J.
Yeah, sorry. I’m nearly out of time. But? I completely appreciate the precision of your argument. You’re forcing me to stick strictly to the text, which is exactly how good iron sharpens iron.
When you ask, ‘Where does Luke say that?’—my answer is that he establishes the conditional framework in verse 46. He explicitly states that the Jews missed out because they “thrust the word aside.” The immediate context sets up a direct contrast between the Jews who resisted the light and the Gentiles who received it.
When Luke says the Gentiles were tetagmenoi (appointed/disposed) to eternal life, he is using a military term that means “to place in rank” or “to set in array.” Because this Greek form can function as a middle or passive voice, many scholars argue it describes a state of readiness or alignment. I think I would agree. Unlike the Jews who broke rank and thrust the word away, these Gentiles were aligned and ready for eternal life, and so, they believed.
You’re right that Luke doesn’t lay out a systematic treatise on free will here. But by framing the entire breakthrough around the Jews rejecting the message and the Gentiles welcoming it, the text implies that the disposition of the heart toward the proclaimed word matters.
Love the list of passages, brother. I see the massive emphasis on God’s initiative there, too. But I think we’re looking at two sides of the same coin: God’s sovereign offer and man’s responsibility to not resist it."
Peter
2 Likes
Yes brother I agree with you. That is the kind of argument a group of people have that come up with who use reformed logic and systematic on scripture. I’m not Arminian. Arminians follow the line of reasoning of Augustinian and Calvinist views on election. I don’t. So i don’t need nor use that line of thinking. God does not elect those who might choose. Instead, the way I would say it is: He elects us in Christ. In Christ, the elect, we are elect. When we received Him. Not 5 minutes before. Just then.
So these are the other arguments I don’t have time on our forum to get into all over the place. Like I said they are not new for me. I did due diligence a decade ago on these. I’ve dealt with these a decade ago. One group will see things say this, another group that is says that.
What i understand the emphasis is “chosen in Him” is that what is chosen is that we might be holy and blameless before Him. Not that we could be holy and blameless at all outside of Him. Before you might further create more paragraphs I have little time to address dear brother are you as willing yourself to take the time and look at how “chosen” is used throughout scripture in the excel sheet someone (not me) who had studied this for many years noted for each and every use and sense of it? Because those 200+ verses is my answer should you so decide to take this mission, it won’t self destruct in 3 seconds. You have whatever time you need to consider.
Spurgeon famously identified himself with Calvinism, but he did not believe every statement made by Calvin or later Reformed theologians was necessarily correct. Scripture remained the final authority. He testified that we should not be putting a theological system above Scripture. And although you don’t think reformeds do, I differ. To “prove” this, for my sake brother, it can be done in Acts. Instead of jumping to different arguments…that perspective in Acts we were discussion offers ample room to considered well both our sides.
The one where we consider the doctrines of election to come from men. And what other view can explain scripture better. Brother you are arguing with yourself about an ingroup issue of reformeds you have with Arminians. You are not interacting with me (not on purpose, i get it is not easy to see a whole other paradigm–it was for me) here. Because I’m not Arminian nor share in need to react to arguments Augustine and Calvin used to put forth the doctrines of election. I don’t see that scripture affords them. And its not just me and my butter knife.
Are you aware there are robust arguments outside of your systematic? Where the world outside the reformed bubble does actually exist? Have you studied much outside of the reformed take? I ask because i never thought to leave for 25 years, myself. It seemed all the reality there was. Until, it wasn’t.
There are a lot of great sources but you strike me as far too committed to your stance to move in any of those directions. But the excel sheet is a good start. Its seeing the grand layout of chosen in the word outside the prescribed parameters of the reformed position.
Adam Harwood wrote a systematic. The views outside the reformed camp (Calvinist/Arminian) are not really rock stars and does not really have a market today. But that theological work is one of the few that do exist. It is robust. And like the Lydia thing, it looks at clarity. Not vaguely suggesting that God wakes people up that don’t believe and use Lydia as an example of that. The reformed camp has used that style for as long as i can remember. That is why i think staying in Acts is good for our conversation. Blessings.
Now this I can agree with.
This i would not agree with though. The end statement to me is why. Not that I would say God is somehow trapped or not trapped by time. He’s not. But that is a given to me. Not something we have to walk ourselves back from thinking though.
KP look at your first quote here and then this second. It would seem you do seem God marries time for the sake of the believer i guess of sorts. But how do you know there is no sequence before time? You don’t know that. Its a guess. I think your former quote is much closer to how time works though.
I don’t think God created time. I mean if that helps in how we might think upon the eternal i guess i understand. But where in the bible does it say God created time? The end from the beginning? I guess we could call that God creating time. But what if there is sequence in eternity past? What if it is just like time that never started? I get it. An oxymoron. But we don’t know (we do not have doctorates in the paranormal) what eternity functions like or its fabric outside of God creating “creation” which became for us measurable as time. And yet we use it to help God not be trapped by time. I don’t think He needs our help in that. I think He exists outside of time fine without our struggling views on that though.
If anything brother i would not see the word of God so much help us understand how God is not trapped by time. But more so how he condescended and super gave Himself in it. His favor toward time with us is more to me the character of God rather than a somewhat scientiic/philosophical uncertatinty we cannot know. What we can know is what God did with time. With us. And that is important i believe to note. Far more than how to process things we kind of have little knowledge or business solving. Especially, humbly brother honestly as i see it, for Him. If that makes sense?
What my main point here is not so much about things we cannot know about time. My point is that philosophy has entered Christianity in a hypnotically theological way. And i’m just wanting to point that out. If that too might make sense in where i am coming from with all of this? Blessings.
We appreciate your heart in this for your thread brother 
1 Like
Interesting @TCC
I appreciate the question, and yes, I’ve read outside Reformed theology. I’m not opposed to doing so, in fact, I think we should test every theological system, including our own, against Scripture.
What I’m trying to avoid, though, is making this a discussion about camps. Whether an argument is Reformed, Arminian, Provisionist, Lutheran, or something else doesn’t tell me whether it’s correct. My question is always the same, does the interpretation arise naturally from the text?
If I discover that a non-Reformed interpretation better explains the grammar, context, and flow of a passage, then I have every reason to embrace it. Likewise, if a Reformed interpretation fails the test of exegesis, I have no interest in defending it simply because it’s Reformed. Yes?
So rather than asking whether I’ve read widely enough, I’d much rather ask-which interpretation best accounts for the biblical text itself? That’s where I want the discussion to remain.
You mentioned Adam Harwood. I’m quite willing to read him. But after I’ve read him, I’ll still be asking the same question I ask of Calvin, Augustine, or anyone else: “Have they demonstrated their conclusion from the inspired text, or have they brought a theological framework to it?”
For me, that’s the issue, not which theological camp an argument comes from, but whether it faithfully reflects what the biblical author intended to communicate.
And…
…what continues to strike me is that all of the passages I’ve raised concerning God’s saving work in the individual believer remain largely unaddressed. That’s where I see the real tension in our discussion.
It seems we’re looking at the same biblical landscape through two different lenses. You consistently interpret election corporately, whereas I see Scripture presenting God’s covenant purposes as being worked out through the calling and salvation of individuals within that covenant framework.
To me, that’s where the paradox still lies. I’m not asking you to abandon corporate election, I readily acknowledge that corporate realities are woven throughout Scripture. My question is whether the corporate emphasis sufficiently explains the many passages that speak of God’s gracious work in the individual: His calling, His choosing, His opening of the heart, His sealing by the Holy Spirit, His justifying, preserving, and ultimately glorifying those who are His.
.until those passages are addressed on their own terms, it seems to me that the tension remains unresolved. That’s the conversation I’d genuinely like us to have.
Until then. Or is it “Till then?” No matter.
J.
1 Like
I know this is a difficult subject, and not one on which our salvation hinges. So I am not attempting to “convince” you of an idea that you are reluctant to recieve. That is not my charge.
You said:
I’m not sure what you mean by “God marries time for the sake of the believer”. Maybe you are saying that I am suggesting God condescends into time for the sake of His relationship with mankind. If so, you are right. But your question: “…how do you know there is no sequence before time?” is easily answered. Sequence is a product of time. Without time, there can be no sequences, because sequence is how time is experienced. When you use the term “before time” you are stating a logical impossibility. The idea of “before” is only logical within the idea of “time”. Does that make sense? There can be no “before time” because “before” means a sequence within time.
Then you said:
And this is where our two philosophical roads diverge. If God did not create time, then time is a foundational reality in which everything exists, us and God. If God did not create time, then God also experiences time; God must also wait for the next moment, the next year, the next epoch, etc. just like everything else. Logically that means God is also subject to time; He is logically subordinate to it like we are. So here is how you and I see God differently. Either God did not create time, (as you say) and so He lives within its confines like everything else, or God did create time, from outside of it, and God is totally in control of time. He can alter it at will without tragic effect.
And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “What is the sign that the LORD will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of the LORD the third day?” Then Isaiah said, “This is the sign to you from the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing which He has spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees or go backward ten degrees?” And Hezekiah answered, “It is an easy thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees; no, but let the shadow go backward ten degrees.” So Isaiah the prophet cried out to the LORD, and He brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down on the sundial of Ahaz. (2 Kings 20:8-11)
And the word of the LORD came to Isaiah, saying, “Go and tell Hezekiah, 'Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria, and I will defend this city.” ’ And this is the sign to you from the LORD, that the LORD will do this thing which He has spoken: Behold, I will bring the shadow on the sundial, which has gone down with the sun on the sundial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward.” So the sun returned ten degrees on the dial by which it had gone down. (Isaiah 38:4-8)
To “exist outside of time” means to be superior to, and not affected by time. Time has no control on God. God waits for nothing. Nothing past is gone, nothing future has not happened yet. That God exists outside of time logically infers that God is the creator of time. I believe God said as much when He tells us through the pen of Moses:
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. (Genesis 1:3-4).
Only recently have we begun to understand how time and light are inextricably linked. (E=MC2) (This is a bigger subject for another thread)
I sincerely do not think I (or others) say “God superior to time” and “time is God’s creation” simlly because we are subconsciously trying to “help God not be trapped by time”. I do see it like you do when you state:
I agree with you, that God “exists outside of time fine without our struggling views on that”.
Thanks for the conversation. I really intended to offer a concise reply, but again I failed.
Blessings
KP
Yes, please stay on the topic under discussion. I’m not interested in detours into Kant, Einstein, or other philosophical frameworks. The discussion is about free will and the so-called sin nature. Let’s keep our attention on the relevant biblical texts and allow the Scriptures to govern the conversation.
Brother @TCC I hear you and am more than willing to resume our discussion.
The same applies to you, Pastor @PeterC. You are welcome to continue in discussion. My apologies for the public spat between KP and me. It was never my intention for the discussion to become a distraction from the topic at hand.On my thread.
Today was not a good day for me.
J.
Interesting concept. I understand wanting to safeguard God’s eternity, but Scripture actually shows that God did create time. In Genesis 1:1, “the beginning” is the creation of time itself, and Hebrews 1:2 says God made the ‘ages’ through Christ. If God is outside of time, it’s because He built the clock; He isn’t living inside of it.
The phrase “In the beginning” establishes a starting point. There cannot be a “beginning” unless time is actively being launched. God did not start creating in time; rather, time began with the creation of the universe. Before Genesis 1:1, there was no “before” in a physical sense; there was only God, existing in absolute eternity.
Peter
1 Like
Understood. I bring it up where it seems to fit. Otherwise my POV of exegesis is called Provisionism. As a camp. If you will. Just to be helpful. Because I would not bring up the reformed thing again here. It was just that you addressed me like you thought my position was Arminian. It’s not at all.
The reason I wanted to clarify using “reformed” considerations is because I wanted to help break a mold you found yourself in. I was there for 25 years so i know it well. The reformed paradigm sets up a logical fallacy (in my estimation). It makes the exegetical argument about scripture a Calvin vs Arminian thing. And that is where you were arguing from. So I brought up that Arminius was a believer using reformed logic. I am not. So by not talking to me as though I were an Arminian is progress along the road you wish to travel (not making it about camps) that I am hopefully helpful and keeping you on. We could not talk about exegesis if you think my view is Arminian. I am not in that category at all.
What is Provisionism? What is a Provisionist? | GotQuestions.org
I believe we have gotten off track from where we really were brother. I left you a lengthy post regarding how Acts is hugely transitonal. And “that” mode of the book is a context that is king more so than how you may lean on any verse in it. That is where we left off. What was left unaddressed was from you being tired. Not me.
This mindset of teacher and how others have not met reason for teacher to answer unfortunately (i have to bring it up here hopefully to lovingly show you) is a huge problem in the reformed camp. And from my literally generational observation of it, makes value in conversation very difficult. I’d ask you to consider straying from that if you want me to stray from “camp” concepts.
Where we are is:
- Teren is hot for context
- Johann is hot for individual passage meaning
Next: We discuss how those two relate or don’t relate and what are the issues to consider in how we are looking at what we are reading in scripture. That is where we left off. Plenty to address. Plenty to discuss.
In addition, you are always welcome to provide me your email to send you the excel sheet on “chosen” in scripture. Its not a butter knife. If you’d like to know what one of those in my nail filing kit might look like Blessings dear brother.
So I’d really like us to return to the text and let Scripture speak on its own terms. Let’s wrestle with what the inspired authors actually wrote, in their context, grammar, and argument, rather than shifting the discussion to the historical backgrounds of theologians. That, I believe, is the only safe and faithful ground for both of us.
Brother, just so I understand where you’re coming from, would it be fair to ask whether your view aligns with Provisionism as articulated by Leighton Flowers?
I ask because several of the arguments you’re making seem to reflect that framework, particularly the belief that fallen man retains the moral ability to respond to the gospel apart from a prior work of regeneration, and that faith precedes the new birth rather than resulting from it.
If that is your position, that’s helpful to know, because it means our disagreement isn’t merely over the interpretation of a few isolated passages like 1 Corinthians 15 or 2 Corinthians 5. It’s rooted in two very different theological systems and, more fundamentally, two different anthropologies.
If I’m mistaken, then please correct me. I don’t want to misrepresent your position. I’d rather understand your theological framework before responding further so that we can discuss the actual issues rather than talk past one another.
J.
1 Like
The terms Provisionism and Provisionist are new by the standards of Christian theology. These labels have only been formally defined and used in the past few years. In broad terms, a Provisionist—someone who holds to Provisionism—holds a generally Arminian view of free will and salvation, with notable differences such as positive belief in eternal security. The main gist of Provisionism is the idea that the gospel is the Word of God, which is sufficient in itself, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to enable a response in all who hear God’s appeal to be reconciled to Him (John 6:63; Hebrews 4:12).
The clearest differences between Provisionist doctrine and classical Reformed theology are seen in the concepts of total depravity and limited atonement. The doctrine of total depravity suggests all people are inherently sinful, such that they could not even want to be saved without a direct, predestined act of God. Provisionism counters that all people are sinful and responsible for their sin, but they are also responsible for answering God’s universal call for men to be saved (Titus 2:11). Limited atonement is a doctrine teaching that Christ only died for those God had designated as the elect. A Provisionist would reject this, saying that the Bible teaches that Christ died for all people (1 John 2:2), which is why God promises to save any who come to Him in faith (Romans 10:11–13; Revelation 22:17). The Provisionist holds that Christ genuinely desires all of humanity to be saved (Luke 5:32; 19:10; 1 Timothy 2:4–6; ).
In effect, this means a Provisionist would also reject other Reformed doctrines such as irresistible grace.
The main use of the term Provisionism comes from the writings of theologian Leighton Flowers. The term is also meant to describe the general approach to salvation held by most Southern and Independent Baptists. So far as Reformed doctrine is concerned, this means narrow disagreement on the subjects of total depravity and limited atonement, as well as the exact meaning of words like predestined and elect.
Similar to the TULIP in Calvinism, Provisionism can be summarized with the acrostic PROVIDE (see Our Beliefs – SOTERIOLOGY 101 for more information):
People sin: Which separated all from fellowship with God.
Responsible: Able-to-respond to God’s appeals for reconciliation.
Open door: For anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to His open arms.
Vicarious atonement: Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ’s blood.
Illuminating grace: Provides clearly revealed truth so that all can know and respond in faith.
Destroyed: For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit.
Eternal security: For all true believers.
Christians have often debated the finer points of how human will and God’s sovereignty interact when it comes to salvation. Though the nuances of Provisionism may not be accepted by particular believers, its tenets are well within the realm of orthodox Christian theology.
J.
1 Like
I am, unshockingly, going to generally be sympathetic of Luther’s ideas pertaining to the bondage of the human will. That the will of fallen men is not truly free, because the will has been made captive by sin.
As such, the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord (one of the Lutheran Confessions contained in the Book of Concord) reads:
Namely, that in spiritual and divine things the intellect, heart, and will of the unregenerate man are utterly unable, by their own natural powers, to understand, believe, accept, think, will, begin, effect, do, work, or concur in working anything, but they are entirely dead to what is good, and corrupt, so that in man’s nature since the Fall, before regeneration, there is not the least spark of spiritual power remaining, nor present, by which, of himself, he can prepare himself for God’s grace, or accept the offered grace, nor be capable of it for and of himself, or apply or accommodate himself thereto, or by his own powers be able of himself, as of himself, to aid, do, work, or concur in working anything towards his conversion, either wholly, or half, or in any, even the least or most inconsiderable part; but that he is the servant [and slave] of sin, John 8:34, and a captive of the devil, by whom he is moved, Eph. 2:2; 2 Tim. 2:26. Hence the natural free will according to its perverted disposition and nature is strong and active only with respect to what is displeasing and contrary to God. (Solid Declaration, Article II, 7)
Thus the topic of free will, as it pertains to the Evangelical (aka Lutheran) perspective of the Evangelical Reformers of the Church, is constrained to dealing with the powers of the will in relation to spiritual things, and in particular the power of the will to attain righteousness before God. The position of the Evangelical fathers, including that of Dr. Luther himself, is expressly clear: No, the will has no ability nor power to attain righteousness before God, because the human will is (apart from regeneration) sick and diseased as is the whole of fallen man, having received and inherited from Adam the total sickness of the first and original sin of our first parent, into whose broken and wounded image each of us is conceived and born–and which Christ, by His Incarnation, comes to loosen those bonds by His perfectly righteous life, His passion, His death, and His resurrection–by which He undoes Adam’s wrong, setting the whole of human nature to right in His own Person. And thus righteousness before God is entirely, fully, and totally the gracious act of a loving God, who comes down to sinners, through Word and Sacrament, working, creating, faith; giving us the gift of the Holy Spirit, and making us a new creature in Jesus Christ. This, entirely, by grace alone, received through faith alone, because of Christ alone; so that none may boast of himself and his own efforts–but boast solely of the Crucified and Risen Christ and Lord, Jesus, and offer praise and thanksgiving to His glorious Father who so loved us in His Son before the world began.
In this, man remains fully culpable of his sin; for man truly chooses that which is evil, not as an automaton, but as moral agent. Sin here is both the slave-driver and the slavery itself; but it does not arise as a force external to man, but within man; so that man is the agent of his own self-imposed bondage. I am the agent of my own condemnation and damnation, for I choose that which is evil. And so God’s Judgment through the Law is righteous and just: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. For a free man is not a slave–but we, in Adam, are slaves to sin and death; freedom comes only through Christ who makes us free: He has crushed the padlocks, He has knocked down the iron doors, and He has declared freedom to the captives.
1 Like
R. S. Clark, 2000; 2014.
I Luther’s Critique of Erasmus (2/3)
II Luther’s Positive Development of the Doctrine of Predestination from SS (1/3)
Major propositions:
1A fallen sinner is totally unable to cooperate with divine grace.
2 Salvation is exclusively the result of divine monergism
3 God foreknows what he does and does what he foreknows
4 To say that a fallen sinner has the power to cooperate with divine grace is a denial of the necessity of Christ’s work.
5 The human will is in bondage to sin because of our union with Adam in his fall
6 Everything happens according to the divine foreknowledge and will and therefore whatever occurs is, in this sense, ‘necessary’ but not ‘compulsory’.
7 The regenerate and unregenerate act according to their respective wills
8 Necessity does not destroy moral responsibility.
9 God’s will is immutable
10 Human free will is a denial of divine freedom
11 ‘Free will’ an ‘empty term’ which should be discarded
12 Predestination is the sine qua non of assurance .
13 God has predestined some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation.
14 Predestination is fundamentally paradoxical.
15 Ought does not imply can (Nominalism over realism).
16 ‘God preached’ must be distinguished from ‘God hidden’.
17 Sola gratia, Sola fide denies free will
18 Human inability disproves free will
J.
The historic Christian doctrine of predestination (election and reprobation) have long been controversial. In the ninth century, Gottschalk was beaten and confined to his monastery for daring to repeat what Augustine had written against the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians. Today, the same thing happens figuratively to evangelicals who stumble upon the ancient (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine), medieval (e.g., Gottschalk, Aquinas), Reformation (e.g., Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Calvin, Bucer, et al), and post-Reformation doctrines of election and reprobation (predestination). In an age when Pelagianism is practically the reigning orthodoxy among modern Evangelicals, the doctrine of predestination can seem shocking and yet it is the teaching of Scripture and an ecumenical doctrine. The Council of Ephesus (AD 431) condemned Pelagianism as heresy against the universal (ecumenical, catholic) faith. The Second Council of Orange (AD 529) denounced the Pelagians as heretics.
They confessed that because Scripture teaches that God has, from all eternity, elected some and reprobated others. In Ephesians 1, Paul teaches predestination. We were “chosen” (ἐξελέξατο) in Christ, “from the foundation of the world.” In both vv. 5 and 11 we are said to have been “predestined” (προορίσας in v. 5 and προορισθέντες in v. 11). So, that seems rather clear. There is no indication in this text that our election or predestination was conditioned upon anything God foresaw in us. The indication from the text is that God chose us “in Christ” and “in love” from all eternity unconditionally.
Romans 9:11–13 really nails this point:
…though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (ESV)
Election (as distinct from reprobation) is said here to be unconditioned by anything in Jacob. God elects fallen, sinful creatures. What sort of creatures? Fallen creatures. As Augustine, said, God elect us out of a “lump of sin.” Paul said that, after the fall, we were “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1).
Election is a marvelous doctrine, confessed by the ancient fathers and by the Reformed churches today.
How Did We Come To Faith?
Heidelminicast: Belgic Confession Art. 16—The Doctrine Of Election
Canons Of Dort (8): There Is Only One Kind Of Election
The Synod Of Dort On Election, Conditions Of Salvation, And Fruit (1)
The Synod Of Dort On Election, Conditions Of Salvation, And Fruit (2)
The Green Lantern v Paul on Election
Grace And Election In The Late 90s AD
Calvin on Covenant and Election
Thomas and Rome on Predestination
Canons Of Dort (11): The Doctrine Of Predestination Is Edifying And Should Be Taught Wisely
Canons Of Dort (13): The Doctrine Of Predestination Is A Mystery
Does Covenant Theology Change Our Doctrine Of Predestination?
John Owen’s Judgment On Amyraut’s Brief Treatise On Predestination
Vermigli On The Causal Relations Among Predestination, Vocation, Justification, And Good Works
Arminius’ Claims About The Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism On Predestination
New in Print: Calvin’s Doctrine of Predestination
Resources On Romans
J.
Some Quotes:
“I know that to many people a great deal remains obscure; but that is due, not to any lack of clarity in Scripture, but to their own blindness and dullness, in that they make no effort to see truth which, in itself, could not be plainer. As Paul said of the Jews in 2 Cor. 4: “The veil remains on their heart” (2 Cor. 3:15); and again, “If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, whose heart the god of this world has blinded (2 Cor. 4:3-4).”
“In the NT, the Gospel is preached and this is just the word that offers the Spirit and grace for the remission of sins which was procured for us by Christ crucified. It is all entirely free, given by the mercy of God the Father alone as he shows His favour towards us, who are unworthy, and who deserve condemnation rather than anything else.”
“The Diatribe is deceived by its own ignorance in that it makes no distinction between God preach and God hidden, that is, between the Word of God and God Himself.”
“For once it is granted and settled that “free-will” has lost its freedom, and is bound in the service of sin, and can will no good, I can gather nothing from these words but that “free-will” is an empty term whose reality is lost.”
J.
My goal is to demonstrate from the text of Scripture itself that God is the one who chooses, elects, appoints, calls, grants, draws, and gives, rather than man initiating salvation by autonomous free will, the strongest case is made by tracing the Hebrew verbs of divine election in the Old Testament and the Greek verbs of divine choosing in the New Testament.
This is not merely a theological inference; the biblical writers repeatedly place God as the grammatical subject of the verbs of choosing.
J.
καλέω (kaleō) — “to call”
In Paul, the effective call originates with God.
Romans 8:30
“Those whom He predestined He also called.”
1 Corinthians 1:9
“God is faithful, by whom you were called.”
Galatians 1:15
“God… called me by His grace.”
2 Timothy 1:9
“Who saved us and called us… not according to our works.”
- δίδωμι (didōmi) — “to give”
Salvation is repeatedly described as something the Father gives.
The Strongest Summary Texts
If you wanted only the clearest passages where God is explicitly the decisive actor, I would place these at the top:
John 15:16 - “You did not choose Me, but I chose you.”
John 6:37 - “All that the Father gives Me will come.”
John 6:44 - “No one can come unless the Father draws him.”
John 6:65 - “Unless it is granted by the Father.”
Acts 13:48 - “Appointed to eternal life believed.”
Romans 8:29-30 -Golden Chain.
Romans 9:15-18 - “Not of him who wills.”
Ephesians 1:4-5 - Chosen before the foundation of the world.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 - God chose you for salvation.
Philippians 1:29 - Faith granted.
Acts 11:18 - Repentance granted.
Ezekiel 36:26-27 - New heart given.
Deuteronomy 30:6 - Heart circumcised by God.
Matthew 11:27 - The Son reveals the Father to whom He wills.
John 15:16 - The most direct statement: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you.”
From a Reformed exegetical perspective, the cumulative force of these passages is significant: Scripture repeatedly presents salvation as originating in God’s eternal purpose (ἐκλέγομαι, προορίζω, τάσσω, καλέω, δίδωμι, χαρίζομαι; בָּחַר, נָתַן), with faith, repentance, calling, regeneration, and perseverance flowing from divine initiative rather than arising independently from fallen human will. Romans 9:16 encapsulates the principle succinctly:
“So then it does not depend on the one willing (τοῦ θέλοντος) or the one running (τοῦ τρέχοντος), but on God who shows mercy (τοῦ ἐλεοῦντος θεοῦ).” (Rom 9:16)
The testimony of both the Old and New Testaments consistently presents God as the One who initiates, determines, accomplishes, and secures salvation. While Scripture repeatedly calls sinners to repent and believe, it just as consistently attributes the origin of salvation to God’s sovereign choice rather than to autonomous human free will. The biblical emphasis is not on man choosing God first, but on God choosing, calling, drawing, granting, and giving a people to Himself.
This divine initiative is already evident in the Old Testament through the Hebrew verb בָּחַר (bāḥar), meaning “to choose,” “to select,” or “to elect.” Throughout the Old Testament, the subject of this verb is overwhelmingly God Himself. Israel did not become God’s covenant people because they first chose Him; rather, God chose them according to His own purpose and love. Deuteronomy 7:6–8 declares, “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen (bāḥar) you to be a people for His treasured possession.” Moses immediately removes every possible ground for human boasting by explaining that Israel was not chosen because they were greater, stronger, or more numerous than the surrounding nations. Instead, the choice rested entirely upon God’s love and His covenant oath to the patriarchs.
The same pattern continues throughout Israel’s history. Nehemiah 9:7 states, “You are the LORD God, who chose Abram.” Abraham was not seeking Yahweh while living in Ur of the Chaldeans, for Joshua 24:2 reminds Israel that Abraham’s family served other gods. God’s sovereign choice preceded Abraham’s faithful response. Likewise, Psalm 78:70 declares that God “chose David His servant,” and in 1 Samuel 16 the Lord explicitly rejects every human candidate presented by Samuel before selecting David according to His own sovereign purpose. In each instance, God is the active subject, while man is the recipient of divine election.
The New Testament intensifies this same doctrine through the Greek verb ἐκλέγομαι (eklegomai), meaning “to choose” or “to elect.” Nowhere is this more explicit than in Jesus’ own words in John 15:16: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you.” The Greek reads, οὐχ ὑμεῖς με ἐξελέξασθε, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς. The verb ἐξελεξάμην is the aorist middle indicative, emphasizing Christ’s deliberate personal choice. The order is unmistakable: the disciples did not initiate the relationship; Christ Himself did. This statement directly overturns any suggestion that the decisive movement originated with human will.
Jesus reiterates this truth in John 13:18, saying, “I know whom I have chosen,” again employing the same verb ἐκλέγομαι. Luke records that before appointing the Twelve, Jesus spent the night in prayer and then “chose twelve” (Luke 6:13), using the participle ἐκλεξάμενος. Even the apostolic office begins with Christ’s sovereign selection rather than human initiative.
Paul develops this doctrine further in Ephesians 1:4, declaring that God “chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” The verb ἐξελέξατο again comes from ἐκλέγομαι, while the temporal phrase πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (“before the foundation of the world”) places God’s election before human existence, before faith, before works, and before any human decision. Election is therefore grounded solely in God’s eternal purpose.
This eternal purpose unfolds through what theologians often call the “Golden Chain of Redemption” in Romans 8:29–30. Paul employs a sequence of divine actions: “those whom He foreknew (προέγνω) He also predestined (προώρισεν); those whom He predestined He also called (ἐκάλεσεν); those whom He called He also justified (ἐδικαίωσεν); and those whom He justified He also glorified (ἐδόξασεν).” Every verb has God as its subject. Human beings never become the grammatical or theological cause of these actions. Salvation progresses entirely through God’s sovereign initiative from eternity past to future glory.
The doctrine becomes even more explicit in Ephesians 1:5 and 1:11 through the verb προορίζω (proorizō), “to predestine” or “to determine beforehand.” Believers were “predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His own will.” The text deliberately locates the cause of salvation in God’s will rather than in man’s autonomous choice.
Jesus also teaches that fallen humanity lacks the natural ability to come to Him apart from divine intervention. John 6:44 states, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” The opening words, οὐδεὶς δύναται (“no one is able”), deny human moral ability apart from grace. The verb ἑλκύσῃ (helkysē), from ἕλκω, means “to draw,” “to pull,” or even “to drag.” Elsewhere the same verb describes drawing a sword (John 18:10), dragging a fishing net ashore (John 21:11), or dragging Paul and Silas into the marketplace (Acts 16:19). The imagery is one of effective action rather than mere persuasion.
Jesus reinforces this in John 6:65: “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by the Father.” The perfect passive participle δεδομένον, from δίδωμι (“to give”), emphasizes that coming to Christ depends upon something previously granted by God. Human coming is presented as the consequence of divine giving.
This language of divine giving permeates John’s Gospel. Jesus declares, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me” (John 6:37). The Father is the giver (δίδωσιν), and those whom He gives inevitably come. John 6:39, John 10:29, and the repeated language of John 17 all reinforce this truth by describing believers as those whom the Father has already given to the Son. The certainty of their coming rests not upon the strength of their free will but upon the Father’s sovereign gift.
.
J.
There are passages commanding people to choose.
The most famous is Joshua 24:15:
“Choose this day whom you will serve…”
The Hebrew verb is בָּחַר (bāḥar), “to choose.”
Notice, however, the context. Joshua is speaking to a covenant nation already redeemed from Egypt. The issue is which god they will serve—Yahweh or the pagan gods beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites. This passage concerns covenant fidelity and worship, not the mechanics of individual regeneration or conversion.
Likewise, Deuteronomy 30:19 says,
“I have set before you life and death… therefore choose life.”
Again, the audience is Israel under the Mosaic covenant. Moses is calling the covenant people to covenant obedience. Significantly, only a few verses later Moses promises that the day will come when the LORD Himself will circumcise their hearts (Deuteronomy 30:6), indicating that even the obedience God requires ultimately depends upon God’s transforming work.
- People are repeatedly commanded to believe.
Jesus continually commands people to believe:
“Repent and believe the gospel.” (Mark 1:15)
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:31)
“Whoever believes in Him shall not perish.” (John 3:16)
Faith is unquestionably required.
But notice something important.
The New Testament almost never says:
“Choose Jesus.”
Instead it says:
believe (πιστεύω)
repent (μετανοέω)
come (ἔρχομαι)
receive (λαμβάνω)
follow (ἀκολουθέω)
These are genuine human responses, but they are not identical to the theological slogan, “Choose Jesus.”
- Does Scripture ever explicitly say someone chose God?
Surprisingly, almost never.
Instead we repeatedly read the opposite.
Jesus says,
“You did not choose Me, but I chose you.” (John 15:16)
Paul says,
“He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.” (Ephesians 1:4)
Luke writes,
“As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48)
Jesus declares,
“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.” (John 6:37)
Paul concludes,
“It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.” (Romans 9:16)
Notice the consistent direction.
God is always the explicit subject of election.
- What about John 1:12?
Many argue:
“As many as received Him…”
The Greek verb is
λαμβάνω (lambanō)
“to receive.”
Certainly people receive Christ.
But John immediately explains why they do.
Verse 13 says they were born,
“not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
John deliberately removes human willing as the origin of the new birth.
- What about Revelation 3:20?
“If anyone hears My voice and opens the door…”
Often used evangelistically.
However, the context is not unbelievers but the church at Laodicea.
Jesus is calling an erring church to renewed fellowship.
It is not describing how an unbeliever becomes regenerate.
- What about “whosoever will”?
Revelation 22:17 says,
“Let the one who desires take the water of life freely.”
The Greek says,
ὁ θέλων
“the one willing.”
Yes.
Whoever wills may come.
The question becomes:
Who is willing?
Jesus already answered:
“No one can come unless the Father draws him.” (John 6:44)
Paul answers:
“There is none who seeks after God.” (Romans 3:11)
Therefore Reformed theology concludes that willingness itself is the result of grace, not its cause.
- Are there examples of people responding to Christ?
Absolutely.
Peter left his nets.
Matthew left his tax booth.
Zacchaeus welcomed Jesus.
The woman with the issue of blood came.
The Philippian jailer believed.
The Ethiopian eunuch believed.
Every conversion contains a real human response.
Yet Luke and John repeatedly explain those responses as flowing from God’s prior action.
Examples include:
Lydia: “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.” (Acts 16:14)
Acts 13:48: “As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”
John 6:37: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.”
8. The striking asymmetry of Scripture
One of the most interesting observations is that the Bible overwhelmingly speaks in one direction.
There are dozens of explicit statements saying:
God chose us.
Christ chose us.
God elected us.
God called us.
God predestined us.
God drew us.
God granted faith.
God granted repentance.
God gave a new heart.
God appointed people to eternal life.
By contrast, there is no passage that explicitly says:
“God looked down the corridors of time and chose those who first chose Him.”
“God elected believers because He foresaw their autonomous faith.”
“Jesus chose the disciples because they first chose Him.”
“Salvation ultimately depends on man’s free will.”
In fact, John 15:16 directly reverses the modern slogan:
“You did not choose Me, but I chose you.”
And Romans 9:16 explicitly denies that salvation “depends on the one who wills” (τοῦ θέλοντος) or “the one who runs” (τοῦ τρέχοντος), but on God’s mercy.
The Bible unquestionably teaches that people must repent, believe, receive Christ, come to Him, and follow Him. These are real, responsible human responses. However, it is striking that Scripture never explicitly describes salvation as beginning with man’s autonomous choice of God or Christ. Instead, the dominant and repeated pattern is that God’s gracious initiative precedes and enables the sinner’s response. Human faith is indispensable, but according to passages such as John 6:37–44, Acts 13:48, Philippians 1:29, Acts 16:14, Ephesians 1:4–5, and Romans 8:29–30, that faith is consistently portrayed as the result of God’s prior electing, calling, drawing, and regenerating work. This is why many Reformed theologians summarize the biblical order as: God chooses, God calls, God regenerates, and therefore the sinner willingly repents and believes.
J.