Pastoral Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election

Theology
42

@KPuff I found this…

Brief Definitions

What is Fatalism?
Alfred Hitchcock produced some of my favorite movies. One such movie was, “The Man Who Knew Too Much,” starring Doris Day and James Stewart. This movie was also my introduction to Fatalism. Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) was introduced and soon became Doris Day’s signature song on the comedy, “The Doris Day Show.”

Fatalism is the unbiblical idea that regardless of what choices one makes, some event “X” is inevitably going to happen. It teaches that some kind of blind impersonal force controls everything; an impersonal determinism. Therefore, fate is aimless and arbitrary. A dark cloud of hopelessness and inevitability hangs over the victims of fate. No matter what they say, think, or do all their choices are all absolutely meaningless. It is a godless doctrine!

What is Predestination?
On the other hand, the biblical doctrine of predestination/election, teaches that God has a loving divine goal and he is working all things out according to his own will and purpose (Eph 1:3-11; cf. Dan 4:35; Isa 14:24; 46:10). Predestination teaches that God neither ordains, does, nor permits, anything except that which serves his divine purpose (Psa 33:11). God is sovereign over the universe; the One who does all things as he wills.

Fatalistic Charges
As beautiful as the song, Que Sera, Sera, was to me at one time, things don’t just happen. Christians reject fatalism. Rather, they understand that the only loving, holy, wise, good, and sovereign God has control of every detail of life (Matt 10:29-30). They believe God is sovereign over all - the entire universe.

However, Calvinists are often accused by those who adhere to Arminianism of being fatalistic - or at least to have fatalistic tendencies. However, just the opposite is actually true. While Calvinists understand God’s providence to mean that he has sovereignly foreordained all that comes to pass, without being the author of evil, (see WCF V, Of Providence) providence is not purposeless and arbitrary! Rather, providence is the outworking of a specific plan by a loving purposeful God. Unlike fatalism, God is immanent and personally relates to those in this world (Deut 32:10; Psa. 68:5; 103; 131; John 14:16, 23; Rom 8:16, 26; Gal 4:6, etc.). Moreover, providence does not render one’s choices meaningless. Men are free to make choices - meaningful ones - according to their nature (Jer 17:9; John 6:44; 8:34; Jas 1:13-15).

Unlike Arminianism??, in Calvinism, man has free agency in that he is a free moral agent and makes genuine choices that have very real consequences, but he is limited by his fallen nature. Perhaps an illustration would help:

There is a story of a little Dutch boy, which embodies very fairly the difference between God and Fate. This little boy’s home was on a dyke in Holland, near a great wind-mill, whose long arms swept so close to the ground as to endanger those who carelessly strayed under them. But he was very fond of playing precisely under this mill. His anxious parents had forbidden him to go near it; and, when his stubborn will did not give way, had sought to frighten him away from it by arousing his imagination to the terror of being struck by the arms and carried up into the air to have life beaten out of him by their ceaseless strokes. One day, heedless of their warning, he strayed again under the dangerous arms, and was soon absorbed in his play there forgetful of everything but his present pleasures. Perhaps, he was half conscious of a breeze springing up; and somewhere in the depth of his soul, he may have been obscurely aware of the danger with which he had been threatened. At any rate, suddenly, as he played, he was violently smitten from behind, and found himself swung all at once, with his head downward, up into the air; and then the blows came, swift and hard! 0 what a sinking of the heart! 0 what a horror of great darkness! It had come then! And he was gone! In his terrified writhing, he twisted himself about, and looking up, saw not the immeasureable expanse of the brazen heavens above him, but his father’s face. At once, he realized, with a great revulsion, that he was not caught in the mill, but was only receiving the threatened punishment of his disobedience. He melted into tears, not of pain, but of relief and joy. In that moment, he understood the difference between falling into the grinding power of a machine and into the loving hands of a father.

That is the difference between Fate and Predestination. [Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 1, Edited by John E. Meeter, published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970].

Arminians, not Calvinists are the ones who are actually fatalistic. As H. M. Curry wrote in the booklet, Feast of Fat Things:

Interesting, I am not a Calvinist, so does this mean I am a fatalist?

J.

43

Honest question to @Johann , @KPuff , or anyone else who wishes to participate. This is what I have always understood it to be. The conflict usually arises because we struggle to imagine knowledge without temporal priority (knowing something before it happens). If God is outside of time, there is no “before.” His knowledge follows your act in the order of reality, even if it seems “ahead” of your act in the order of time.

The question of how divine foreknowledge interacts with human freedom is a classic philosophical and theological puzzle often referred to as the Dilemma of Theological Fatalism. When we conceptualize God as being “outside of time,” we move into a perspective often championed by thinkers like Boethius or Thomas Aquinas. To explore whether this negates free will, it helps to break the logic down into how we perceive “seeing” versus “causing.”

The “Eternal Present” God exists in an “eternal now,” He does not “foresee” the future in the way we anticipate a weather report. Instead, He “sees” all moments simultaneously. Imagine you are standing on a high mountain watching a boat travel down a winding river. You can see where the boat was, where it is, and the waterfall it is approaching all at once. Your observation of the boat heading toward the waterfall does not force the rower to steer that way.

In this view, God’s knowledge is post-conditional rather than pre-deterministic. He knows what you do because you freely choose to do it; you do not choose to do it because He knows it.

Philosophers often distinguish between two types of necessity: Simple Necessity: Something that must be true by its very nature (e.g., 2 + 2 = 4). Something necessary only because it is happening. For example, if you are currently sitting down, it is “necessary” that you are sitting (you can’t be sitting and standing at the same exact time). However, your choice to sit was not forced; you were free to remain standing until the moment you sat.

If God sees you choosing “Option A” from His position outside of time, “Option A” is conditionally necessary (it is what is happening), but it wasn’t simply necessary (you weren’t forced into it by a prior cause). The tension often lies in the word “plan.” * If “planning” means God scripts every movement like a puppet master, then free will is indeed an illusion.

However, many theological frameworks argue that God’s plan is a comprehensive response to human freedom. In this sense, the “plan” is not a rigid track you are bolted to, but a divine orchestration that accounts for every free choice you make, weaving those choices into a larger purpose without overriding your agency. (Since you are going to sit on this date and time, God arranges for you to have a chair to sit on.)

Another way to look at this is through Middle Knowledge (Molinism). This theory suggests God knows “counterfactuals”—He knows exactly what any person would freely choose in any given situation. By placing people in specific circumstances, He fulfills His plan, yet the individuals are still making choices based on their own true desires

If I place two bowls out, one with Candy, one with veggies, I know that either of my two of my kids will take the candy. However, my middle boy will, without a doubt, choose the veggies. I did not make him, I just knew He would.
Peter

44

@PeterC

I looked for a question (or a question mark) and did not find one.
You offered a thorough explanation of your ideas, but I’m not sure what you are looking for from me. Are you asking how I hold these ideas in my own head; how I understand, what you call the “Dilemma of Theological Fatalism”? I have alread “weighed in” on this topic (#6)

KP

45

Which of these “versions” do you find most consistent with the Greek morphology we’ve been looking at in the Pauline epistles @PeterC?
As you can see, this is a deep dive, depending on which fench we are sitting on re the biblical doctrine of election.

(Election/Predestination and the Need for a Theological Balance)

  1. The Arminian View (Conditional Election)To see the direct scholarly defense of the view that God chooses those He foreknows will believe, you should look at the Free Will Baptist or Methodist archives.Primary Scholar: Jacob Arminius (1560–1609).Key Resource: The Works of James Arminius (Available on CCEL.org).

Look for his “Declaration of Sentiments” regarding Predestination.Modern Scholarship: The Society of Evangelical Arminians. They host detailed articles on “Prevenient Grace” and the distinction between individual and corporate election.

  1. The Lutheran View (Single Unconditional Election)Lutherans differ from Calvinists by rejecting “Double Predestination” (the idea that God also chooses people for hell).Primary Document: The Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration, Article XI). This is the definitive Lutheran “link” on election**.The Argument: It emphasizes that election is a “comforting” doctrine for believers, not a speculative math problem about who is “out.”**

Link: LCMS.org (Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod) has a “Brief Statement” that clarifies their middle-ground position

.3. The Barthian/Corporate View (Christological Election)Karl Barth (1886–1968) famously re-centered election on Jesus rather than on individuals.Primary Text: Church Dogmatics, Vol. II.2. This is a massive work, but you can find summaries online.Key Concept: Jesus is the only “Elect” and the only “Reprobate” (rejected).Digital Resource: The Center for Barth Studies (Princeton Theological Seminary). They provide summaries of Barth’s “Yes” and “No” in the election of Christ

  1. The Molinist View (Middle Knowledge)This is a popular “reconciling” view used by many modern apologists to maintain both total sovereignty and libertarian free will.Primary Scholar: William Lane Craig.Key Resource: ReasonableFaith.org. Searching his site for “Middle Knowledge” or “Molinism” will give you dozens of transcripts and articles explaining how God uses “counterfactuals” to elect.5. "Link: NetBible.org on Ephesians 1:4-5.What to look for: Click on the “Notes” tab. Look for the “tn” (Translator’s Note) on the word ἐξελέξατο (exelexato - “He chose”). Wallace provides the grammatical justification for the timing and intent of the divine choice.

Summary Table for Forum Quick-ReferenceSystem
Best Online Link Primary Emphasis
CalvinismMonergism.com Sovereign Decree (Unconditional)ArminianismSEA (evangelicalarminians.org)
Foreseen Faith (Conditional) LutheranismBookofConcord.org Gospel Promise (Non-Speculative)MolinismReasonableFaith.orgMiddle Knowledge (Counterfactuals)

Not for the fainthearted.

J.

46

Very pastoral and biblical Peter.

J.

47

I would appreciate how you understand the doctrine of election @KPuff.

Thank you brother.

J.

48

How’s this?

image
image526×526 66.8 KB

KP

1 Like
49

My question was very specific, so how’s this @KPuff?

The SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD over His Creation in Salvation, is taken from the Bible- it is NOT based on MAN’S FEELINGS or OPINIONS. The DOCTRINE OF ELECTION- PREDESTINATION, comes from GOD Himself, and not JOHN CALVIN- as if its MAN that invented it. So either you EXCEPT the BIBLE, and SUBMIT to it, or you can REJECT GOD’S WORD. Remember it is GOD who inspired it, as well as the one who placed ELECTION- PREDESTINATION in there. HE is the one who has REVEALED this precious most GRACE-CENTERED teaching in the text.

A quote, sorry for the caps, and no need to answer @KPuff since every time I direct a question to you something seems to go wrong.

J.

50

Sounds good; I appreciate it.
What went wrong?

KP

51

“Awaiting moderators approval” without fail.

J.

52

Ugh. I hate that! Sorry.

1 Like
53

If Jesus only came for the Jews, why did he tell Paul to preach to the Gentiles?

54

This is kinda funny. I just posted this elsewhere on Friday. Here is how Jesus answered this.

“When one of those who reclined at table with him heard these things, he said to him, 'Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!” But he said to him, "A man once gave a great banquet and invited many. And at the time for the banquet, he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’

But they all began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.’ So the servant came and reported these things to his master.

Then the master of the house became angry and said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’ And the servant said, ‘Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’ And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.’" Luke 14:15-24

The man giving the banquet is God.
The guests are the Jews.
The servant is Jesus.
The guests who made excuses to not accept the invitation are the Jews.
The people, the streets, lanes, poor, crippled, blind, and lame are US. The Gentiles.

Jew came for the Jews.

“But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15:24

Remember when He called the Canaanite woman a dog? Or any of us non-Jewish pigs?

"And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, ‘Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.’ But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.”

He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Matthew 15:22-26

And here

[Mat 7:6 ESV] 6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” Matthew 7:6

He came for His own chosen people, but they rejected Him, even though He was there solely for them, so God opened salvation to all. We were graphed in and now can become children of God. What would have happened if the Jews had accepted Him? Be thankful we will never know.
Peter

55

Brother @KPuff answered this biblically, but it would take time for this to really “sink in”

J.

56

You still here @brandplucked?

J.

57

You are reading libertarian free will into the text, but the parable itself does not establish that doctrine. The fact that people willingly reject the invitation does not prove they possess autonomous freedom independent of their nature. Reformed theology has never denied that fallen men make real choices; it denies that fallen men, left to themselves, desire God rightly.

In fact, this parable actually harmonizes well with the doctrines of inability and sovereign grace.

Notice carefully: those first invited did exactly what sinful man always does, they preferred worldly interests over the banquet of the master. Their excuses reveal the condition of their hearts. This aligns perfectly with John 3:19: “men loved darkness rather than light.” The issue is not lack of opportunity, but lack of desire.

And then what happens? The master says, “bring in” the poor, crippled, blind, and lame, and later, “compel people to come in, that my house may be filled.” That language hardly supports autonomous libertarian freedom. The imagery emphasizes the initiative and determination of the master, not the independent ability of the guests.

You are also overlooking the broader context of Luke’s theology. In Luke 14 itself, Jesus says no one can be His disciple unless he renounces all he has (Luke 14:33). Elsewhere, Christ plainly states:

“No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him by the Father” (John 6:65).

And again:

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44).

The Greek there is δύναται (dunatai) - “is able.” Christ is speaking about ability, not mere willingness. Fallen man lacks the moral ability to come unless God acts first.

So yes, the parable absolutely shows human responsibility. The invited guests are blameworthy for rejecting the invitation. But responsibility does not equal libertarian free will. Scripture consistently teaches both truths simultaneously:

man willingly rejects God because of his sinful nature;
God sovereignly brings sinners into His kingdom by grace.

Even your Gentile application actually strengthens the Reformed position. Why did the outsiders come while the original invitees refused? Was the Gentile inherently wiser, more spiritual, or morally superior? Paul answers that directly:

“What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7)

The difference is ultimately the grace and initiative of God, not autonomous human will.

Also…

Libertarian free will says man can choose contrary to his nature in a state of moral neutrality. Scripture never teaches that. The Bible teaches that man chooses according to his nature and desires.

The men in the parable freely chose their excuses because they loved other things more than the banquet. Likewise, those brought in came because the master sought them out and compelled them to come. The choice was real, but the initiative belonged to the master.

This is exactly the Reformed position: God does not drag people kicking and screaming into the kingdom against their will; He changes the heart so that they willingly come.

Psalm 110:3:
“Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power.”

Notice the order:

God acts in power;
the people then come willingly.

The same pattern appears in John 6:37:
“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.”

Not “might come,” but “will come.”

And why? Because God grants and draws them (John 6:44, 65).

So saying “they made a choice” does not refute Reformed theology at all. Reformed theology fully affirms human choice. What it denies is that fallen sinners, left to themselves, will ever choose Christ apart from sovereign grace.

That is why Augustine famously said:

“Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt.”

In other words, God must give what He requires.

J.

58

Mongerism comes from a combination of the Greek word mono, meaning one or alone, plus the Greek word ergon, meaning work. Together they mean a single force or energy, and when used of salvation it means that salvation is by God’s grace alone; that he’s exclusively and entirely responsible for a person’s salvation.

In contrast to this is synergism which means that salvation is through a cooperative act between God and man.

Mongerism is the biblical view of salvation. Synergism is another gospel which is no gospel at all. Since man is dead in trespasses and sin, he can’t believe the gospel in and of himself (Eph. 2:1-3). He must first be born again (John 3:1-8). It is God alone who gives divine illumination and understanding of his Word so that one might believe the gospel (John 6:63, 65). It is God alone who opens the heart to believe (Acts 16:14).

Who heals the blind, the lame, deaf mute, and those with withered hands? Who raises the dead and transforms the soul? It is God alone.

J.

59

The Host (God): He prepares a lavish feast, representing the Kingdom of Heaven and the joy of being in relationship with Him.

The First Invited Guests (The Religious Leaders/Israel): Historically, the “invitation” was the Covenant. When the banquet was finally ready (the arrival of the Messiah), many who were expected to attend rejected it because they were preoccupied with worldly concerns (property, business, and family).

The Servant (Jesus): He is the one sent to announce that “everything is now ready.” In the parable, he bridges the gap between the Host and the outcasts.

The Outcasts from the Streets (The Gentiles & Marginalized): When the “A-list” guests declined, the invitation was thrown wide open. The “poor, crippled, blind, and lame” represent those who knew they were in need of grace. This maps to the expansion of the Gospel to the Gentiles (the non-Jewish world).

I do not see that.

The idea that the invitation went first to the Jewish people before being extended to others is a foundational concept.

"He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15:24

This establishes them as the primary “guests” at the start of the story.

“He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.” John 1:11

This directly reflects the guests in the parable who made excuses when the servant arrived.

Tthe “poor, crippled, blind, and lame” represent the Gentiles is backed up by the historical shift described in the book of Acts. This is perhaps the strongest “bridge” verse. Paul and Barnabas say:

"But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.” Acts 13:45-46

In a similar parable (The Tenants), Jesus explicitly tells the religious leaders:

“Jesus said to them, ‘Have you never read in the Scriptures:’ ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Therefore, I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” Matthew 21:42-43

What about the “Streets and Lanes” (The Great Commission)? The command to go into the “highways and hedges” to compel people to come in aligns with the mandate to spread the Gospel to all nations.

“And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20

Paul explains the theology behind my point of view on this.

“So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.” Romans 11:11

The role of the “servant” who invites the outcasts is a central theme in the “Servant Songs” of the Old Testament and their fulfillment in the New.

Philippians 2:5-7: Describes Jesus as taking the “form of a servant” to carry out God’s will.

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

Luke 4:18: Jesus reads from Isaiah, identifying himself as the one sent to “proclaim good news to the poor” and “recovery of sight to the blind,” which uses the exact same categories of people mentioned in the Banquet parable.

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.”

Is this not everyone who sins? They do not want anyone to know? They hide their sins in the darkness.

So he said, “Go out and kidnap everyone you see and drag them in here?” Or does He say, " Go out and invite them in?" I would imagine it is more likely that what he is saying is go, let them know that the banquet is ready, and tell them they are now invited.

“And the master said to the servant, 'Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled.” Luke 14:23
Peter

1 Like
60

Agreed. But this is unrelated to the other.

This is what I have been saying.

Half right. But how would man reject God without having free will? Of course, God leads man to Christ. But it is up to man to say yes or no.

It is not, nor has it ever been, about being superior. The guests were invited. They said no. The outsiders, if you will, were invited. What is the difference? A one-word answer posed by Jesus. Yes, or No.

This could be a separate response, but I will keep it brief. Paul is asking: What makes you think you are better than anyone else? At the time, the Corinthians were “ranking” themselves. Paul is arguing that in God’s eyes, there is no inherent spiritual hierarchy or “elite” status. Any difference in talent, wisdom, or status isn’t something the person created themselves.

This is the core of the verse. Paul is pointing out that every single thing we possess is a gift:

Intellect and Talent: You didn’t “choose” your natural IQ or your aptitude for music, art, or leadership; you were born with them. Opportunity: You didn’t choose where you were born or the era you live in. Spiritual Grace: In the context of the Bible, Paul is saying that even your faith and your “goodness” are things God gave to you.

Paul is saying that boasting is logically impossible if you acknowledge that everything is a gift. If someone gives you a $1 million check as a gift, you can’t brag about how “rich” you are as if you earned it through your own hard work. To boast is to take credit for something you didn’t originate. It is essentially “stolen glory.”

Exactly. Free will.

True. Without hearing the truth, they can not, nor will they ever be able to choose. This is why faith comes by hearing, and hearing by every word of God.
Peter

1 Like
61

I thought we were done. (smile) No. This is? An opinion.

[/quote]
It must be. The Bible teaches it over and over again. “If you will, God will.” " Whosoever accepts, receives; those who reject die." “Whosoever believes, receives. Those who do not, do not.” etc.

Monergism is the standard view of Reformed/Calvinist traditions. You emphasize God’s total sovereignty. If salvation is 100% a gift (as 1 Corinthians 4 suggests), then you believe that even the “choice” must be gifted by God; otherwise, the person could “boast” that they were smarter or more spiritual than the person who said “no.” Correct?

Synergism is the standard view of Catholic, Orthodox, Methodist, and Pentecostal traditions. They, as I, emphasize human responsibility and the “free offer” of the Gospel. I would argue that while you can’t earn your way into the banquet, you must accept the invitation.

Now I hate labels. I really do. I often say that I am a Jesus-centered, Bible-saturated, Truth-oriented, Holy Spirit-filled, Theologically-conservative, Child of God who came from a Jesus-centered, Bible-saturated, Truth-oriented, Holy Spirit-filled, Theologically-conservative, Multi-generational, Mission-focused Church in Stuart, FL

Simply put, I’m a child of God, a saint, saved, and justified, as the Bible describes us. I see the synergism view, while you see monergism. Ultimately, as long as people hear the truth, get saved, and spread the Gospel, that’s all that matters. We are brothers in Christ; no need for quarrels.

Shalom
Peter