What Would Martin Luther Say to “Free Will”?

Theology
61

Amen! Me too.

I understand. In the choices you listed.

I suppose this one best describes my belief. All the verses we keep throwing at each other are totally true. Of course. Where we seem to differ is this.

Yes. Before God’s lead, it is totally impossible to find Him, accept Jesus, or anything else. Let me try this. Romans 8:29-30

“For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Stop

God foreknows everyone. Look at Psalm 139:13-17

" For you formed my inward parts;
You knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

My frame was not hidden from you.
When I was being made in secret,
Intricately woven in the depths of the earth

*Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
In your book, every one of them was written.
The days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.

How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!"

This is everyone.

“And those whom he predestined.” Stop.

Perhaps this here is where we differ. I believe that the Word teaches that this is for everyone. Free Will dictates that everyone will have an opportunity to choose to accept or reject God when?

“He also called,” Stop.

If you say “No?” Nothing is going to happen. No lightning is coming to strike you dead. At least, I don’t think so anyway. You may be rich. You may be a good person. You may be an evil person. Because you said no, when the time comes, Jesus will say no to you.

Once God has arranged for you to be and set up a plan and purpose for you and your life, He then calls you. Peter on the Fishing Boat. Matthew at the Table of Customs. Saul on the road to Damascus. You, wherever you are. Wherever you first heard the Word. He, the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings, God, is calling you. If you say "Yes?|

Most know that Jesus said this in John 14:6:7

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

" No man cometh unto the Father, but by me." But Jesus also said this.

" And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. 'I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them." John 17:5-10

You can not find Jesus unless God sends you to Him. You can not find God, but through Jesus. It is God who calls you to Jesus, and Jesus then justifies you to be able to see God.

" And those whom he called he also justified,"

Here you are, minding your own business, driving to work or home, and you see the bumper sticker “John 3:16.” Or here you are minding your own business, surfing the channels, and you come across a TV Preacher talking about something that hits you. Or here you are, minding your own business, surfing the Internet, when you stumbled across this forum, or that site. It is not an accident.

You start feeling this overwhelming desire to learn more about this God, or this Jesus. You do. Then Jesus is the one that Justifies you. Through saying the Prayer of Salvation and receiving the Spirit of Adoption, you are now a child of God. You are now washed clean and pure by the Blood of Christ. That’s it. Now you can receive the Holy Spirit. Now you are a child of God. You are now able for God to justify you. You are now ready for God to show you what His Will is for you and your life.

But what can I do? You don’t know the things I have done in my life. I’m not skilled in this or that. I have no gifts. What can I possibly do for God? Whatever He tells you. You see, God knows you. He knows what you have done. He no longer cares. Look at Saul? He became Paul, who wrote most of what we call the New Testament. Here is a guy who was equal to a Gihadist in every way. What have you done? Matthew was a Tax Collector. Peter is a Fisherman. God does not care who you were before you accepted Christ’s Gift. He cares what you do now.

Continued…

62

If God wants to heal people, you will wake up one day, and someone will be healed. If He wants to work Miracles, you will receive the gift to do so. Perhaps you will simply be a Sower of the Seed. Whatever it is that God wants you to do, He will teach you what it is, and He will justify you to do so. Seek out HIS plan and purpose for your life.

Some are called to part waters. Some are called to do nothing but give birth. Perhaps your role in God’s overall plan is to build an Ark, or simply tell one person that you see every day about the Truth, and the Plan of Salvation before it is too late for them? Maybe they will hear you when they would listen to no one else. Yes, it may be that simple. There is no insignificant role in God’s plan, and you ARE important.

“And those whom he justified he also glorified.”

This is wonderful news! Ultimately, we will all be glorified by God, and He will wipe away our tears. I want you to pay attention to something important: Paul states that God “glorified” us. This is in the past tense, indicating that it has already happened, right?

When God glorifies us, He does something akin to what He did for Jesus when He exalted Him to His right hand, above all rule and authority. In doing so, God grants us a share in this glory. This is affirmed in Romans 5:2.

“Through him, we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” Romans 5:2

This is also in 1 Peter 5:1

“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.”

A little further in 1 Peter 5, we read this.

“And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.” 1 Peter 5:10

This will happen because it has already happened. I’ll say that again. This will happen because it has already happened. You are simply waiting for it to be revealed.

“When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.” Colossians 3:4

We are simply waiting to go home. We are no longer citizens of this world; rather, we are already citizens of Heaven.

“Our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it, we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself. Philippians 3:20-21

Let the world be the world; its fate is sealed. Let the dead bury the dead; their fate is sealed. Let them love money; their fate is sealed. Let them hate God; their fate is sealed. Let them hate you. Instead, be the Child of God He called you to be. Embrace your identity as a Prince or Princess of Heaven. Act as an Ambassador. Be a sower of the Seed and a teller of the Truth.

Yes, at the end of your time here on earth, God will most definitely glorify you. However, He already has. It is finished. We are His. We now wait with all of creation for the return of Jesus and the coming of the end of this time. A time when all of the old will be done away with, and the new will come. This includes us. Our old bodies are riddled with sin, sickness, and disease. Our new bodies will be holy and pure.

Where we seem to differ is that you leave out our ability to choose. To accept God’s calling. You feel the Word tells us that we cannot even say yes. Unless God chooses us. I cannot in good conscience say I agree with that. I still see that without Free Will, it is all pointless.
Peter

63

Absolutely, The Car is free. It was created by, uh, Ford, and you came and offered it to someone. Because Ford sent you. They have to receive it. They have to say yes. If they say no, then the car will just sit there, or it will go to someone else.

Of course. And we agree. However, without acceptance, do you feel God forces us to receive? Or do you feel it is a choice?

I understand. Where I differ is little Susy. If she does not have a choice, then what is the point of her life? If God elects only certain people to be saved, then He condemns others to destruction. Yet the Word says God condemns no one. Using your analogy, Ford (God) created the car, sent you (Jesus) to freely offer it, and of course, I could never make it. I could never drive it, unless God made it and arranged it, but I cannot drive it if I do not accept it and get in.

Help me to understand.
Peter

64

I’d be interested to hear, when you might have had the chance to review, your overall take of the Excel list of the “chosen” concept when you have a chance brother. Because when i read Psalm 139 what we don’t see is a clear statement of: “And you believed in me for me.” Or, “…and you brought and caused me to believe.”

I believe the word of God or the Spirit of God illuminating the heart occurs unto belief. So I am not saying we just reach into a secret pocket and pull out special insight unto salvation. What i am saying is Psalm 139 to me says that the number of days allotted God ordained. Not that God would live that life through him via meticulous determinism. The text does not say that though. Just sayin. Blessings.

1 Like
65

Thanks, brother. I think I follow your reasoning…

Where I think we differ is that you’re drawing an implication from the contrast in verses 28–29, whereas I’m trying to let Paul’s explicit statement carry the weight.

Verse 28 certainly contrasts those headed for destruction with those who are being saved. I don’t disagree with that.

But verse 29 doesn’t explain why the others don’t believe. It explains why the Philippian believers do.

“For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.”

The verb ἐχαρίσθη (echaristhē) means “was graciously granted” or “was freely given.” Paul doesn’t merely say they were given an opportunity to believe; he says believing itself was granted to them, just as suffering for Christ was granted to them.

The verb echaristhē (‘it has been graciously given’) shares the root of charis (‘grace’). Suffering, like faith, is presented as a gift - a startling claim that reframes persecution as divine privilege rather than misfortune. This theology of suffering as gift is distinctly Pauline.

If Paul had wanted to say that everyone receives the same enabling grace and some choose to believe while others refuse, this would have been the perfect place to say so. Instead, he simply says that believing was graciously given to the Philippian believers.

I also don’t think Philippians 3 changes that. Paul’s warning about the Judaizers identifies one group of opponents, but it doesn’t redefine what he meant in 1:29. The grammar of verse 29 still stands on its own.

So I don’t think the issue is whether there is a contrast between believers and unbelievers, there clearly is. The question is what Paul says caused the Philippians to believe. His answer isn’t that they exercised a universally restored free will, but that it was graciously granted to them to believe.

That fits well with Acts 13:48, John 6:37, 44, 65, Ephesians 2:8–9, and John 1:12–13, where faith is consistently presented as the result of God’s gracious initiative rather than its cause.

Shalom.

J.

1 Like
66

How will they believe without a preacher? Not, how will they believe without extra grace. Does not the word itself brother show us that faith is granted by hearing? The gospel (not additional grace beyond it) is the power unto salvation. So the way i would see it brother is we are fallen. We are depraved. But I place the emphasis of mankind more so on being created in His image. Whereas i would see in the reform construction we are created in Augustine’s intellectual image. But only the Auguestine of the second half of his life later and not earlier in his original convictions upon scripture once finding the Lord.

In other words, to me, the reformed perspective is too gnostic. It favors looking at man (flesh) as all flesh bad (gnostic orientation). And builds theology on this. Whereas we are created in His image, fallen. I would lean toward the preservation of God’s creation being quite a bit stronger than the gnostic view of all flesh evil. That is not to say flesh is not evil. It is fallen for sure. But where there is room to consider on the theological spectrum how that all works, at the end of the day the reformed side chooses gnostic leanings and i choose our being created in His image leanings. If that makes sense?

In Romans 1 it shows us that we are guilty because of creation testifying of God and we suppress Him being true. That is enough to condemn. I believe there is room to consider in Romans 2:14-16 that all salvation is through the work of Christ and received by believing upon Him. But if they don’t know about Christ, and they believe upon this God they do not know, and see His good character in general revelation and live according to that…they demonstrate faith. I do not pretend to know how that one works…lol. I don’t feel i have to force it into a can. Is there a regeneration that occurs from insight believed on in general revelation? I don’t know. Not sure how that could work. But the difference we might have is just that i would see God granting salvation for those who did not have the chance to know Him but believed on what they understood about Him. Because He is that good.

67

But the grammar of Phil 1, in my estimation, stands on its own as leaning to suffering being the idea take away. The grammar to me says: “Just like you have been given the privilege to believe you also have been given the priviledge to suffer for His name’s sake.” The grammar raising the value of suffering to the level of believing upon Him for salvation. Because normally suffering is not something we tend to seek or maybe even want in some way to justify in our life.

So the idea difference on the grammar front is i would see the focus is suffering. And the free flowing thought of Paul is just saying, “Just like you believed HEY you also get to suffer winner winner chicken dinner.” And that is as powerful an honest rendering of Paul’s honest heart in phrase as you would feel about the integrity and “weight” as you say in yours.

. . . . .

I have your responses to the two passages you asked about in Acts. They are two separate posts. But i am unable to post them until you reply. Blessings.

68

Love the creativity brother. As i posted in another post here recently, the compound applied i would see is the power of the gospel. The hearing of the word. As stated in scripture. I was deeply involved in the reformed world for over 20 years. I understand those sides of the argument. The way in which both Calvinists and Arminians address election are from the same understanding of election meaning. As I have studied it quite a bit more over the past 15 years, where we would differ and have two very different views is on what election means. That would be the core of differences I believe.

The Calvinist would see election in eternity past because of God’s decision. Arminians would see election from eternity past likely based on who “would” choose Him later. Or perhaps some degree of this line of thought. What is shared between Calvinist and Arminian is a belief that God elects people to salvation. I have a different view of election. If interested there is an excel spread sheet that looks at all the biblical references to chosen and how i would understand their organic contextual meanings I can email you to provide that view if you would like. Its not just my view. I didn’t make it. Its based on the biblical theology approach.

Based on your prose brother you are likely acquainted with the biblical theology approach model, but for reference sake I’ve included a short article (written from the reformed perspective) validating the biblical theology approach. I too, like the article, agree both approaches (biblical theology and systematic theology) have a place. But for me, the heavier lean is biblical theological approach. Blessings.

69

Brother, I don’t disagree that Paul’s pastoral emphasis is suffering. In fact, Meyer says exactly that. Paul interrupts himself because his heart is focused on encouraging suffering. But Meyer also points out that the verb ἐχαρίσθη (“has been graciously granted”) governs both infinitives, to believe and to suffer. So the emphasis on suffering doesn’t change the grammar. Paul is still saying that believing, just like suffering, has been graciously granted by God. I think that’s why virtually every major Greek commentary understands verse 29 this way.

“not only to believe in Him but also to suffer for His sake” These are two present infinitives which specify what God has given believers in Christ. One relates to continuing faith and the other to continuing maturity. It is hard for believers in modern western culture to discuss suffering. In the NT it was often the norm of the Christian life (cf. Act_14:22; Rom_8:17; 1Th_3:3; 2Ti_3:12; 1Pe_3:14; 1Pe_4:12-16). A brief breakdown of some of the purposes of suffering might be

  1. it was beneficial for Christ (cf. Heb_2:10; Heb_5:8), therefore,
  2. it will be beneficial for believers (cf. Php_2:10; Rom_5:3; Jas_1:2-4; 1Pe_1:6-7), and
  3. it brings joyous assurance of believers’ place in Christ (cf. Mat_5:10-12; Act_5:41; Jas_1:2; 1Pe_3:14; and 1Pe_4:12-16)

Php 1:29 For ὅτι it has been granted ἐχαρίσθη to you ὑμῖν - τὸ concerning ὑπὲρ Christ, Χριστοῦ, not οὐ only μόνον - τὸ to believe πιστεύειν in εἰς Him αὐτὸν but ἀλλὰ also καὶ - τὸ to suffer πάσχειν, concerning ὑπὲρ Him, αὐτοῦ

J.

1 Like
70

You don’t have to wait for my replies brother. Please continue sharing what’s on your heart and make the case as you see it. I’ll read through it carefully and respond when I can.

KP is doing a sterling work.

J.

1 Like
71

Understood. We will have our differences. The lean of the book though brother is one of suffering as important. So the context of the book itself would lean favor to suffering being a super topic. I asked Chatgpt how many times suffering is mentioned. even the first section of answer shows its stretching theme throughout the book in general. If you mean the English words “suffer,” “suffered,” “suffering,” etc., they occur four times in Philippians (ESV/NASB/NIV-type translations):

  1. Philippians 1:29 – “…it has been granted to you… also to suffer for his sake.”
  2. Philippians 3:8 – “For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things…”
  3. Philippians 3:10 – “…that I may know him… and may share his sufferings…”
  4. Philippians 4:14 – “Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble (or ‘affliction’).”

Depending on the English translation, Philippians 4:14 may not use the word “suffering,” but the Greek word (thlipsis) refers to affliction, distress, or tribulation.

If you include the broader theme of suffering

The concept is even more pervasive. Paul refers to:

  • His imprisonment (1:7, 13, 14, 17)
  • Opponents (1:28)
  • Suffering for Christ (1:29)
  • The same conflict the Philippians saw in him (1:30)
  • Christ’s humiliation and death (2:8)
  • Paul’s own losses for Christ (3:7–8)
  • Sharing Christ’s sufferings (3:10)
  • His present affliction (4:14)

. . . . .

To me, this is a similar story. Telling the exact same narrative. For the sake of intellectual integrity, it might be stressed here that God perhaps does this: He moves uniquely upon those who fear Him to believe. This I think we both would agree. In my case it would be belief resulting from already believing. In how reformed thought suggests, these that already believed were not believing and therefor children of wrath whom God appointed to believe. But that is not what is going on here.

Acts 13:16 identifies the audience in part as those who fear God:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers

Men of Israel, and ye that fear God.—The latter phrase denotes, as in Acts 10:2; Acts 10:22, those who, though in the synagogue, were of heathen origin, and had not become proselytes in the full sense of the term, but were known as the so-called “proselytes of the gate.”

Also the same mentioned again in Acts 13:26

And again in verse 43

In the immediate context we do not have: Unbelievers who God unhardened. This is foreign to the context for which reformed use it. On the contrary it is in whole hog proportion to my sense upon Phil 1. In the very context we shown that God is shifting from jealous undeserving Israel to gentiles. In this instance, as far as we can tell, these are gentiles already believing what revelation thus they so far had.

So the trajectory of exegetical flow is: Gentiles that believes heard the gospel and believe that. For some reason this plain theatrical build up seems to be dismissed in reformed circles and instead an over focus on a verse to affirm a systematic theological layover.

Having said all that…this is what I believe about the passage. We may not agree brother. But at minimum it is hopefully understand why? Blessings.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers

As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.—Better, as many as were disposed for. The words seem to the English reader to support the Calvinistic dogma of divine decrees as determining the belief or unbelief of men, and it is not improbable, looking to the general drift of the theology of the English Church in the early part of the seventeenth century, that the word “ordained” was chosen as expressing that dogma. It runs, with hardly any variation, through all the chief English versions, the Rhemish giving the stronger form “pre-ordinate.” The Greek word, however, does not imply more than that they fell in with the divine order which the Jews rejected. They were as soldiers who take the place assigned to them in God’s great army. The *quasi-*middle force of the passive form of the verb is seen in the Greek of Acts 20:13, where a compound form of it is rightly rendered “for so he had appointed,” and might have been translated for so he was disposed. It lies in the nature of the case that belief was followed by a public profession of faith, but the word “believed” does not, as some have said, involve such a profession.

72

Lydia was not a God hater. She was not a person we would say was a child of wrath. In context she seemed to already be a follower of God according to what had already been revealed in scripture thus far. So her transition is not from unbelief to belief. But from belief to “the next thing God had on the list to believe anyway.” Lydia already worshipped God. Her eyes were not opened from unbelief. But honored because she already believed. Quite a different case study than going from unbelief to belief though. “The sheep hear His voice.” She was a sheep because she already believed the Father. If the power of salvation is the gospel and the gospel was in transition (a period of coming to just begun to be known in the land), it is still the power of gospel being brought to Lydia by God.

The case study is not: Lydia was hardened in unbelief hating God and then believed Christ. That is not who she was or what happened in context.

The case study is; Like if you are looking to buy a house, and you have someone in you life that does not trust you or like you. And your relationship with that person is strained lets say. They are not going to pull you aside and say, “Hey Johann, I have an inside track on a home purchase i know you have been considering. This is not on the market yet and it is a great deal. Are you interested?” The only way that would occur is if he wanted to rip you off. BUT, if it were a close friend, one you had known for years, one you had built good faith with. If that person pulled you aside and told you about an off market home for purchase, it is because they want you to benefit from it because you have demonstrated relational integrity. In that sense Lydia almost proves the opposite. That God deepens revelation to the faithful more than just out of nowhere provides belief to an undeserving. If that makes sense on that level?

I’d say hands down the bottom line with Lydia was she was in the literal stream of history while the very word of God was still being written. And for her to be given special privilege by God to understanding what had not been fully written yet, I believe is far more the case for study here though brother than if God has to open the eyes of one in disbelief. Because this is not a poster child for that claim…like…at all.

Lydia affirms, in my estimation, that what was on display was God having granted Israel a soon option for their kingdom arrival with Christ which they rejected. Then God transitioned to bring in the gentiles since Israel did not belief. Lydia was a gentile drawn to the Jewish faith. The way Israel was meant to bring gentiles into the fold. And now it was her time to shine because the age had recently be opened per God’s word to the gentiles (since Israel rejected their messiah). That is the story this tells more, I believe. Lydia testifies to the narrative arc of God bringing the gentile onboard now, using one of their own that had already been transitioned into the faith prior to the full reach of gospel impact. I believe, by design. But the design is not unbeliever given miraculous privilege out of nowhere. It rather testifies that those who know the Father would know the Son. And that, even in a gentile transition for affect. Priceless.

73

@TCC

Brother, I think what I’ll do is wait and see whether @Kpuff responds, if the Lord so leads him. After that, I’ll come back and interact with what I believe the Scriptures actually say.

May I also ask you something? In your interaction with Peter, did you say that the Reformers or Reformed theology were Gnostic? If so, that’s a significant claim, and I’d genuinely like to understand what you mean by it.

There is one thing I don’t want on my thread, though, and I say this respectfully. I don’t want a spirit of combativeness or a discussion where the focus continually shifts from one passage to another without first dealing with what the text in front of us actually says. Scripture calls us to “rightly handle the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), to examine the Scriptures carefully (Acts 17:11), and to avoid quarrels that produce more heat than light (2 Timothy 2:23–25).

When we come to the text, we should come with our Bibles open, praying for the illumination of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:12–14), and allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture rather than asking Scripture to fit a theological system, whether Reformed, Arminian, or otherwise.

I have no problem with you using ChatGPT or other AI tools, I use them as tools myself from time to time. But they should never replace careful grammatical-historical exegesis. AI can summarize views and point us to resources, but it cannot do the work of faithfully handling God’s Word for us. Our final authority is never AI, a commentary, or a theological tradition, but the inspired Scriptures themselves (2 Timothy 3:16–17).

As we’ve gone back and forth, I believe you’ve committed a few hermeneutical and grammatical errors. One example is Acts 13:48, where you’ve treated the periphrastic perfect passive (ἦσαν τεταγμένοι) as though it carries a middle sense (“disposed themselves”), when the text presents it as a passive construction. Likewise, in Philippians 1:29, the grammar plainly states that it was granted to the Philippians not only to suffer for Christ but also to believe in Him. In several places, I think you’ve softened or explained away God’s sovereign action in favour of an interpretation that the text itself doesn’t explicitly state.

My concern isn’t that we disagree. Faithful Christians have wrestled with these passages for centuries. My concern is that we let the text speak before we ask it to support our conclusions. Exegesis should shape our theology; our theology should never reshape the text.

Having said that, today is my day of rest, so I’m going to leave it there for now. Please don’t take any of this personally, brother. I’m grateful for the interaction, and, Lord willing, we can continue discussing these passages another time with open Bibles and a shared desire to submit ourselves to what God has actually revealed in His Word.

One final thought, brother. I’m very familiar with the Arminian proof texts, and I’ve spent a great deal of time studying them in their contexts. I can honestly say that, in my understanding, they do not stand up under careful exegesis or in the clear light of the whole counsel of God’s revealed D’varim, His holy Scriptures.

Shalom.

J.

1 Like
74

Hey brother, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I do not think we disagree on Psalm 139. There’s a massive difference between God ordaining the scope of our lives (our days, our frame) and God micro-managing every choice, including our faith.

As you said, the text doesn’t explicitly outline a mechanism of strict determinism. I love your point about the Holy Spirit illuminating the heart unto belief. It keeps salvation entirely as a work of God’s grace and initiative, without reducing humans to mere robots. I’ll dive into that Excel list soon, but I think your reading of the Psalm here is really solid. Blessings!
Peter

1 Like
75

I appreciate your interpretation TCC-style.. I think, however, that Psalm 139 is being asked to answer questions it was never intended to answer.

Yes, God foreknows everyone. Reformed theology has never denied God’s omniscience. The question is not whether God knows everyone beforehand, but whether Scripture uses foreknowledge in relation to salvation as mere foresight or as God’s covenantal, electing love.

Psalm 139 teaches God’s exhaustive knowledge of David. He formed him in the womb (vv. 13-16), ordained all his days before one of them came to pass (v. 16), and knows every thought and word before it is spoken (vv. 1-4). That is far more than simple foresight. It is meticulous divine providence.

But notice what the Psalm does not discuss. It is not a discourse on the ordo salutis (the order of salvation), election, regeneration, or saving faith. Therefore, saying, “The Psalm doesn’t say, ‘God caused you to believe,’” proves nothing. By that same reasoning, the Psalm also doesn’t say, “Man exercised libertarian free will unto faith.” Neither doctrine is the subject of the passage.

That is an argument from silence.

Likewise, when you say, “God ordained the number of days but not the life lived,” I struggle to see that from the text. Verse 16 says, “In Your book were written every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” David is not merely saying God knew how many birthdays he would have. The context speaks of God’s intimate knowledge of every aspect of his existence. The Lord knows his thoughts before they arise (v. 2), his words before they are spoken (v. 4), and every path he takes (v. 3). The entire Psalm emphasizes God’s exhaustive knowledge and sovereign oversight of David’s life.

More importantly, election is not established from Psalm 139 but from passages that explicitly deal with salvation. Consider:

John 6:37, 39, 44, 65 - those given by the Father come because the Father draws them.
Acts 13:48 - “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
Romans 8:29-30 - those whom God foreknew He also predestined, called, justified, and glorified.
Ephesians 1:4-5, 11 - we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world according to the purpose of His will.
2 Timothy 1:9 - God saved us according to His own purpose and grace before the ages began.

These are the passages that should determine our doctrine of election, not a Psalm celebrating God’s omniscience and providence.

Finally, I agree that the Word of God is the means the Holy Spirit uses to bring people to faith (Romans 10:17). The disagreement is not over the instrument but over the cause. Does fallen man produce saving faith from an unregenerate heart, or does God graciously grant that faith through the regenerating work of the Spirit (John 3:3-8; John 6:63-65; Ephesians 2:1-10; Philippians 1:29)? That is where the real discussion lies.

Thus, Martin Luther repeatedly affirmed the doctrine of divine immutability against Erasmus, the great humanist. Because Erasmus was afflicted with rationalism (he put reason over Scripture) and because he did not distinguish between God hidden and God revealed, because he did not distinguish between law and gospel, profoundly misunderstood God’s self-revelation in Scripture. He quite misunderstood God’s sovereign decrees of election and reprobation. According to Luther (1525) the Christian needs to know that God is reliable, immutable in his electing love for us in Christ:

Here, then, is something fundamentally necessary and salutary for a Christian, to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that he foresees and purposes and does all things by his immutable, eternal, and infallible will. Here is a thunderbolt by which free choice is completely prostrated and shattered, so that those who want free choice asserted must either deny or explain away this thunderbolt, or get rid of it by some other means. However, before I establish this point by my own argument and the authority of Scripture, I will first deal with it in your words.1

The good news is that, whatever the biblicists and rationalists of our day may say, the Father of Lights (James 1:117) does not change. We must and may trust him when he promises that we are really and truly justified and saved. We need not look to Socinians and Mormons to teach us how to read Scripture. It is clear enough and we have the whole church to help us to see the glorious truth of God’s immutability.

Clear, explicit refences.

J.

76

Me either 100 percent. I don’t think anyone does. However, I do not think we disagree. Of course, it was the fall that separated us from God, and it was Jesus who came to restore us.

" For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." Romans 5:19

As you pointed out, Romans 1 says even if someone never heard of God, they are without excuse because of nature itself. However, saying that someone in this day and age does not hear about Jesus? is a stretch. There is a vast difference between not hearing about and not accepting. They may hear, but because of their “religion,” they do not believe, which is not an excuse to override God’s plan for salvation in the name of compassion. Jesus said,

" Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

So I feel everyone will be given a chance; God knows the heart. He alone is in charge. So I agree, we do not know how it all works out in the end. If @Johann were to be honest, I do not think he does either. I do not believe the Word is crystal clear for a reason. We have to have faith.
Peter

1 Like
77

Universalism.

“Johann” has spent enough time in God’s holy Word to discern truth from error.

Shalom brother.

J.

78

??? Johann is actually mixing up his theological terms. Saying that everyone has a choice to accept or reject Christ is absolutely not Universalism. In fact, it is the exact opposite. And let’s stop speaking about you in the third person. Kinda weird. (Smile)

Universalism is the belief that everyone will ultimately be saved and go to heaven, regardless of what they chose, believed, or did in this life. In strict universalism, hell either doesn’t exist, is temporary, or ends up empty because Christ’s redemption automatically covers every single human being in the end.

By saying everyone has a choice to accept or reject Christ, I am expressing my belief that God’s grace and salvation are offered to everyone (Universal Provision). But that salvation is conditional upon faith. Because human beings have free will, they can genuinely reject God’s grace. Those who reject Him are not saved.

Universalism says everyone is saved. I say anyone can be saved, but those who reject Christ will be lost. Perhaps you are coming from a strict Calvinist (Reformed) perspective. In Calvinism, there is a concept called Limited Atonement or Definite Redemption, which teaches that Christ died only for the elect. Those God chose before the foundation of the world.

Since I say “Christ died for absolutely everyone’s sins,” you jump to the conclusion: “Well, if Christ paid for everyone’s sins, then everyone must be saved (Universalism), otherwise Christ’s blood was wasted on people in hell.” But you are skipping the crucial element of my belief. Faith as a condition. I am saying that the provision is universal, but the application is limited to those who believe.

I believe salvation is available to everyone, but it must be accepted by faith. If someone rejects Christ, they choose to separate themselves from God. That’s classic Free Will theology, not Universalism. Universalism leaves no room for people to successfully reject Christ and be lost; my view explicitly does.

Me too, brother.
Shalom
Peter

1 Like
79

Scripture verses have been quoted (and misquoted) almost endlessly to disprove the doctrines of grace. Yet, in most cases, we would be no further from the real issue if we said, “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job.”

The first “straw dummy” that we need to consider is the charge that “Calvinists” are man followers, who elevate Calvin’s writings to (or above) the level of Holy Scripture. In reality, the “Calvinist” is no more a man follower than is the “Arminian.” These are merely theological labels which designate a particular doctrinal position. Were it not for the woeful ignorance of Church history that exists today, these theological labels might prove useful in distinguishing doctrinal positions. However, this is not the case. The truth is that through the efforts of zealous, but uninformed, Arminian preachers and writers, the term “Calvinist” has been so tortured and twisted that few (if any) Calvinists would be willing to wear it without explanation.

The so-called “five points of Calvinism” were not even formulated in answer to the five points of Arminianism (the Remonstrants) until over fifty years after Calvin’s death. Their relationship to Calvin or to Calvin’s writings is only incidental. It merely arose from the fact that both taught the same truths.

In regard to the charge that Calvinists exalt Calvin’s writings to the level of Scriptures, we find another clear evidence of willful ignorance of the subject at hand. If those who give this impression knew anything about the Reformation, they would know that all of the reformers and their followers believed that the Scriptures alone are binding in matters of faith and practice.

Consider the difference between the “straw dummies” and the REAL issues in each of the five doctrines of grace.

Straw Dummy 1

THE DOCTRINE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY (INABILITY) CANNOT BE TRUE BECAUSE:

  1. The Bible teaches that all are responsible to believe and repent.
    2.The Bible teaches that man has a will (choice). Man is not a robot or a puppet.
  2. Every man does not act as sinfully as he is capable of acting.
  3. Even wicked men perform acts which are good in the sight of other people.

REAL ISSUE

  1. The Bible teaches that men, controlled by a sinful nature, are not able to believe or repent. The person who believes in free grace has no argument with the truth that sinners are responsible. What he denies is that God requires no more than man is able to do. For instance, God requires perfect obedience to His law from those who possess no ability or desire to obey it (Romans 8:7).

Man’s inability springs from his sinful and rebellious unwillingness. He CANNOT (John 6:44), because he WILL NOT .
2. The Bible does teach that man has a choice and that he acts freely in the exercise of that choice. The issue concerns whether a person, controlled by a sinful nature, will ever make the proper choice. The Bible teaches that man’s will is bound and controlled by his sinful nature; so that he cannot and will not choose Christ, believe the gospel, or forsake sin unless God, in sovereign grace, changes his nature (John 3:19-21, 6:44, 6:65; 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2:14; Romans 3:11).

  1. Every man, left to himself is capable of the most heinous sins. Every man at heart is the same (Proverbs 27:19) — deceitful and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9).

  2. Men are wicked in God’s sight and totally incapable of doing that which is well-pleasing to Him (Genesis 6:5; Psalm 14:1-3; Ecclesiastes 7:20, 29; Job 15:16; Jeremiah 9:3; Romans 3:10-18).

J.

80

STRAW DUMMY 2

THE DOCTRINE OF “UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION” CANNOT BE TRUE BECAUSE:

  1. Anyone who wants to be saved, can be. “Whosoever will May come.”
  2. God does not delight in the destruction of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11), but desires that all men repent.
  3. We should preach the gospel to everyone. If God has only planned to save some, why should we preach to and pray for all?
    4.”Election” and “predestination” are terms contrived by the Calvinists to cause confusion, bring division, and excuse a lack of evangelistic zeal (The issue is whether election ever took place or not).

REAL ISSUE

  1. The true believer in free grace will never deny that God has extended a free offer of mercy, in Christ, to all who hear the Gospel. To deny that “Whosoever will may come,” is to deny the clear teaching of God’s Word. The real issue, however, is whether any will desire salvation (in God’s way and on God’s terms) unless God gives him that desire (Psalm 14:1-3; Romans 3:11; Psalm 58:3-5; John 3:14-21, 5:40).

  2. Has God purposed to save every man? Since the Bible plainly teaches that God’s plan or purpose is always accomplished (Isaiah 46:10-11; Daniel 4:35; Proverbs 19:21; Psalm 115:3), It should be clear that He has not purposed to save everyone. If He had, everyone would be saved.

On the other hand, the Bible sets forth God’s elective purpose according to which He calls and saves His elect (Romans 8:28-30, 9:11; Ephesians 1:4-5, 9-11; 2 Timothy 1:9).

  1. God has commanded us to preach to (witness to) every creature and pray for their salvation. We are not to be governed by what God has planned (which is secret to us), but by what God has commanded.

God has ordained to use means to accomplish His purpose (Romans 10:14-15). He does not save people apart from the use of means. Gospel preaching is one of the means that God has ordained to bring the elect to faith in Christ. Since we do not know who the elect are, we must preach to and pray for all.
The primary purpose for witnessing the gospel is that we might glorify God in our obedience and faithfulness to Him.

  1. Every Christian who has carefully studied the Bible must believe in election and predestination. These are biblical words. The issue is whether election is conditional (based on foreseen faith) or unconditional.

J.