What Would Martin Luther Say to “Free Will”?

Theology
21

I think we mostly agree. But there is a difference between being called and being chosen. Remember Jesus’ famous and sobering declaration at the end of the Parable of the Wedding Feast:

“For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matthew 22:14

It is a core concept in biblical theology that contrasts a universal invitation with an internal, faithful response. When you break down the philological and spiritual differences between these two states, they generally point to the distinct Greek root words and how they play out in a believer’s life.

In the Greek text, the word for “called” or “calling” is kletos, which stems from the root meaning to issue an invitation, a summons, or an announcement. The “call” is the outward proclamation of God’s message, purpose, or invitation to salvation. It goes out globally. Everyone who hears the Gospel or senses a pull toward their divine destiny is among “the called.”

It is like a royal wedding invitation sent out to an entire city. The invitation lands on everyone’s doorstep regardless of their status, but receiving the invitation doesn’t mean you are automatically seated at the banquet. You can be called but choose to ignore it, push it aside, or stay preoccupied with your own life (just like the guests in Jesus’ parable who went back to their fields and businesses).

The word for “chosen” is eklektos, which translates literally to “select,” “elect,” or “picked out from among a larger group.” The “chosen” are those who don’t just hear the invitation; they respond to it with active obedience, alignment, and faith. In Matthew 22, one guest makes it into the hall but is thrown out because he isn’t wearing the proper wedding garment. Historically, this is interpreted that this garment as a life transformed by righteousness and true repentance.

The chosen are those who “dress the part” by letting the call change who they are. While the calling is entirely God’s sovereign initiative, being chosen reveals the alignment between God’s selection and humanity’s faithful cooperation. As Peter writes later,

“Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.” 2 Peter 1:10.

I guess you could say everyone is called, but the chosen are the ones God knows will accept and be obedient. Can we agree on this?
Peter

22

Brother, thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I appreciate your emphasis on the universal proclamation of the gospel and the necessity of faith and repentance. Where I think we differ is not so much on those truths, but on how Matthew 22:14 and the terms κλητός (kletos) and ἐκλεκτός (eklektos) should be understood in their biblical context.

One important clarification I would make is that Matthew 22:14 should not be used as the primary proof text for the doctrine of the effectual call. The parable itself is describing the broad invitation of the kingdom. The king sends out invitations, many refuse to come, others are gathered from the highways, and one man who enters without a wedding garment is cast out. Jesus then concludes, “Many are called, but few are chosen.”

The contrast is certainly between the called and the chosen, but Jesus is not defining the doctrine of effectual calling in this parable. Rather, He is contrasting the universal invitation of the kingdom with God’s electing purpose.

The fuller doctrine of God’s effectual call is developed much more clearly elsewhere in Scripture, particularly in Romans 8:30, John 6:37–44, and 1 Corinthians 1:23–24. So if someone argues that Matthew 22 primarily speaks of the outward gospel invitation, I would actually agree. The distinction between the general call and the effectual call comes from the whole canon, not from this verse alone.

Where I believe your argument becomes difficult is when we consider Romans 8:30. Paul writes “Whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

Notice the unbroken sequence. Every person predestined is called. Every person called is justified. Every person justified is glorified. There is no break in the chain.

If called merely means “invited,” then everyone who receives the invitation would also be justified. Clearly, that is not Paul’s point. The calling in Romans 8:30 is God’s saving, effectual call that unfailingly accomplishes His purpose. This is why Reformed theology distinguishes between the external call of the gospel, which goes out to all, and the effectual call, whereby God graciously brings His elect to faith.

I also think the lexical argument concerning kletos is weaker than it first appears. You argued that kletos means an invitation and therefore refers to everyone who hears the gospel. However, this is a classic lexical fallacy. Words do not carry one fixed theological meaning in every context. Their meaning is determined by the author’s usage within a particular passage.

For example, kletos in Romans 1:6 refers to believers who belong to Jesus Christ. In Romans 8:30 it refers exclusively to those who are justified. In 1 Corinthians 1:24 it refers to those who experience Christ as “the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

These are not merely invited people, they are saved people. Therefore, we cannot simply consult a dictionary definition and impose it uniformly upon every occurrence of the word.

This is precisely what biblical scholars warn against. James Barr famously exposed this error, and D. A. Carson discusses it in Exegetical Fallacies under what is called “illegitimate totality transfer”-the mistake of importing every possible nuance of a word into every occurrence regardless of context.

I would also suggest that the definition you give for “chosen” is not actually found in Matthew 22. You state that “the chosen are those who respond.” But Jesus never says that. He simply says, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” The text does not explain why they are chosen. To conclude that they are chosen because God foreknew they would respond is a theological inference, not an exegetical conclusion drawn from the passage itself.

Likewise, the statement that “God knows who will respond” is not something Matthew 22 teaches. Whether one holds a Reformed, Arminian, Lutheran, or Molinist position, we should all acknowledge that this explanation is being brought to the text rather than derived from it.

I would make the same observation regarding 2 Peter 1:10. Peter exhorts believers to “be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election.” He does not tell believers to become elect, nor does he say their obedience causes their election. Rather, he teaches that a life marked by growing holiness confirms and gives assurance of God’s prior work in them. Their obedience evidences God’s gracious calling; it is not the ground of it.

Finally, I think it is important that we allow the clearer didactic passages to interpret the more concise sayings. Matthew 22 presents the reality that many receive the outward invitation while only the chosen inherit the kingdom. Romans 8:30 explains the nature of God’s saving call. John 6 teaches that all whom the Father gives to the Son will come to Him. Acts 13:48 says that “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” These passages together present a coherent picture: the gospel is genuinely proclaimed to all, but God’s saving call unfailingly accomplishes His redemptive purpose in His elect.

For that reason, I would respectfully suggest that the conclusion, “God chooses those whom He foreknows will freely respond,” is not actually established by either the Greek terms kletos and eklektos or by Matthew 22 itself. That conclusion arises from a broader theological framework. Exegetically, it is safer to let each author speak in his own context and then allow the clearer passages, especially Romans 8:30 to illuminate our understanding of the more concise statement, “Many are called, but few are chosen.”

I cannot, in good conscience, agree with you on this point.

J.

23

You make a really fair point about word studies. We can’t make kletos and eklektos do more heavy lifting than Matthew intended them to do in that specific parable. Letting each author speak in his own context is vital.

However, when it comes to building a broader theological framework, don’t we inevitably need one to harmonize the tension between texts that emphasize human responsibility? Like the invitations in Matthew 22 and texts that emphasize sovereign ordering, like Romans 8:30? How do you balance letting Matthew speak for himself without accidentally making him sound like he’s contradicting Paul?
Peter

24

Yes, I agree. Pastor, if you scroll back to the beginning of this thread, you’ll see that the explicit references have already been provided there.
And another thread on Election.

Not only word studies, but also the grammar, morphology, literary and historical context, together with a sound hermeneutical approach to Scripture.

The same could be said of the other threads on justification, sanctification, predestination, and salvation. Like these topics, they have been left virtually untouched.

Perhaps Brother @Kpuff could be of tremendous help in contributing to those discussions as well.

Shalom.

J.

25

Brother, you cite correctly, but because you take these passages outside of the greater context, the whole picture becomes distorted. With regard to John 6:44,65 to understand it in that way literally, is similar to understanding hating one’s father and one’s mother literally, or rejecting completely all riches, or making oneself enuch as Origen literally did, or being careful about the leaven of pharisees, thinking this is bread, that has to be shunned, or thinking that a man has to enter into his mother womb second time for the spiritual birth. You can see yourself how nonsane, and in some cases actually insane such understanding is. Similarly, in your case, it is like gathering a crowd of people, and then waiting until the Father draws them by some kind of pulling, no matter whether they are willing or not. Or otherwise, if they cannot even will it, that would be against any will of yours, thus they would suffer it like the robots.

It is indeed that as to our own proprial loves, we are motivated by the love of self and the world, thus not by heavenly love. But at the same time, as I indicated, due to the constant influence of the Lord’s life, we have a freedom of choice, thus the freedom either to turn to the Lord or to heaven.

“If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” Rev. iii. 20.

Below are a few citation to the effect that despite a man being born into the loves of self and the world, he still has freedom from the Lord to choose either good or evil, and if he choose, as if by his own power, to follow the Lord, then everything is going to be good with him. It is otherwise if he chooses to remain in his evils. But without that free choice, the whole options given by the Lord, are just cruel jokes and lie, for if a man does not have any freedom, even that which is being given from the Lord, then he cannot even freely cooperate and respond.

So, in talking about the freedom, we need to differentiate between the slavery-to-sin and thus infernal freedom, and heavenly freedom, and because all those options are given from the Lord, we are to admit the intermediate freedom, which is not yet the true spiritual freedom of angels with a man, but yet sufficient freedom, given to man via faculties of freedom and rationality from the Lord, which allow him to make the right choice or not to make it. These are not yet the freedom itself and rationality itself, but they are sufficient to make the right choice and to understand the truth from the Lord.

So, of himself a man, as to his loves is spiritually dead. But there is something in him inseminated from childhood, due to which he gradually comes into a freedom of choosing between heaven and hell, and thus also becomes responsible, as an adult, thus due to his opened-up rationality, for his actions. nd this rationality goes hand in hand with the freedom of choice. So, he is free to choose whether to apply himself to God, to the theological things of the Word, to understand them or not, to do evil or to stop doing evil. But with regard to the spiritual things, he does need the Lord’s Power, for without Him he cannot do anything truly good.

But if there is an interpretation that a man is not free to do anything, in taking up the book of the Word, in doing some kind work to another, that is not sane, that is a misintepretation of the Scripture, and derivation of the doctrines which are not there.

Even with regard to repetance, the Lord is giving a choice all the time to the effec “repent and unless you repent, you’ll die”. What a joke the words of the Lord would be if a man does not even have any basic freedom to choose that repentance or not to choose.

I will write about the point of fullfilling of the Word in the next post, but here are the citations on which you can rationalle reflect, if a man is sufficiently free to make the right choice, or whether he does not have any freedom. Not speaking about the true heavenly freedom yet, as it it with the angels.

Deuteronomy 30:19–20

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

Joshua 24:15

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Isaiah 55:6–7

Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Jeremiah 29:13

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Ezekiel 18:30–32

Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Ezekiel 33:11

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

26

This is a continuation of the citation list, and I will write another post below it.

Joel 2:12–13

Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning:
And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.

Zechariah 1:3

Therefore say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Turn ye unto me, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the LORD of hosts.

Matthew 7:7–8

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Matthew 23:37

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

John 5:40

And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

John 7:17

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 3:19

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Acts 17:27

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.

James 4:8

Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Revelation 22:17

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

27

And here is a citation on the idea of not being able to fullfill the law.

“It is said in the church, that no one can fulfill the law, especially since whosoever offends against one commandment of the Decalogue, offends against all. This form of speaking, however, is not such as it sounds; for this is to be understood in this manner, that whosoever from purpose or from confirmation acts against one commandment, acts against all the rest, since to act thus from purpose or from confirmation is to deny altogether that it is a sin, and he who denies it to be sin, makes light of acting against all the rest of the commandments. Who does not know, that he who is a fornicator is not therefore a murderer, a thief, or a false witness, nor even willing to be such? But he who is an adulterer from purpose and confirmation, makes light of all things relating to religion, and consequently pays no regard to murders, thefts, and false witness, not abstaining from them because they are sins, but for fear of the law or loss of reputation. The case is similar, if anyone from purpose or confirmation acts against any other commandment of the Decalogue; he then also offends against the rest, because he does not account anything a sin. It is very similar with those who are in good from the Lord. These, if from the will and understanding, or from purpose and confirmation, they abstain from one evil because it is a sin, abstain from all, and still more if they abstain from many; for whenever anyone abstains, from purpose and confirmation, from any evil, because it is a sin, he is kept by the Lord in the purpose of abstaining from the rest; wherefore if through ignorance, or any predominant lust of the body, he does an evil, it nevertheless is not imputed to him, because he did not purpose it to himself, nor confirm it with himself. A man comes into this kind of purpose, if he examines himself once or twice a year, and repents of the evil he discovers in himself. It is otherwise with him who never examines himself.”

“63. A religious tenet has prevailed to the effect that no one is able to fulfill the law; the law being not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to steal, and not to bear false witness. Every civic man and moral man is able to fulfill these commandments of the law by a civic and moral life; but this tenet denies that he can do so by a spiritual life; from which it follows that his not doing these evils is only for the sake of avoiding penalties and losses in this world, and not for the sake of avoiding penalties and losses after he has left it. It is for this reason that a man with whom this tenet has prevailed, thinks these evils allowable in the sight of God, but not so in that of the world.
[2] And in consequence of such thought from this his tenet, the man is in concupiscence for all these evils, and refrains from doing them merely for the world’s sake; and therefore after death such a man, although he had not committed murders, adulteries, thefts, and false witness, nevertheless desires to commit them, and does commit them when the external possessed by him in this world is taken away from him. Every concupiscence he has had remains with him after death. It is owing to this that such persons act as one with hell, and cannot but have their lot among those who are there.
[3] Very different is the lot of those who are unwilling to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, and to bear false witness for the reason that to do these things is contrary to God. These persons, after some battling with these evils, do not will them, thus do not desire to commit them: they say in their hearts that they are sins, and in themselves are infernal and devilish. After death, when the external which they had possessed for this world is taken away from them, they act as one with heaven, and as they are in the Lord they come into heaven.” (Doctrine of Life, by Emanuel Swedenborg)

28

Well, you asked…

Friends

I have held a unique understanding regarding this perennial doctrinal tension for some time now; the tension that exists between conditional and unconditional election. I personally think adherents to both sides very often find their own personal comfort zone in this tension based strongly on an aversion to the implications of the contrasting view. When discussing this concept with other saints, it is almost always this underlying aversion that is found to actually be the root of the personally held doctrine. As a person develops their personal theology on this topic, most often their aversion comes first, then the proof-texting follows. The free will advocate (FWA) usually will complain that it would be unjust (or unfair) for God to simply choose some out of the fire, and therefore commit the rest to eternal punishment. The unconditional election advocate (UEA) is averse to the idea that man is responsible for accepting Gods offer, making salvation a transactional arrangement, one with a human merit component.

It is not difficult to build a strong argument for both sides from scripture. I ask myself, why is this so? Why does Holy Scripture shine so much holy light on each view? The answer is, they are both true from a given perspective. It is difficult to explain, and at the risk of butchering a sacred cow, and against my better judgement, I’ll give it a go. I expect the perspective will most likely satisfy neither party.

The FWA is sincere, and dutifully honest about the reality he finds himself in. His personal experience reminds him that at some point he personally heard the gospel, the gospel positively resonated within him, he was offered a choice to accept the Gospel, which he took, and his life changed. He fully experienced God’s offer, and remembers his own willful acceptance of God’s wonderful free gift of life. You cannot convince him otherwise. No man is omniscient, and no man can peer into the future. Every man experiences his personal reality as cascading “causes & effects” many times every day. Causes often have predictable effects, but the actual future cannot be known. In every felt experience, a man’s future is dependent on what he does in the present. It would be dishonest for him to claim otherwise. Couple his personal experience with his spiritual aversion to injustice, which is repulsed at the idea that Holy God might arbitrarily selects some for eternal punishment, and you have a reason to search Holy Scripture for confirmation. This is the earthly view, from the human perspective, through personal experience and acquired knowledge. This is the natural view mankind observes while looking up to infinite God and responding to what he sees.

The UEA has a sincere reverence for the omniscient, transcendent, Holy God, who is personal, relational, but largely unknowable. This man holds a healthy respect for The Creators claim and control over all He has created. God claims not only jurisdiction, but tends to faithful maintenance of His creation while lovingly revealing Himself to His creation. God exists in a greater reality, a reality where everything is a direct expression of His Holy will. God’s realty is not ‘subject’ to anything; not time, not cause & effect, not laws of nature, not any kind of outside influence. This reality is unimaginable to the human mind; there is no possibility of understanding this transcendent reality of which our known reality is only a tiny subset. In God’s transcendent realty there can be no sense of making an offer and waiting on the other party to accept it. Every thought of God instantly becomes eternal reality. Couple the UEA’s sense of reverence with a personal experience of salvation, which rejects any idea that God could possibly be ‘subject’ to the whims and/or acquescience of mankind, and you have a reason to search the Holy scriptures for confirmation. This is the top-down view from heaven, peering down from infinity into the finite human realm.

The FWA fears the UEA will find insufficient reason to do the work of proclaiming the gospel since to the UEA God does all the choosing anyway. The UEA fears the FWA will believe their own salvation, and the salvation of others depends on their intellectual ability to understand it and agree to it, making the offer effective only for those who are smart enough to grasp it.

For now, we all live on this side of infinity. We all must live harmoniously with finite manifestations like cause and effect, choices, error, time, mistakes, and an unknown future. For here and now we must all live like FWA’s motivated by duty, servile obedience to The commandments of God, and faithfulness to the work in which God has ordained us to walk. Even though we walk in the flesh, we know we have been imputed with this strange infinity; we know we are, at this present time, already infinite creatures. By faith we sustain a personal relationship with the infinite God of all creation. We know everything we see, and everything we are is an extension of His perfect will, and not an effect which we caused. We have the undue honor and unearned privilege of living on both sides of the great and wonderful divide, simultaneously. Living such, we honor our Creator when we purpose to love our brother, and try to see his existence through his eyes with compassion, patience, and understanding.

KP

29

Yes, I did KP.

And appreciate the gracious tone and your desire to understand why sincere believers land on different sides of this discussion.

That said, I think you’ve framed the issue psychologically rather than exegetically. You suggest that our theology is often driven by our aversions first and our proof-texting second. While that may sometimes be true, it doesn’t address the real question: What has God revealed in Scripture? Our doctrine should ultimately be determined by exegesis, not by analyzing the motivations of those who hold a particular view.

I also think the tension is not between two equally true perspectives, one from earth and one from heaven, but between two different interpretations of the same biblical data. Scripture doesn’t present one doctrine for the human viewpoint and another for the divine viewpoint. Rather, it reveals God’s perspective to us.

For example, when Jesus says, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44), He is not describing God’s transcendent perspective while leaving room for a contrary human perspective. He is revealing an objective truth about the nature of salvation. Likewise, when Paul says that God “chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4), he is not inviting us to balance that against a different perspective, he is declaring what God has done.

At the same time, the same Scriptures genuinely command all people to repent, believe, seek the Lord, and proclaim the gospel. Those commands are real, sincere, and universal. The Bible never treats divine sovereignty and human responsibility as opposing truths that need to be reconciled by perspective. It simply affirms both without embarrassment.

I therefore don’t believe the solution is to say that the Free Will Advocate is correct from one perspective and the Unconditional Election Advocate is correct from another. Rather, we should allow Scripture to define both doctrines exactly as it presents them, even where the relationship between them stretches beyond our finite understanding.

Our task is not to reduce the tension but to submit to the whole counsel of God. Where Scripture speaks, we should speak; where Scripture leaves mystery, we should be content to leave mystery.

However, I think the discussion is best kept where Scripture keeps it, not on philosophical reconciliation, but on faithful exegesis. Our task is not to determine what seems most reasonable from either the human or the divine perspective, but to ask, “What does the text actually teach?”

The Reformers often distinguished between an apparent paradox and a true contradiction. Scripture clearly teaches both God’s sovereign election and man’s responsibility. These are not two competing perspectives of the same doctrine, nor are they mutually exclusive truths that need to be philosophically harmonized. Rather, they are two revealed doctrines that perfectly harmonize in the mind of God, even if our finite minds cannot fully comprehend how they fit together.

For that reason, I think it’s more faithful to Scripture to let each doctrine stand where God has revealed it, without attempting to resolve the mystery by saying each side is simply “true from a given perspective.”

So far, what I’ve received are philosophical and psychological arguments, along with various perspectives, and a slap on the wrist from PeterC. I’m still waiting for a careful exegetical response to the biblical texts themselves.

I am unapologetically Reformed in my theology and unashamed of it, for it is my desire to give all glory to our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.

At its core, however, the underlying issue in this discussion is not personalities but theology, namely, the differences between Arminian and Reformed understandings of salvation.

2 cents.

J.

30

My question, again, to you @adelphos

Can you point to a passage that explicitly teaches that regeneration begins with man’s autonomous choice rather than God’s sovereign act? The passages on the new birth consistently make God the active cause (John 1:13; John 3:3–8; Titus 3:5; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:3).

There is no synergism in our initial regeneration. Scripture presents regeneration as a monergistic work of God alone. Our faith and repentance are the fruit of the new birth, not the cause of it.

J.

31

Brother @Kpuff, please feel free to correct me if I have in any way, shape, or form misrepresented your psychological argument. My intention is to understand and represent your position accurately, even where we disagree.

J.

32

“There is something in him inseminated from childhood…”

Where is that taught?

Which passage says every child receives some implanted neutral spiritual faculty enabling him later to choose heaven?

No text.

It sounds much closer to the anthropology of Emanuel Swedenborg than to the teaching of Scripture.

The Bible says instead:

we are dead in trespasses (The Epistle to the Ephesians 2:1)
slaves of sin (The Gospel of John 8:34)
cannot submit to God (The Epistle to the Romans 8:7–8)
cannot understand spiritual things (First Epistle to the Corinthians 2:14)
cannot come to Christ (The Gospel of John 6:44, 65)

Notice how often Scripture says cannot.

J.

33

My cherished brother @Johann
Certainly there is no correction necessary. I understand your position. You are heard, and I appreciate your dedication to The Logos.

I agree that:

I assume everyone, on both sides of this tension would agree with that.

I was intentionally NOT trying to offer my personal application of “What the text actually teaches” on this topic, but rather to offer an understanding, from my perspective, why the two divergent theologies survive such rigorous debate.

You say:

But from my desk chair, it seems plenty of exegetical support has been offered to both contenders. “Faithful exegesis” supplies strong biblical support for each position. I offered an explanation as to why this is possible.

You say:

This is a rewording of some of the same ideas I put forth (I think). I agree they are “not two competing perspectives of the same doctrine” but “they are both true from a given perspective”. They are not actually “two revealed doctrines that perfectly harmonize” but one single doctrine that is true from two different perspectives; one from fallen temporal man trying to understand the Word of God, and the other from the perspective of The Perfect (complete) Logos offering brilliant light to squinting eyes to weak to take it in.

You and I exist in this tension, as we still have one foot on the physical dock and one foot in the metaphysical boat. Therefore we must operate in obedience to the heavenly directives we have been given, that we may be testimonial, the “light of the world” we were designed to be.

  • That means heeding all the directives that say “go and preach the gospel”. Not thinking we are the “savers” but only tools in the hands of the ultimate One.
  • Taking a page out of Jesus’s play book, we do well to tell them “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” while urging them to believe, if they can.
  • We are being obedient when we tell folks “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” All the while knowing by faith “…all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18-21).
  • We are being obedient when we “Go … and make disciples of Jesus from all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19) even while we are firmly aware that you and I “who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present us holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight–. (Colossians 1:21-22).

We only now know that what we experienced on our day-of-decision was in fact God reconciling us to Himself, by His perfect will, in His perfect way. We did not know this on our day-of-decision, and neither will the rest of the world to whom we share The Good News of Jesus the Messiah.

I think the most glorious work God does on our being may be how he gently and lovingly removes our stubborn autonomy (sanctification) and make us like little trusting children.

So, in my opinion, this understanding of Salvation is not a topic for debate, but one in which The Body of Christ can see things through the eyes of another saint. The way God reconciles His Own, known from the creation of the world simply looks like the ways His saints view the single most wonderful thing that has ever happened to them. Eventually, we will all think like Jesus.

KP

34

KP, thank you for another thoughtful post. I agree with your emphasis on preaching the gospel, human responsibility, and God’s sovereignty. I wholeheartedly affirm every command you cited to preach Christ, call sinners to repentance, and implore people to be reconciled to God.

Where I still differ is in your conclusion that these truths are “one doctrine viewed from two perspectives.” I don’t believe Scripture presents them that way. Rather than beginning with a philosophical framework of human and divine perspectives, I think we must begin with exegesis and allow Scripture to define the relationship.

The passages you quoted, John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:18–21, Matthew 28:19, and Colossians 1:21–22 are all commands or descriptions of the gospel ministry. They tell us what we are to proclaim and what God accomplishes through Christ. They do not address the question of why one sinner believes while another remains in unbelief.

That question is answered elsewhere by Scripture itself. Jesus says, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me” (John 6:37), “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44), and again, “No one can come unless it is granted him by the Father” (John 6:65). Paul writes that God “chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4), that salvation is “not because of works but because of His own purpose and grace” (2 Tim. 1:9), and that “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).

Those texts are not describing a different perspective, they are revealing why anyone comes to faith at all.

Likewise, I fully agree that we preach to everyone. We sincerely proclaim, “Whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16), because that is exactly what Scripture says. We are ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20), we are commanded to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19), and we call all people everywhere to repent. None of that conflicts with God’s sovereign election. In fact, Scripture never presents those truths as competing. It simply affirms both.

So I don’t think the tension is resolved by saying each side is true from a different perspective. Rather, Scripture reveals both God’s sovereign grace and man’s responsibility as objective truths. They are not contradictory, nor are they merely perspective-dependent. They harmonize perfectly because they come from the same divine Author, even where our finite minds cannot fully comprehend that harmony.

For me, the question is not, “Which philosophical model best explains the tension?” The question is, “What has God actually revealed?” Where Scripture speaks, I want to speak. Where Scripture leaves mystery, I want to leave mystery.

Your concerns re the church’s responsibility (preach, implore, make disciples) or the universality of the gospel call. Reformed theology affirms all of those without qualification. However what your citations do not do is address the specific texts that explicitly explain the cause of saving faith, such as John 6, Romans 8–9, Ephesians 1, Acts 13:48, or Philippians 1:29.

That is why the discussion here ultimately has to return to those passages rather than to a philosophical model of “two perspectives.”

Brother, I don’t dispute that we consciously believed and willingly came to Christ. Every Reformed Christian affirms that. My question is, what does Scripture say caused that believing? Was the decisive difference found in us, or in God’s effectual grace? That is the question addressed in John 6:37, 44, 65; Acts 13:48; Philippians 1:29; and Ephesians 2:8–9.

It is quite clear that you do not hold to Reformed theology, and that’s perfectly evident from our discussion. I’m not here to debate the core doctrine of salvation indefinitely. We can respectfully agree to disagree on these matters and still recognize one another as brothers in Christ Jesus.

Would you agree?

J.

35

Correct here, I am tired KP and need to rest.

I simply find it remarkable that sharing the gospel, Christ Jesus, His crucifixion, His resurrection, and His atoning work, is being perceived as “debating” rather than proclaiming the very heart of the Christian faith.

Shalom brother, my mind is somewhere else.

J.

1 Like
36

Thank you, @KPuff. I will admit I do not know you that well, but I feel there is much wisdom here. Thank you for taking the time to share. Then, sadly, I see @Johann seems to take offense to your words because somehow he feels his POV is being lessened, or perceived as reduced in some way. I do not believe this is true. I also believe, as stated before, that both views are true.

“All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Matthew 11:27

Yet,

"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” Romans 10:14-15

Whoever, whoever, anyone, all, who believe will be saved; whoever, whoever, anyone, all, who do not will not be. Without the lead, we cannot; without belief, we cannot. Therefore, both are correct.
Peter

37

@PeterC
Just to clarify, I wasn’t offended by what KPuff wrote, nor did I perceive my position as being diminished. Healthy theological discussion doesn’t offend me, it sharpens me (Proverbs 27:17).

My responses have been directed at the interpretation of the Scriptures themselves, not at the person presenting them. When passages such as Acts 13:48, John 6, Romans 9, Ephesians 1, or 2 Peter 1 are discussed, I believe our responsibility is to examine them carefully in their grammatical, historical, and literary context, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture (Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 2:15).

If you believe both views are true, I would be genuinely interested to see how you reconcile the specific passages I have presented. Rather than discussing whether I was offended, I would much rather engage with the biblical texts themselves. My concern has always been, and remains, what the Scriptures actually teach.

Iron sharpens iron, and I welcome respectful interaction with the biblical evidence. If I’ve misunderstood a passage, I’m happy to be corrected, but that correction should come from a faithful exegesis of God’s Word, not assumptions about my motives or emotions.

These doctrines concerning predestination ought to be approached with reverence, humility, and careful exegesis. I do feel, however, that some of my points and the Scripture references I’ve presented have not been read as carefully as they deserve. As a moderator, I would encourage responding to the substance of the biblical arguments rather than reacting to perceived motives or emotions. I believe our discussion will be far more fruitful if we keep our focus on what the text of Scripture actually says.

Thanks.

J.

38

I disagree with the statement that “both views are true.” While Christians who hold differing views of salvation are our brothers and sisters in Christ, two theological positions that make contradictory claims about the basis of salvation cannot both be correct in the same sense.

Throughout church history, these questions have been carefully debated. Views emphasizing human ability and freedom have appeared in various forms, including Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism (Remonstrant theology), Wesleyan Arminianism, Molinism, and more recently Open Theism. On the other hand, the doctrines of sovereign grace were articulated by Augustine, recovered with renewed clarity during the Protestant Reformation, and expressed by the Reformers and the historic Reformed confessions.

These are not minor differences. They concern the nature of God’s grace, the extent of human inability after the Fall, the order of salvation, election, perseverance, and ultimately whether salvation is monergistic, God’s work from beginning to end, or synergistic, involving the cooperation of the human will.

That is why I believe we must approach these doctrines with humility, prayer, and careful exegesis. Like the Bereans (Acts 17:11), we should search the Scriptures daily, asking the Holy Spirit to illuminate His Word, always willing to submit our theology to what God has revealed rather than what we might prefer to be true.

Pelagianism (denies original sin and teaches natural human ability)
Semi-Pelagianism (grace assists, but the first move toward God comes from man)
Arminianism / Remonstrant theology (affirms original sin but teaches prevenient grace enables a free response)
Wesleyan Arminianism (similar to Arminianism with an emphasis on prevenient grace)
Molinism (God’s middle knowledge reconciles sovereignty and libertarian freedom)
Open Theism (God voluntarily limits His knowledge of future free acts)

J.

39

Pastor @Peter
Re: Free Will advocacy vs. unconditional election advocacy

I appreciate your response to my post. I want to assure you I was not offended by other posters, and I sincerely hope I was not offensive to them. My position is not one that tries to placate, nor seeks compromise, but one I have arrived at personally, through careful study, and copious assistance from the indwelling Holy Spirit of God. I hold my position because it best fits with the whole counsel of God (IMHO), rings true to revelation, and satisfies the major objections held by both poles. I share it not to enter into the fray of contention (Galatians 5:19-21), but simply because my POV was requested. I have enough experience to predict my position will most-likely not be welcomed by those on either pole. (I am not suggesting you are one of those).

I call the opposing positions “poles” because in this classical debate, rarely do I witness one side of the argument ceding even an inch to the other. The necessary efforts to maintain a position usually pushes each side further apart; the polarization is disunifying, and flies-in-the-face of the stated work of The Holy Spirit of Unity (consider 1 Cor. 6:7). It is my personal opinion that this line-in-the-sand approach is fleshly, unproductive, yet I believe may be innocently, and honorably rooted in the inability, or unwillingness, to accept the unthinkable; to entertain the unrighteous consequences (side-effects) of giving any credence to the other position. I have already stated as much in my previous post.

To you brother Peter, let me offer some food for thought that may chip-away at your current stronghold. Three biblical scenarios (among many) come to mind that offer a novel way of looking at this very subject.

1. The saga of Cyrus.

Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you: … “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. … I have blotted out, like a thick cloud, your transgressions, And like a cloud, your sins. Return to Me, for I have redeemed you.” … Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself; Who frustrates the signs of the babblers, And drives diviners mad; Who turns wise men backward, And makes their knowledge foolishness; Who confirms the word of His servant, And performs the counsel of His messengers; Who says to Jerusalem, ‘You shall be inhabited,’ To the cities of Judah, ‘You shall be built,’ And I will raise up her waste places; Who says to the deep, ‘Be dry! And I will dry up your rivers’; Who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd, And he shall perform all My pleasure, Saying to Jerusalem, “You shall be built,” And to the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.” (Isaiah 44:2-28)

"Thus says the LORD to His anointed, To Cyrus, whose right hand I have held-- To subdue nations before him And loose the armor of kings…That you may know that I, the LORD, Who call you by your name, Am the God of Israel. For Jacob My servant’s sake, And Israel My elect, I have even called you by your name; I have named you, though you have not known Me. (Isaiah 45:1-4)

Cyrus The Great (Gk Kyros) (600 – 530 BC) conquered so much territory, even before he conquered the Babylonian empire (540 BC) that he built the largest empire in history at the time. No doubt he was seen as a master strategist, and military genius. No doubt Cyrus made many military decisions, assembled within his own brilliant brain, each of which brought him closer to the precise point in history to free Israel from seventy-years of captivity and allow them to resume temple worship in their own land. Cyrus must have been completely convinced his great success was due to the brilliant decisions he had made militarily. Yet, he had no idea, nearly 200 years previous, God had named him and revealed how He Himself would inspire those thousands of decisions in the mind of Cyrus; God said “'He is My shepherd, And he shall perform all My pleasure”. Here the free-will of Cyrus, definitely observable, and widely accepted, was quietly, behind the curtain, being directed by the unstoppable hand of God the Redeemer. You know the story well.

2. H.S. revelation of The Scriptures.

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:16-21)

Of all the ~40 authors of The Bible, every one of them surely felt they were penning Godly writ from their own free will. Writing what they learned and heard, in their own style, from their own personality, with reverence and submission to Holy inspiration. The scriptures speak of “inspiration” as being “moved by the Holy Spirit”, without ever suggesting anything like the “fingers of a man’s hand appearing” (Daniel 5:5) and grabbing the wrists of the writers as they penned Holy Eternal Truth (physically usurping their free-will). There is no hint ever given that as men wrote our Scriptures, they even knew they were writing eternal Truth. The process, to us, is still a mystery, but we accept the free will of the servant was supernaturally submissive to the Holy Hand of The Spirit working through his fingers. This is what some term “irresistible grace”; the undeniable submission to the work of Godly Love.

(UGH I’m out of characters… continued)

40

3. The logic of outside-of-time Omniscience, and the impossibility of choice.

Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I m God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’ (Isaiah 46:9-10).

We all accept the omniscience of Holy God; there is nothing hidden from Him. God stands outside of time, and does not experience sequence like we do. Everything is NOW, and everything is well known. In His unique position, He cannot logically experience anything like a “decision”, as if there are “alternatives”, or “possibilities”, although God humbly speaks of Himself making decisions in Holy Scripture. This is the doctrine of “condescension”; God relating to us “in our own language”, in our human state and temporal environment, from within our constraints of time, in a loving way that we can understand Him. The most amazing evidence of this is when Jesus , Eternal God, refers to Himself as “the son of man”. While God lovingly directs us to make decisions, and to weigh alternatives, choose wisely, He experiences none of these things. It is impossible. We MUST live within our environment, but our environment is not God’s environment. So, the Eternal Truth of the Bible speaks of Eternal realities that we do not experience yet. When ultimate truth speaks of God, it must speak truly that everything that was, is, and will be, is unalterable in Heavens reality.

"We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty, The One who is and who was and who is to come, Because You have taken Your great power and reigned. (Revelation 11:17)

Hope this helps explain my position better.
KP