objections to Calvinistic predestination raised from the start in the article:
How can God be just when He has judge people on actions He predestined them to do? How can God be holy if He predestined some to perform evil deeds? How can God be loving if He set some up to fail and be condemned eternally? It just doesn’t fit. God doesn’t want anyone to perish—He wants all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
Nor have you addressed the questions Erynn posed to you in her comment:
If God has already decided each individual’s eternal fate…
…what is the point of repentance?
…why love a God Who may have already destined you (or others you love) to Hell regardless of your actions?
…why evangelize? Why would Jesus ask us to spread the gospel if there is to be no eternal impact?
…what does Jesus mean when He says His words will judge us (John 12:48)? Judge us to what purpose?
If you truly want to discuss this matter, why not address these questions?
Karl said:
Jeremy,
Ok, I will need to back up a bit to properly answer your questions but let’s do examine the scripures closely at it relates to our diverse positions. BTW: I grew up in the CoC and still consider the CoC family my brothers and sisters. One think I know about the CoC is they know their bibles! With that common understanding, and hopefully respect, I believe we can challenge and thus sharpen each other in a way that will be pleasing to Christ!
1st: What is point or repentance? First I would point out that repentance is NOT something that originates within man. It’s is the product of God’s agency, His Spirit working in the minds and hearts of man unto repentance. The Bible portrays faith and repentance as God’s gifts to his elect in order to emphasize that although Jerry is the author of these actions, God is the ultimate cause. (See II Tim 2:25; Acts 5:31; Acts 11:18) They are portrayed as gifts because they flow from God’s sovereign grace.
People are by nature incapable of repenting of their sin, not because they want to but are hindered by God. Nor is it due to circumstances beyond their control. They are incapable of repentance because it is their nature to love sin, not hate it. They choose not to repent; they prefer to persist in their sinful and rebellious ways.
Do not be misled by inaccurate statements about the teachings of Calvinism. It is not as though contrite and sorrowful sinners stand before God pleading that he grant them repentance, but God, locked in by his cruel decree, refuses to heed their request. There is “none righteous,” says Paul, “not even one.” There is “none who understands,” there is “none who seeks for God” (Rom. 3:10-11). If any should repent, he will be saved. But none will repent unless God graciously grants it to him.
This foundational truth is echoed in the Book of Acts: “And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, ‘Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life’” (Acts 11:18; see also 5:31). When Peter and his associates witnessed the saving response to the gospel on the part of these Gentiles, to what conclusion did they come? Was it that by free will they met the conditions on the basis of which God would elect them? God forbid!
Peter saw their response and could only deduce that God had made a gift to them of repentance. Peter would not need to have drawn such a conclusion if repentance were a universal gift that all receive. He sees and hears their faith in Christ, from which he concludes that God granted them repentance. If everyone, even those who persist in unbelief, are granted repentance, Peter could not and would not have reasoned as he did.
Concering the need for evangelising: I thing a quote from J. I. Packer explains my position well:
“While we must always remember that it is our responsibility to proclaim salvation, we must never forget that it is God who saves. It is God who brings men and women under the sound of the gospel, and it is God who brings them to faith in Christ. Our evangelistic work is the instrument that He uses for this purpose, but the power that saves is not in the instrument: it is in the hand of the One who uses the instrument. We must not at any stage forget that. For if we forget that it is God’s prerogative to give results when the gospel is preached, we shall start to think that it is our responsibility to secure them. And if we forget that only Good can give faith, we shall start to think that the making of converts depends, in the last analysis, not on God, but on us, and that the decisive factor is the way in which we evangelize” (J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God [Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1961], p. 27).
In closing, we evangelise because God not only ordained His elect, but He also ordained the means. And that means is evangelism. And while I am not a baptist, I am reminded they converted over 650,000 souls last year. Clearly they see the need for evangelism. The only difference being, they know their will be a harvest and God has simply ordained that they participate in His gathering.
K:
Jeremy Sprouse said:
Karl,
Thank you for replying with Scriptures; these provide substance from which we can work towards standing united on common ground. A few questions remain, the most pressing of which is regarding 2 Peter 3:9. If God wants all to come to repentance and He is capable of granting it (as you have suggested), why would He only grant repentance to a few? Also, in Acts 17:30, Paul says “God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent.” Why would He command all people everywhere to repent, if He had not given all people everywhere the ability to repent and the power lied exclusively with Him? With this in mind, take a closer look at some of those Scriptures you mentioned. In Acts 5:31, it says God granted repentance to Israel. This is not talking about individuals, but an entire nation. Yet, the entire nation did not and has not repented. Also, in Acts 11:18, they say God has granted repentance to the Gentiles (i.e., non-Jews). They do not say God granted repentance only to Cornelius and his household, but to all Gentiles. These two scriptures show that God has granted everyone the ability to repent: the Jews and the Gentiles (i.e., non-Jews).
Salvation is ultimately a gift from God (cf. Romans 6:23), there is no dispute here. However, this does not mean man is left without a choice in the matter. In Joshua 6:2, God tells Joshua He has given the city into his hands. Yet, Joshua still had to follow God’s commands to receive this gift (Joshua 6:3ff). As you say, many do love sin and refuse to repent, but this does not mean God has not offered them the gift of salvation. It is their choice to take hold of that gift and live for God or to remain in their sin living for themselves. According to Romans 6, we are slaves to sin leading to death or slaves to obedience leading to righteousness. According to 6:17, they became slaves of righteousness by obeying from the heart the form of teaching to which they were committed. The obedience came from the heart. Paul goes on in verse 19 to urge them on. He reminds them that they used to present themselves as slaves to impurity, but now he commands that they present themselves as slaves to righteousness. Note that they must present themselves. The power to do so is within them.
In addition, if God has only granted repentance to some and not all, He has shown partiality. He has favored some and not all. Romans 2:11 says there is no partiality with God. It would be a cruel man who watches a crowd of men drowning and only saves a few if it is in his power to save all. In the same way, God would be cruel to watch all of mankind steeped in sin and only offer salvation to a few of them when it was in His power to offer it to all.
Karl said:
When asked why God would desire all men repent and not perish (II Peter 3:9), then not grant such repentance, it is necessary to bring up some clear biblical examples with questions for you to answer, where God does not desire repentance and then ask how you can then say that He still does? And yet, to remain true to II Peter 3:9, it needs to be discussed why this passage still holds true. And if this seems contradictory I will do my best to explain away what may seem like a paradox, but is not.
Question #1: If God is truly trying to get all men to repent what do we make of the following scripture:
“What horrors await you, Korazin and Bethsaida! For if the miracles I did in you had been done in wicked Tyre and Sidon, their people would have sat in deep repentance long ago, clothed in sackcloth and throwing ashes on their heads to show their remorse.” – Matt 11:21
In other words, if Christ knew the people of Tyre and Sidon would have repented why did He not perform miracles there so that they would repent?
Question #2: If God wants all men to repent then why did Christ teach in parables, one purpose which is, so men would NOT understand less they did repent?
“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.” – Mark 4:11,12
Note: this particular passage is talking about conversion, and the forgiveness of sins. And note that Jesus does *not* want some people to be converted; He does not want them to have their sins forgiven. He foresees that they would have faith if they truly understood His message, but He explicitly says that He uses parables so that they will not understand Him. Why is this?
Question #3: If God wants all men to repent else perish, why then, create those (or allow the creation of those) He know will never respond to Him in faith? Unless you believe God does not know the fate of man, you must admit it is God’s will that men be born He knows will later perish. How then, can we say, it is God‘s will that men repent and not perish?
Well, I look forward to your response to these questions. In the meanwhile, I want to remind you of something I mentioned earlier. And that is that the scriptures reveal that God has two wills – a declarative will and a secret will. We know this to be true for a few reasons. Some of which I hope to cover in my next response. Also, you asked if I believe God shows favortism. I hope to respond to that, in time, as well. Take care and God bless!
Karl
Jeremy Sprouse said:
Karl,
I am eagerly awaiting your promised next response and hope it will include an answer to my question about 2 Peter 3:9. In the meantime, I’ll post some responses to your questions.
As to your first question, we must note that Tyre and Sidon are not the subjects of this statement; the subjects are the cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida. Jesus is denouncing these cities because of their refusal to repent despite the evidence shown to them. (An odd thing for Him to be upset over if Jesus believed God only granted repentance to a few). I believe Jesus was here referring not to the Tyre and Sidon of His day, but rather those of antiquity frequently condemned for their wickedness in the Old Testament. Sure, He might have come to earth earlier, but God had Jesus come at the fullness of time (Galatians 4:4)—the exact right time (Romans 5:6). In His omniscience, God sent Jesus at the exact moment in history that would make salvation possible for all. As to the Tyre and Sidon of His day, Jesus did, in fact, go to Tyre and Sidon and perform miracles (Matthew 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-31, and Luke 6:17-19). In addition, we read of believers in both of these cities in Acts 21:3 and 27:3—they did readily accept the gospel.
As to your second question about Mark 4:11-12, we need to understand Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 6:9-10. In Isaiah 6, God is telling Isaiah to go and preach to a people who would not listen to him because of their hard hearts. It refers not to God’s actions, but theirs. If they softened their hearts and were willing to see and hear they would repent, but they are not willing to do this. God is telling Isaiah to go and preach to these hard hearted people regardless of their response. When Isaiah asks how long he is going to do this, God tells him to do it until there is no one left to hear (Isaiah 6:11-13). Even though they would not listen, God still gave Israel the opportunity to hear and repent. It shows the compassion and love of God to continually reach out to a people who continually rejected Him. Why? He wants all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). Jesus frequently quotes this passage (i.e., Isaiah 6:9-10) emphasizing how well it fit the generation to which He was preaching. It is clear how Jesus is using this passage and what He means in the parallel passage recorded in Matthew 13:10-17. Parables were amazing truths told with simple stories, it was only those who showed the openness of mind and heart that would reflect upon these stories and learn their meanings. Those with hard hearts would do as those of Isaiah’s generation; they would hear a story and dismiss it. It was possible, however, for unrepentant men to understand these parables as evidenced in the following clear Biblical examples: a lawyer wishing to justify himself understanding the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37), and the chief priests and Pharisees understood that some of Jesus’ parables were speaking about them (Matthew 21:45). The use of parables had nothing to do with preventing men from obeying, it had everything to do with encouraging people to reflect and meditate upon God’s word in addition to being easy to remember.
As to your third question, who are we to question God? Job tried it and received the humbling experience of God asking him four chapters’ worth of questions he couldn’t answer (Job 38-41). In Isaiah 55:8-9, God tells us: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.” Also, just because God knows the fate of men, doesn’t mean He has left man with no choice in his fate (a point made in the original article). It is like a man standing on top of a tall building and looking down at an intersection. He sees two cars that are heading straight for each other and he knows they are going to collide. When they do collide, it is not because the man made it happen; his foreknowing was not foreordaining. It was the choices those drivers made that led to their collision. God knows the choices we are going to make, but has left those choices to us. In addition, just as many questions like this if not more can be asked about the Calvinist position: Why create people you are going to prevent from obeying and then condemn them? Why have people live on earth at all if you have already decided their eternal fate? Why desire the love of people you have made incapable of loving you? Why enjoy the love of those you have forced to love you?
The Scriptures are easily understood when we take the time to examine them for ourselves. I hope you are examining the Scriptures for yourself to find answers rather than depending upon the doctrines and traditions of a man. I look forward to your long anticipated answer to the question regarding 2 Peter 3:9.
Jeremy Sprouse said:
Here are a few other Scriptures (among many) we should consider regarding this issue:
“This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4).
“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31).
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them” (Deuteronomy 30:19-20).
Karl said:
ON II PETER 3:9
Before answering I want to go back and address a passage you disputed earlier. Your redress went as follows:
The one Scripture you have used so far is a phrase from Ephesians 1:4, “Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…” The key words in this phrase are: “in Him.” This is not saying God has chosen some to be in Christ and some not. It is saying that it was God’s plan from before the creation to have mankind saved in Christ. Only those in Christ will be saved…To say the same thing in another way: before the world’s foundation, God elected to save those who would be obedient to His Son…
Actually this passage most definitely does teach that God has predestined those who will be saved as it is His sovereign right to do so. And He exercises that right. It is simply a misinterpretation to suggests otherwise. I would like to remind you, sir, that one of the first orders of biblical interpretation is identifying who is being addressed. In Ephesians 1:4 that audience is not a general audience of believers and pagans. Not is it an address to a body comprised of no one but unbelievers. If it were, your rebuttal would be sound. But that is not the case. Instead, Paul is addressing the church, or body of believers at Ephesus. It was to them, specifically, and without so much a hint of addressing mankind in general whom Paul was addressing when he said, “even as He chose us”. And so no, the key words are not “in Him”. The key words are “He chose us in Him“ with “us” being those of the body of Christ. And this God did before the foundation of the world. To suggest otherwise is to make God a passive observer but I‘ll discuss that another time.
With this said, though, I can also provide a response to II Peter 3:9 for you are guilty of the exact same exercise. That is, you have interpreted this passage to fit a theology overlooking the simple rules of biblical interpretation of who this passage is referring to. Once again the writer is referring to a body of believer when he says, “The Lord is long suffering toward you”. But what’s more, the repentance being discussed isn’t even that repentance that leads someone to Christ but from very specific sins, namely, not living in a holy manner (vs. 11, 14) and thus unprepared for His coming. A careful reading of the entire chapter should make this evident.
Then there is the contradiction in scripture that results if we hold to your interpretation. For Isaiah teaches us that God will accomplish all that He desires (Isaiah 46:10). But if it His desire that no one perishes, and He also accomplishes all He desires, does this mean no one will be lost? Well, unless you believe in Universalism, which neither of us does, then interpreting II Peter 3:9 as you suggest creates an insurmountable contradiction. And while I believe in God’s universal love for all His creation, and while I also believe God does not delight in the destruction of any man, I also believe God will accomplish all He desires. If it is God’s desire to save all, then all will be saved, but if it is His desire to save some, a chosen race, a peculiar people, then that is all that will be accomplished.
Jeremy Sprouse said:
Karl,
I can certainly see your difficulties regarding these passages. As I mentioned in the introduction of the original article, the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination has made some passages harder to understand. I know it can be difficult to find time to study these issues for yourself, but I would encourage you to not to rely upon the study of others. In the meantime, I think a closer look at these passages will help you to understand the Biblical view of predestination.
As to Ephesians 1:4, I agree identifying who is being addressed is essential to a proper understanding and have recognized that Paul was addressing Christians from the start. Just because Paul is writing to one group, however, does not in itself mean the message applies only to that group (otherwise there would be no point to reading any of the writings of Paul as they are all addressed to Christians living in the first century and not directly to us today). In Ephesians 1:3-14, Paul is giving a doxology praising the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for their work in the redemption of mankind. Specifically, in 1:3-6, Paul is praising the Father for laying out the plan of salvation and making the choice that all would be saved in Christ. Paul is explaining the mystery of God’s will (which is how He was going to save Jews and Gentiles in Christ (cf. Ephesians 3:4-7) and the summing up of all things in Christ (Ephesians 1:9-10)). Not only is the phrase “in Him” key in Ephesians 1:4, the phrases “in Him” and “in Christ” are key throughout the epistle to the Ephesians. Paul is praising God for choosing to save mankind through Christ, a message Paul and his immediate audience have listened to and believed in (which involves obedience), after they heard and believed, they were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise (Ephesians 1:13-14).
As to 2 Peter 3:9, I am glad to know you have identified who it was written to, but you might have missed what Peter is trying to accomplish in this section. Peter is writing to assure his readers that the Day of Judgment will come because mockers are going to come disputing this fact (2 Peter 3:3-4). Against this scoffing, Peter gives evidence based upon history and sound logical reasoning. First he explains it is God’s word that created the world, sent the flood upon the world in the Days of Noah, and is reserving the present world for destruction (3:5-7). His reasoning: if the first two came true, why would we doubt the third? Then, He goes on to explain the delay of the Day of Judgment fits with the nature of God. First, God does not see time the way we see it (3:8). Second, because God is being patient with them (3:9). Peter bases the fact of God’s patience toward them on the principle that God does not want any to perish but all to come to repentance (notice the inclusive language Peter uses and emphasizes). Certainly, if God wants all to be saved He is going to be patient with those obedient to the gospel. If Peter had wanted to say what you are suggesting, it would have been much clearer for him to write: “God is patient toward you, not wanting you to perish but to come to repentance.” As you said, Peter is warning them not to listen to mockers and slacken in their obedience, but to prepare for the Day of Judgment (a warning that does not make sense if they were already predestined to be saved). Furthermore, there are numerous passages emphasizing God has made salvation available to all and wants all to take hold of it. Let’s examine just two of them. First, John 3:16, says: “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” The world John is talking about is the same world that did not know Christ (John 1:10), that hated Christ (John 7:7), and whose deeds are evil (7:7), who hates and persecuted the followers of Christ (John 15:18). Jesus shed His light on the world and died for the world so that those in the world could come out of the world into His kingdom. Second, 1 Timothy 2:4 says “[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” In the context of this passage, Paul is instructing Christians to pray for all men, kings, and those in authority. The reason–God wants all men to be saved.
As to Isaiah 46:10, remember to study the context. I am sure you’ll agree that another important rule in Biblical interpretation is to consider passages within their context. I do not think this rule was applied when you offered up Isaiah 46:10 as a general principle. In Isaiah 46:11, God explains the purposes and desires of 46:10. His pleasure is to bring a bird of prey from the east, the man of His purpose from a far country (i.e., the Medo-Persian empire led by Cyrus who would conquer Babylon). Cyrus is the one who will perform all of God’s desire (Isaiah 44:28). What God desires Cyrus to do is subdue the nations which is going to turn out well for Israel (Isaiah 45:1-4). All these passages are talking about the destruction of the Babylonian empire and restoration of Israel back to the promised land after the 70 years of Babylonian Captivity. The fulfillment of these prophecies is recorded in Ezra. If you are going to use Isaiah 46:10 to teach that God is going to accomplish everything He desires, in the context of Isaiah, you must also believe everything God desires was accomplished by Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28). Obviously, this interpretation does not make sense because everything God desired was not accomplished at that time. All of God’s desires in Isaiah 46:10 must be referring to all of His desires regarding the restoration of Israel. It is not a general statement; it is specifically regarding the return of His people to their land.
I hope these passages have helped you to see the loving God of the Bible who has reached out and freely provided salvation to all willing to come to Him.
Karl said:
Jeremy,
Thanks for your reply. I too hope you will allow God to speak to you and not read personal doctrine into the scriptures but let scriptures dictate doctrine to you. Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus was, indeed, a doxology praising God for His work in redemption, but it most certainly was not in regards to the redemption of mankind in general, as you suggest, but for the redemption of the believers at Ephesus, specifically. To interpret it otherwise is to rob it of the special endearment and connection Paul wanted to convey in his address. Now, you reminded me, and rightfully so, that while a proper interpretation of this verse must recognize the subject or subjects being addressed, this does not necessarily limit it’s scope. And this is true. But neither is it true that I have limited the scope of Paul’s letter to include only those believers at Ephesus. Rather, Paul could be praising God for the redemption of any believer – past, present, or future – and in any church. But you sir, want to include all mankind – both the saved, and the reprobates – as those within Paul’s scope, and a careful interpretation does not allow for such. There is a difference between giving praise to God for in His redemptive efforts, and those of God’s redemptive accomplishments! And so let it be stated once more, when Paul declares…
“Blessed be the God and Father…who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing…and CHOSE US IN HIM before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish…PREDESTINATING us unto sonship…according to His good pleasure…in whom we have redemption…WHICH HE CAUSED…” (Eph 1:3-8)
[Administrator's Note: This was probably done unintentionally, but the way these phrases are put together can be quite misleading. There is a lot in and around these phrases not quoted. Please read the text in your Bible. --J.S.]
…he is addressing God’s elect chosen according to that which “He purposed in Himself”. Praise God! To take such an endearment and make it fit your Arminian theology is tantamount to fitting a square peg into a round hole.
Now, regarding Isaiah 46:10 you wrote:
If you are going to use Isaiah 46:10 to teach that God is going to accomplish everything He desires, in the context of Isaiah, you must also believe everything God desires was accomplished by Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28)
Actually no. Why can’t this simply suggest that everything God desired for Cyrus to accomplished was so done? And what an accomplishment it was! In Isaiah 44:28, and as can be demonstrated in chapters 43-45, Christ, as the Servant of Jehovah is typified by Cyrus king of Persia, who was Jehovah’s Shepherd and who fulfilled all the desires of Jehovah. Cyrus served God by defeating Babylon, God’s enemy (48:14) which had captured His people and destroyed the temple (II Kings 25-25), by declaring the release of Israel from captivity, and by issuing a decree allowing the Jews to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem (45:13; Ezra 1:2-3). These three things are types, signifying Christ’s defeating Satan (Heb 2:14), releasing His believers from Satan’s captivity (Luke 4:18; Eph 4:8) and building up the church as God’s temple (Matt 16:18; Eph 2:21).
But herein lies a dispute regarding God’s sovereignty which demands to be addressed. For if you are suggesting, sir, that God does not accomplish everything He wants then you argue against the God that I worship and serve. For the scriptures declare that He is the almighty, and possessor of all power in heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsel, thwart His purpose, or resist His will. The sovereignty of the God of scripture is absolute, irresistible, and infinite. To put it now in its strongest form, the scriptures declare that God does as He pleases, only as He pleases, always as He pleases and that whatever takes place in time is but the outworking of that which He decreed in eternity. In proof of this assertion I appeal to the following scriptures—”But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased” (Ps. 115:3). “For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?” (Isa. 14:27). “And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He does according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand or say unto Him, What doest thou?” (Dan. 4:35). “For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36).
In His Service,
K:
Karl said:
Regarding John 3:16
Regarding John 3:16
Before beginning a discourse of this oft misinterpreted verse I believe it appropriate that I ask if you have the desire to truly engage is such? And I ask this with sincerity being fully aware of the time necessary to invest in more debate. Secondly, I would be remiss in explaining some reluctance, on my part, for digressing this verse with a Church of Christ minister for the following: Since when has any true member of the Church of Christ considered John 3:16 a universal passage regarding God’s universal love and universal plan of redemption? And if it is one it must, by any measure of proper exegesis be the other for it includes both.
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
That is what the scripture declares and it is also what I hold to be the truth. But are you going to tell me to take the first half of this passage at face value and reject the second half? In other words, do you really consider it proper to explain to me that when John says, “For God so loved the world” this must mean what it says, but when he states, “Whoever believes in Him will not perish” is not what he means regarding the inheriting of everlasting life? That is your rather pliable position, is it not?
K:
Jeremy Sprouse said:
Karl,
Thank you for your continued interest in studying what the Bible teaches. I firmly believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present. God accomplishes anything He purposes to do. He, however, has granted us the freedom to choose how we will live our lives. This does not take away anything about God; it was His choice to do so. This choice was present from the very beginning, as evidenced in His creation of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God gave mankind the choice to obey or not. If God had never put that tree in the garden, man would have had no other choice than to serve God. As such, God does not get everything He desires in the sense that He desires and wants all to come to Him and be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9), but having left that choice to man, not all mankind will come to Him. It pleased God to do it this way; it does not impugn His sovereignty in any way. This is the God I serve. The God you worship and serve desires and wants some to be lost and eternally condemned and has given them no other choice in life—this god is foreign to me and the Bible.
As to Isaiah 46:10 and 44:28, please look at them side by side:
The two phrases in bold are exact and referring to the same person so we must treat each consistently. The standard we apply to one must be applied to the other. I think you hit the nail on the head when you asked: “Why can’t this simply suggest that everything God desired for Cyrus to accomplished [sic] was so done?” That is exactly what I believe these two verses are teaching.
As to John 3:16, I have no problem with any part of this verse (nor do I know anyone in the body of Christ who does). John wrote his gospel for a purpose, specifically so that his readers would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that this believe would produce life in His name (John 20:30-31). (An odd purpose if John believed that God predestined individuals to believe or not). According to his purpose, John defines what it means to believe in His gospel. In 1:12, he equates belief with receiving Jesus. In 3:36, he equates belief with obeying Jesus. In 6:35 and 6:40, he equates belief with coming to Jesus and beholding Him. Obviously, this is just a small sample of what John teaches about belief, but it is enough to show John has more in mind than a mental conviction—belief to John involved action in response to that mental conviction. It seems like you do have a problem believing John 3:16 (as well as Acts 17:30-31, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, Deuteronomy 30:19-20, etc. . .) mean what they say and you are welcome to share your opinions.
As an aside: the use of the “world” in John’s gospel is more rich and meaningful than many realize, please read this article, before assuming my understanding of the word.
Karl said:
Regarding John 3:16 and other passages presented I think you’ll find I have less difficulty with such as you find with the concept of God’s elect, and this due to the sovereign decree’s of God, carried to fruition by His Spirit, and made possible by the power of Christ’s resurrection. Thus, we find the Holy Trinity engaged in the affairs of man to carry out God Holy edict in establishing a people all to Himself, a peculiar people, a chosen race.
Do we find this doctrine taught in the Scriptures? Yes, and I have already labored this point in a digression of Ephesians where Paul seek to comfort and strengthen the saints with revelation of Gods eternal purpose for them. Now, you wish to rob this letter of such comfort by suggesting, even demanding it has as its subject all of mankind – both the saints and the reprobates. Unto this there is absolutely no basis as everything is directed towards comforting the saved only. For there we read that: “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before Him in love; having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,” 1:4, 5.
But there are many such examples. In Romans 8:29, 30 we read of what is referred to as the golden chain of redemption which stretches from the eternity that is past to the eternity that is to come: “For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He foreordained, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” Foreknown, foreordained, called, justified, glorified, with always the same people included in each group; and where one of these factors is present, all the others are in principle present with it. I believe Paul has cast the verse in the past tense because with God the purpose is in principle executed when it was formed. This is affirmed when we see that the Scriptures represent election as occurring in past time, irrespective of personal merit, and altogether sovereign, “The children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,” Rom. 9:11, 12.
Now if the doctrine of election is not true, I can safely challenge you to tell me what the apostle means by such language? In Romans 9 we are pointed illustratively to the sovereign acceptance of Isaac and rejection of Ishmael, and to the choice of Jacob and not of Esau before their birth and therefore before either had done good or bad; we are explicitly told that in the matter of salvation it is not of him that wills, or of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, and that He has mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardens. And I would be remiss in pointing out, and as you are fond of saying, this in strange language, indeed, if God was simply sitting back and waiting and watching to see unto whom, His graces should be bestowed!. In fact, still in Romans 9 we are pointedly directed to behold in God the potter who makes the vessels which proceed from His hand each for an end of His appointment, that He may work out His will upon them. It is safe to say that language cannot be chosen better adapted to teach Predestination at its height.
But even if we were without any other inspired passages than those quoted from Paul we should be constrained to admit that the doctrine of Election finds a place in Scripture. And if we can admit that the writings of the prophets and apostles were breathed by the Spirit of God, and are thus infallible, then what we find there will be sufficient; and thus on the irrefutable testimony of the Scriptures we must acknowledge Election, or Predestination, to be an established truth, and one which we must receive if we are to possess the whole counsel of God. Every Christian must believe in some kind of election; for while the Scriptures leave unexplained many things about the doctrine of Election, they make very plain the FACT that there has been an election.
Christ explicitly declared to His disciples, “Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit,” John 15:16, by which He made God’s choice primary and man’s choice only secondary and a result of the former. You, however, in making salvation depend upon man’s choice to use or abuse proffered grace reverse this order and makes man’s choice the primary and decisive one, and God‘s choice the secondary.
I submit there is no place in the Scriptures for an election which is carefully adjusted to the foreseen actions of the creature. The divine will is never made dependent on the creaturely will for its determinations. Arminianism takes this choice out of the hands of God and places it in the hands of man. Any system which substitutes a man-made election falls below the Scriptural teaching on this subject!
Karl said:
Jeremy,
Thanks for your continual interest in our discussions! I hope this is a interesting topic for debate for all those interested.
Ok, Regarding John 3:16, there is sufficient and overwhelming scriptural evidence to indicate Jesus was here speaking of God’s love as being an affection for all men without distinction, not a love for all men without exception, as the Arminian position demands. First, there is the evidence of context. In John chapter 3 Jesus is speaking to the Jewish Nicodemus of the profound influence of God’s Spirit in the mystery of the new birth. As a side note, let it be observed the normative behavior of Church of Christ members is to render this passage as referring to the Christian sacrament of water baptism. This is a gross distortion of something much more profound than baptism, and involving the direct operation of the Holy Spirit unto regeneration. Had Jesus been teaching the importance of water baptism as the means to the new birth Nicodemus, of all people, would have understood it. That he was so confounded by the topic at hand is evidence enough water baptism is not the subject matter.
Concerning our present discussion, it should be noted that as a dedicated disciple of Judaism, Nicodemus was under the impression God’s love only reached as far as the shores of Israel. And this, not without cause for God did many times in the Hebrew text display His discriminate love for the “house of Israel”. Let it also be noted that even the apostle Peter was well into his ministry before he understood the significance of what Christ is revealing to Nicodemus. And so when we observe Christ teaching that God’s love now extends to both Jews and Gentiles, we should no more believe that includes all men without exception that we should believe God loved all Jews without exception. And there is scriptural support for this as well. What it does prove, and in keeping within the context of this passage as to whom was being addressed, and why, is that God is showing that by the sending of His Son God loves all men without distinction, and has proved it by the sending of His Son.
There is much more to add to this but for now I would simply ask this: if God so loved the world, that is all individuals in the world to include all men who have ever lived, who live today, and who will live tomorrow, what proof is there of that love for those millions of reprobate men (aka OT Gentiles) who died before the sending of Christ, some of which God directly ordered the elimination of?
In His Service
K:
Jeremy Sprouse said:
Karl,
It is good to hear from you again. I guess I need to be further enlightened. I don’t see where the Gentiles enter into the discussion between Nicodemus and Jesus or how this fits into John’s purpose in writing the gospel. Can you please explain this from the context of John 3?
As to God’s love for the Gentiles it is shown through the creation (Romans 1:18-21) and the moral standard He gave to them (Romans 2:14-16). As to the passage in Romans 9, it is in a section (i.e., Romans 9-11) where Paul is explaining how Israel fits into God’s redemptive plan. The passage on Jacob and Esau, is a quote from Malachi 1:1-4 and is talking about the nations that came from these two not the individuals. It is not talking of God’s choosing them to be saved or perish, but choosing one through whom the Messiah would be born and fulfill the promises given to Abraham. As to the other passages you used, they have either been discussed in the original article or in previous comments and you have not responded to the arguments presented there. Also you have not discussed Acts 17:30-31, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, or Deuteronomy 30:19-20 and many other of the passages and arguments I have presented.