children-playing_2539477b

An email came into the Credo House today containing this question:

I’m wrestling with Calvin right now and as a parent I have hit a wall…What if my kids aren’t elect? The idea sickens me but it has to be possible. I have a hard time just shrugging that off and saying that it is to God’s glory.

What follows is my response for the sake of processing the topic for yourself:

Thanks for contacting the Credo House. I have 3 precious children and I am personally a Calvinist so please know that I’m not responding to you from a purely intellectual standpoint.

Taking a step back from this particular issue, I think we would all agree with the popular saying that, “God has no grandchildren.” God only has children. No one gets into heaven because they were related to people who were Christians. Even the most ardent Calvinist and the most ardent Arminian would agree that each individual must come to Jesus on their own. So there cannot be any absolute guarantee that all children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, etc… of all Christians will go to heaven. If this were true then the entire world would probably be a Christian. The Bible is full of statements where every person must consciously believe in Jesus to have eternal life (John 3:16).

If someone tries to defend the “all children of Christians go to heaven” position there aren’t too many verses along these lines. One verse they could point to is the Proverb of training up a child and they won’t depart. This verse, however, needs to be kept in the Genre of Proverbs. Proverbs are statements to make us wise. Proverbs are generally true but shouldn’t be considered an absolute certainty.

For example, if I put 20% of my paycheck in savings and I’m careful to spend less than I make it is wise to think that I should be financially stable. It is a generally true statement. My car could break down, my house could flood in a way that insurance refuses to pay and I could have someone steal my identity and ruin my credit scores. The Proverb is still true. Although I perfectly followed the accurate Proverb, I can still be in financial shambles. So pointing to a proverb as a magical formula is violating the rules for interpreting the Genre. The Bible is made up of many Genres. Poetry is interpreted very differently from narrative (i.e., a woman’s neck being a mighty tower). We have to keep Proverbs inside it’s Genre.

Getting back to the issue at hand, how does a Calvinist cope with kids who might not love Jesus? First, I pray for them until I am blue in the face. Or at least that is my desire. I pray they would come to love Jesus as authentically and passionately as my wife and I do. My wife started praying for the salvation of our kids before they were even a twinkle in her eye.

For instance, when pastor Matt Chandler thought he was dying from a cancerous brain tumor, he realized the greatest thing he could do for his infant daughter is to devote the remaining energy he has to praying for her salvation and her future walk with Jesus.

Secondly, my wife and I are always trying to tell our kids about Jesus and hopefully build in them an authentic love for and desire for Jesus. Although Calvinists believe that no one comes to the Father unless they are drawn, Calvinists never know who those people are. Calvinists don’t have a copy of the book of Life. As Spurgeon said we pray knowing it depends fully on God, but we share as if it depends fully on us.

Ultimately, however, if a child (or parent, co-worker, etc…) rejects Jesus their entire life and dies in that rejection then we don’t commit suicide thinking that we didn’t share good enough so they are damned because of our failures to convince them of Jesus. We trust the loving heart of God that for whatever reason they would have hated a heaven where Jesus is the center of attention. We think we know better than God as it relates to saving people, it’s a lifetime for all of us to learn that He is more loving, more generous, more caring, more fair than we could ever imagine. I believe Paul clearly teaches people are elect for salvation yet he still pleads with all people, every one, to come to Jesus.

Even when people, like ardent atheist Christopher Hitchens, seemingly die as God haters I still many times hold out hope that in their last breath God opened their eyes and they came to Jesus. I reserve ultimate despair for later when we will truly know. Then God will console us and help us understand things we can’t know now.

In the meantime, however, I am pleading with all to love and be loved by the only One worth the worship.


    211 replies to "What if My Children Are Not Elect?"

    • cherylu

      Fr Robert,

      Did you see my question in #98?

    • Yes, this is simply an ad hoc position really! Actually, a non sequitur (Latin, it does not follow)… An argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises. At least from the position of a most Sovereign God! Note, it was Satan, that spoke: “has God said?” And of course, GOD has said!

    • Irene

      @Fr Robert,

      I guess I don’t understand what you mean when you say my claim is ad hoc.

    • @Irene: Ad hoc, means, and especially the way your using it here, for this specific purpose, in this special case, etc.

      Yes, I am an old philosophy teacher, but logic does have its place in human argumentation! But, God, sometimes transcends His own logic, i.e. metaphysics, and note here ontology, and the doctrine of being. It is here btw, that we get the existential, and existentialism!

    • cherylu

      Fr Robert,

      Is your # 102 directed to me or to Irene? You are confusing me. 🙂

    • @cherylu: It is to this whole matter and subject! Note, the focus is not upon a text of scripture, or even really a theological position straight-up, but upon a supposition. Suppositional dialogue will drive one crazy! 😉 But I will, like my Lutheran brethren to degree, and hopefully true Calvinist brethren.. stand upon the Holy Scripture in the great mystery/mysteries of God!

    • Delwyn Xavier Campbell

      “To a degree?” I think, if you reviewed the Lutheran Symbols, you would find that they agree with Scripture in every part. I would be honored if you could show a place where they are contrary to God’s Word. Take your time, I have until Jesus returns… 😉

    • @Delwyn: I have Luther’s WA, and I have the Fortress Press book: The Lutheran Confessions. Not to mention I just recently got the new Concordia book: Translated by Jacob Preus, of Melanchthon’s: Loci, etc. And I have preached several times at Lutheran Churches, of course as an Anglican presbyter. Note mate, I did my D. Phil. way back in the mid 90’s on Luther’s Ontology of the Cross. So I simply love the guy! (I too have many Luther books and bio’s!)

      But, I am one of those guys that sees Luther closer to Calvin on Predestination & Election, and they were both surely Augustinians! That is one of the reasons I mentioned Luther’s Bondage of the Will. But yes, there are some differences to degree between Luther and Calvin on Predestination. But, not large one’s in my opinion.

    • Jay Saldana

      It seems to me that in some of the missives we have strayed over the line. There are many sound arguments for Calvin and there are equally sound arguments for Arminianism. The same can be said for Saints big and small and for theologians big and small. It is not the kind of doctrine that is “necessary” for salvation.
      Calling out quotes from saints and theologians in an environment that is not prepared for it is a great polemical tools but it is not a guarantee of the soundness of your point of view or your argument especially while you ignore all the errors the same theologian or saint made but that only another schooled traditionally would know. Summa Theologica is not easy reading even for a scholar and peeling its errors away from its truths is a life time work.
      Again, I would remind everyone that we are irenic in our approach here. That is the first principal that Michael taught me and I have found it to be incredibly profound as I have gone on to other venues and education. There is room for both types of “Order of Salvation” in God’s world as we shall not know the “answer” till we arrive if God’s so grants.
      The real questions is not who is right about the mechanics but who has the best reply to grieving parents. This one, I think, calls for your humanity not your educational capacity. How do you touch a soul hurt and fearful in that moment of loss, when the thought of eternal loss is more than they can bear? How do you reach into your tenderness and your own fear of damnation and speak to the security of God’s mercy and grace. How do you bring Jesus like the servant telling you that the daughter is dead? Touch your fear and God’s love of you and then spill your grace?

      Go with God,
      Your brother,

      Jay Saldana

    • cherylu

      Fr Robert,

      Re # 106: It would seem to me that my question is not something ad hoc, but rather a question of applied theology. It hits at the very core of being “pastoral” it would seem to me. And how many times have you told all of us that you always try to be pastoral?

      So what do you tell the grieving parent whose child was just killed in a car accident or died of cancer, for example, when there was no evidence at all that he was one of the elect?

      If that parent is a true Arminian and they have faithfully told the child of Jesus, of course they will grieve if that child dies with no evidence of having received salvation in Jesus. But what do you tell the grieving Calvinist parent who believes that their much loved child is now in hell because they were destined for that very thing before the world began and it is what the Lord of all creation chose for them? How do you at that time of death tell that grieving parent to find their comfort in the fact that this was right and good? How can it possibly at that time seem right and good to a parent to realize their child is more then likely spending an eternal torment in hell because God saw that as good?

      Come on now and be pastoral! Please?? How would you deal with this parents grief and possible questioning of the Lord’s goodness in this instance?

      I echo Jay’s questions from the last comment: This one, I think, calls for your humanity not your educational capacity. How do you touch a soul hurt and fearful in that moment of loss, when the thought of eternal loss is more than they can bear? How do you reach into your tenderness and your own fear of damnation and speak to the security of God’s mercy and grace. How do you bring Jesus like the servant telling you that the daughter is dead? Touch your fear and God’s love of you and then spill your grace?

    • @cherylu: Forgive me, but this is exactly what I have said it would be, and nothing but a supposed what if, and quite an ad hoc, this was one of the main reasons I did not want to engage the question and subject in the first place. For it is actually based on a false theological premise, at least to my mind and belief. And again quite simply nothing but a non-sequitur mentally and philosophically, as I see and understand it! I could myself pull a what if, from my own theological presuppositions, which of course to me would be much more realistic, as based on my own theological belief’s, etc. The whole point is, we must argue biblically and somewhat systematically in theology, before we can even begin to apply the pastoral aspects here. And indeed truth is always itself the real issue, and not “what if’s”! But, that is how I see it myself. 🙂

    • William Huget

      Sounds like Calvinism in theory, but free will theism in practice. TULIP and double predestination are simply wrong views that offer little comfort or explanation. Instead of appealing to mystery, paradox, antimony, etc., it should be seen as incoherent, unbiblical, conundrum, contradiction, inconsistent. There is a more biblical, coherent explanation for why some are saved and others are lost.

    • @William: Indeed please enlighten us poor ignorant Calvinists, and especially this neo-Calvinist, who really likes the theology and work of John Calvin himself! 😉 And as an Anglican Reformed, I quite love biblical mystery and paradox myself, as I have shared here myself!

    • Robin

      I dont get why Christians have to be so devisive over something so mysterious. My personal take is that we should not try to understand God’s ways or blame Him for family members not being saved. It is all his and our peanut brains cannot really comprehend it. We see through a mirror darkly inthis life but someday we shall see him face-to-face.

    • Oh Amen there Robin! The essence here really IS the “mysterious” Doctrine of God, Himself! When we look at the Jewish People and Nation of “Israel”, we should get a real lesson of God’s great mystery and sovereign purposes in His “covenant”! (Rom. 11: 27-36)

    • Brother Stumblefoot

      Let the Calvinist wax eloquent about the great mystery of reprobation, and comfort himself in hoping he will “some day
      understand;” but (according to the traditional view), someone we love is still in an eternal Hell! An ultimate reconciliation of all is the only way you can comfort these grieving people. Our God must be better than all that.

      • C Michael Patton

        He is better than all that. There is no problem letting you conscience he a guide. Without it, we would never be able to interpret Gos in a way that parallels the morals we use to judge him. The problem is when we use the morals (which are only found in nim) to judge him wrongly, Boeing we are more righteous than he.

    • Robin

      It is a mystery and this leads me to doubt all the schemes we make to explain it, or try to ascertain who is elect or not. Not all will be saved but i know that God loves all (he said so). I know that He loves my daughter so much more than i do and his plan for her is his and i trust Him completely. I leave her in his hands. I know that he will do everything and has done everything to save her. I cannot even explain how i was called, it just happened. So im not going to stress about it!

    • Here is a piece I came across, that was part (back awhile) on this subject. It is not mine however, and I would only agree in part.

      ‘The interesting thing, as the writer points out, is that “God willed humanity’s fall”. Calvin actually goes a step further by stating in Book III Chp 23 that “at His own pleasure [God] arranged it”. In effect Calvin is saying that it was a deliberate act of God that made the fall of man possible.
      But why would God do that? Well, the answer is found in Hebrews 10:5. For Christ to have a body through which to put an end to corruption and evil (Daniel 9:24), man had to fall. No fall, no Christ and no end to the potentiality of evil (Hebrews 2:14) infecting creation.
      The evidence of God’s deliberate orchestration of the fall is found in 2 Timothy 1:9-10. He drew up the plan before the creation of time. And what is that plan? It is the eradication of evil, iniquity and all manner of corruption so that it will never infect the new creation. The old, temporal creation that we are (universe, matter, earth, mankind) will pass away and a new universe, a new man will replace it (2 Peter 3:10-13 and Revelation 21:1-4, 22-27).
      A wise God creates a temporal existence to annihilate evil, sin, disobedience, pain, suffering, tears, decay and wickedness. We have been called to put on the armor of God to fight this battle. When asked why we suffer, we can confidently respond that it is because Christ is in the process of destroying the cause of that suffering (1 John 3:8).’

    • Again, I really wonder today how many have really given Calvin’s Institutes an honest study? What passes today as “Calvinism”, was/is certainly not fully John Calvin!

    • Tim Kimberley

      Fr. Robert,

      I actually just finished a thorough 18 month study through the entirety of the Institutes. I’m not aware of anything I said in the original post that Calvin would find fault. I think Calvin would put a lot more emphasis on the importance of Christians to baptize their children. I don’t as strongly affirm the power of infant baptism as Calvin did, but I’m pretty sure he would affirm election and the necessity of a personal free-will salvation.

      I hope that helps,
      Tim

    • cherylu

      Fr Robert,

      I have a couple of questions. The first one is, I am wondering who made that statement that you quoted? Do you have a link for it?

      The next one is, if what that person said is true, does that still not just move the whole question back one more “notch”. Since God is the creator of all, and since He is sovereign over all, where did the potential for evil come from in the first place? Did He not have to will and decree it also in the Calvinist’s understanding of things?

    • @cherylu: The first question, I cannot answer.. as I don’t know the person wants to be known, at least here?

      As to the great questions of Predestination & Election, in reality these were surely issues that were also studied in the great Middle Ages, and the Church certainly before the Reformation. But especially in Scholasticism, you should also see Protestant and Reformed scholasticism since. THIS is simply a very profound theological subject, and here we simply must make some headway, before we can cast ourselves into the pastoral issues and questions. Note, quite again, the whole Reformed “ordo salutis”. Which I have quoted several times from Richard Muller’s Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, etc. Indeed, God’s “calling & regeneration” are always first place, in HIS cause and effect. This really is quite the first place of Calvinism! But note, the Lutherans themselves have a different “ordo”. But note too, there is I believe a different ordo, between Luther and Melanchthon! The Lutheran Church and Lutheran Confessions appear to follow Melanchthon, more than Luther. Though of course some scholars disagree, and some just don’t know? I would as I have said, place Luther closer to Calvin on the subject, but that is my opinion.

    • @Tim: For me at least, your whole approach is much more “fundamentalist”, than covenantal, and thus not much at all with Calvin! And of course I speak theologically and historically, but I hope friendly! 🙂

    • cherylu

      Fr Robert,

      Thanks for a nice long answer that did absolutely nothing to answer the question I asked! 🙂

    • @cherylu: Before one can often answer questions, they must set something of the ground-work for it! And this is something that hardly happens for you it appears! History and the historical always! YOU it appear, just want black and white answers, and as I have said before this is one of the great problematic aspects of Fundamentalism!

    • cherylu

      Fr Robert,

      And getting you to answer anything directly is a lot like pulling the proverbial hen’s teeth! 🙂

      I maintain that there are many things things that are black and white that don’t need multiple pages of nuanced and dialectical discussion before an answer can be found.

      Obviously our approaches to life are vastly different, aren’t they?

    • @cherylu: I am a “theolog”, and have been for many years, but I hope too with something of a shepherds heart. But that heart can never deny the word and revelation of God foremost! And getting people to see the great ‘Doctrine of God’, is first a theological reality to me! Indeed the “biblical nuance” is itself the tone, color-shade and meaning of the doctrine of God, i.e. “the God Who is God” as Luther said. And indeed no need at all of man’s “anthropocentric” values!

    • And btw, you might want to check into just what is the dialectical approach to God! I believe it is closer to the mystical aspect, myself. Note here one Karl Barth for example! Perhaps one of the most misunderstood theologians in the 20th century, and certainly into the 21st. And note for Barth, there is only one source for ethics and for the political action that might follow, namely the command of the Word of God as found alone in the scriptures. God’s absolute sovereignty calls into question all human activities and projects, over and against which God stands in judgment; there can be no compromise between Christianity and the world, period! This is perhaps Barth’s best theological gift he has given to the Reformed Church and history. And here he is surely closer to our best Reformers themselves!

    • Thanks be to God, that the best black and white for us, is no doubt the great Trinity of God! But those lines surely run in many ways, as we have historically possessed them, in the great Creeds of the Nicene and the Athanasian! Sadly, it is rare to hear them in most evangelical churches today! The One in Three, and the Three in One!

      “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev. 1: 8)

      May WE dwell more on HIM, and this/His Triune Mystery!

    • Nelson Banuchi

      An honest question deserves a straightforward answer.

      First, Kimberly’s “step back” is not only irrelevant but also deflects from the real issue, which the question evokes, and is misleading.

      Although it is true that both Calvinist and Arminians agree that “each individual must come to Jesus on their own”, Kimberly fails to mention the Calvinist view portrays the individual as responding due solely to the divine predetermination regarding how this or that particular person will respond to the Gospel; that is, in reality, no response – positive or negative – is ultimately an act of one’s own free will but God’s predetermined act to effect the desired response from each individual based on nothing but God’s unrevealed will. This view is in stark contrast to Arminian soteriology and renders the similarity as Kimberly suggests as merely superficial

      Second, when “getting back to the issue at hand”, there remains an (unconscious? conscious?) attempt to evade the real answer which the inquirer seeks.

      The question is not, “What if my kids do not love Jesus?” but “What if my kids aren’t elect?” There is a big difference between the two questions and, as such, his answer does not at all deal directly to the query.

      The more accurate answer, logically following Calvinist teaching, is simply: if your child is not elect, there is nothing at all you can do about it. The only comfort that one may afford is that at present you do not know whether or not your child is elect. Praying will not change God’s mind if your child is not elect. As a Calvinist, all that seems left to do is cross your fingers and hope for the best; and, yes, the idea that one’s child is not of the elect should cause a parent to be sick and have “a hard time” – a very hard time – seeing it as conducive to God’s glory.

    • Jay Saldana

      I have to say that I am stunned. May I gently suggest you all get yourselves to the missionary field. (Redbird in Kentucky would be excellent) You need to see God’s grace at work. You have spent to much time in your books. We are talking about two THEORIES of how God saves and applying it like a weed wacker removes weeds amongst orchards. All this knowledge and presumption that everyone else is ignorant of the information you contain and not one real word of compassion for a parent who has lost a child, except a spiritual “get over it for the greater glory of God!” We are in the business of communicating the love of God. You are called to be a “theolog” to know and love God so you may communicate and bring that love to his children. If you are so “filled” with knowledge and facts how is there room for God’s grace to enter into your life? If it cannot enter how do you fulfill your calling? We learn/believe like Anselm said so that we may understand. I see very little “understanding”. Seriously, stop being a theolog or a Calvinist or an Arminian and go a spend a day in a children’s cancer ward. Remind yourself what the Love on the Cross was like. How it sacrificed and humiliated itself for the likes of us.

      Go with God,
      Your Brother,

      Jay Saldana

    • Delwyn Xavier Campbell

      I do know that God will never reject those who come to Him by faith, and faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the Word of God. I would tell her to trust in God’s promises to convey to us the forgiveness of sins via the means of grace (Word and Sacrament), and train up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding. In all your ways, acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths. I am persuaded that He is able to keep what we’ve committed to Him until that day. – THAT is what I would tell that parent!

    • Chancellor Roberts

      Mike O,

      How’s this for an admission: “Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands – remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:11-12 ESV). Note the phrase “having no hope and without God in the world.” This applies to everyone who is unregenerate, who is not saved. Unless God specifically chose, from before the foundation of the world, to save a particular individual, that person is – and will always be- “[without] hope and without God in the world.” That’s not just what Calvinism says, that quote is directly from God’s word.

      Keep in mind, of course, that the “Arminians” (actually semi-Pelagians) can’t offer any real hope to parents either. They can offer no guarantees that any Christian’s child is definitely going to be saved, especially since they believe man is the final arbiter of his own salvation (making man sovereign over God) and give God permission to save him (through “accepting Jesus” as his very own personal Lord and Savior, though “Lord” is supposedly something that He becomes to them over time as so-called “Lordship salvation,” where Jesus becomes your Lord the moment you put your trust in Him, is derided as heresy). Thus, even the semi-Pelagian (most of evangelical Christianity) cannot give parents real hope. Parents can pray that God will maybe do something in their children’s hearts, but in their theology the ultimate decision is still the child’s (again, making man sovereign over God).

      God will save those who are His. He will save all those whom He specifically gave to Christ. That’s a guarantee. The semi-Pelagians don’t even have that.

    • Chancellor Roberts

      Jay Saldana,

      Are you saying we can’t see God’s grace at work in our home communities?

      I’m all for people going to the mission field (however we might define that), particularly Christians in the US. However, why is it that there seems to be a greater concentration of missionaries in places like Western Europe than in places like Latin America, Africa or Central Asia – in first world nations instead of the second or third world? Also, I think we need to take a much closer look at how we do missions. As more and more countries close their doors to what I call “professional missionaries” (essentially people who go to the mission field through a missions agency wholly supported by donations from churches and individual Christians back home), opportunities increase for tentmakers (like the Apostle Paul), people who work in-country to support themselves and engage in mission through being a living witness on the job, involving themselves in the work of local (not expat) churches, etc. (For the record, I live, work and am involved in a local church in Kazakhstan, where something as simple as praying over your meal in a restaurant can get you arrested for “unregistered religious activity”).

      However, sometimes Calvinist parents do ask the valid question “What if my children aren’t elect?” So, what do we tell them? Should we offer them hope that isn’t there? Should we tell them that if they pray hard enough they might get God to change His mind? All unbelievers are without “hope and without God in the world.” Unless God has elected a particular individual, that person will never have hope – and there’s no use in us trying to give parents false hope. Parents must surrender their children to God and accept His absolute sovereignty over them, His right to do with them as He pleases. Them doing anything less is idolatry.

    • Mike O

      I am re-reading Romans cover-to-cover from the perspective that “Paul believed in strict election.” I am doing this to see if a person who believed in election would write what he wrote.

      Day 1: Romans 1-4 – It is pretty clear that Paul, himself, was elect. He was chosen, turned, and sent by the miraculous hand of God. But with that said, the words he writes in Romans 1-4 do not seem to be the words of an electionist.

      We’ll see what chapters 5-16 bring.

      I find it VERY helpful when in the midst of an argument about debatable things, to read pertinent BOOKS of scripture cover to cover twice, once from each perspective.

      If Paul believed in election, would he write what he wrote in Romans?

      Then I’ll do it from the perspective of free will, would Paul write what he wrote if he believed every person had the ability to choose Christ.

      So far, if Paul were an electionist, IMO Romans 1-4 would have been written differently. Because he sure doesn’t sound like one.

    • @Jay: Hey mate, you don’t even seem to read all of the blog posts here? I am a semi-retired Anglican priest/presbyter, and work now daily as a hospital chaplain. (And I see plenty of life & death there!) And I used to live and teach theology in Israel, back in the latter 90’s. And as most know here, I am too a retired Royal Marine Commando (with Gulf War 1 my last, but not first combat). So be very careful throwing around your subjective judgment! YOU don’t have a clue to who people are here, based upon so little comments & statements.

      And btw, try witnessing to Muslim’s in Israel! And for that matter, the only witness also for Israeli’s (at least in the daily life mode) is one’s own life!

      Finally, this is a very deep subject, i.e. Predestination & Election, it really should be handled with much care, respect and awe, for it’s centre is the Doctrine of GOD Himself, In Christ! Sometimes we forget that Predestination and Election are ‘In Christ’! (Eph. 1: 3-4-5-6, etc.) See too, Jude 1: 1 ; 24-25!

    • I quite wonder here how many here believe in the “eternal covenant, of Jesus our Lord” (Heb. 13: 20). Note too verse 21! (See also, Phil. 1: 6) The point is Jesus Christ, or “Christ Jesus” is the place we are to focus God’s eternality! See too, John 17: 2-3! And here, too, as we note: Jesus had an both ‘a glory and work’ from this eternity and “covenant” place, “which I had with You before the world was.” (John 17: 5)

    • And btw, I (really we) have two sons myself, both born in my 40’s! And we are to raise them ‘In Christ’, who is Himself the “Elect” – “chosen-one”, (Isa. 42: 1).

    • Mike O

      @Chancellor – The way I read that, “had no hope” implies that election was *not* the process. Otherwise they would still have no hope. They *had* no hope, but now they are His. Perhaps I’m missing your point?

      Also, I don’t think anyone here is arguing that giving a happy answer is the goal. if a child is not a child of Jesus Christ, they are not a follower of Jesus Christ and there is no hope. I think we all agree on that.

      The issue with Calvinism, more specifically election is, there’s not a thing anyone can do about it. The child may be damned with no possibility of salvation. THAT’S the issue, not giving a parent a happy answer.

      And to the “man is the final arbiter” argument, I’m not saying that either. God is the final arbiter. But I am saying that by my simple reading of Romans 1-4 (5-16 still to come), God seems to respond to man’s action. If he didn’t, most of the Bible would be worded completely differently than it is.

      I think it’s a cause/effect problem. The Bible is written as if God responds to man. Calvinism is written as if he doesn’t. Or if he does, it is only for show since he ordained the outcome he “responded” to.

      Again, I think there’s an odd mix of both. I can’t say God doesn’t sovereignly elect some. But I see scripture leaning more towards God responding to, or waiting for man (in the sense of ‘giving him time HOPING he will repent’), than I do man riding out the pre-ordained storm called life.

    • Here is a piece even today, from R.C. Sproul on Original Sin…

      http://crossquotes.com/2013/10/22/r-c-sproul-is-original-sin-unfair/

      We all simply MUST see ourselves as In Adam (the first)…sinners and sinful-beings, but thank God for the Second Adam, Jesus Christ! We too are in Him, if we believe and find ourselves in “regeneration” and life, and this life ‘In Christ’ is “eternal”!

      Are we teaching our children the doctrine of the “eternal covenant” in Jesus Christ? Jesus, Himself Who is the Elect-One!

    • Mike O

      @Fr Robert that is an interesting article, but I think it breaks your point more than makes it. Election would say God put the pit there and sovereignly ordained that the gardener would jump in. The RC Sproule article makes it sound like God put the pit there, hoped (and expected??) that the gardener wouldn’t jump in, but he did.

    • @Mike: Of course your over-pressing the illustration! 🙂 Note, this is not a parable. Yes, God knew and somewhat ordained.. or better for human purposes “allowed” the Fall, but of course directly HE is not the author. Yes, surely great mystery here! There is no escape from the Sovereignty and purposes of God!

    • Btw, Mike what do you make of Romans 9: 10-11-12? And note verses 14-15 & 16! These are eternal choices IN/by God! As the example of Pharaoh, 17-18!

    • Mike O

      I would say they point to election. Again, I am not arguing against election for the bible clearly contains examples of it. I give you Pharaoh, Joseph, Paul, JESUS. I give you examples in Acts (which I am reading now) where Paul wanted to go here or there, but was hindered by the spirit. ELECTION. I am arguing against *only* election. I refer back to my comment #5, where I wonder why it must be one or the other.

      My reading of Romans 1-4 seems to lean towards free will. Chapter 9:10-16 seems to point to election. I’ve found it’s best to be comfortable in the paradox.

    • Note, both Pharaoh and Judas were quite “reprobate” and lost! For Judas, see John 17: 12. There surely is a “Reprobation” of the lost! Note, too the great difference between a Peter and Judas after their sins! Peter of course cries out for forgiveness, but Judas can only seek to destroy himself. SIN, quite destroys the lost! And how really can we blame God? Btw, not free-will, but only responsible will, such are men in the First Adam!

    • I’ll take the GOD of “the paradox” myself! 😉

    • Mike O

      😉

    • Chancellor Roberts

      Mike O,

      The idea that God elects some to be saved, while others get to be saved by their own “free will” doesn’t make sense. Further, Revelation says that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world, indicating that the cross was part of God’s plan even before He spoke Creation into existed. Remember, there’s a progression: foreknowledge (which is more than just knowing beforehand as you’ll see in the John Gill quote later), predestination, call, justification, glorification (see Romans 8:29-30).

      I agree with John Gill in his commentary on Romans 8:29, “The foreknowledge of God here, does not intend his prescience of all things future; by which he foreknows and foretells things to come, and which distinguishes him from all other gods; and is so called, not with respect to himself, with whom all things are present, but with respect to us, and which is eternal, universal, certain, and infallible; for in this sense he foreknows all men, and if this was the meaning here, then all men would be predestinated, conformed to the image of Christ, called by grace, justified and glorified; whereas they are a special people, whom God has foreknown: nor is this foreknowledge to be understood of any provision or foresight of the good works, holiness, faith, and perseverance of men therein, upon which God predestinates them to happiness; since this would make something out of God, and not his good pleasure, the cause of predestination; which was done before, and without any consideration of good or evil, and is entirely owing to the free grace of God, and is the ground and foundation of good works, faith, holiness, and perseverance in them: but this regards the everlasting love of God to his own people, his delight in them, and approbation of them; in this sense he knew them, he foreknew them from everlasting, affectionately loved them, and took infinite delight and pleasure in them; and this is the foundation of their predestination and election…”

    • Mike O

      Continuing my simple reading of Romans to see what Paul *wrote* and not to lay upon it what I THINK Paul *meant* (doing my best to ignore my preconceived notions), I see this in Romans 5-9

      Day 2: Romans 5-9 – I see in chapters 5-7 the words of a man that still leans towards free will. However in Chapter 8, the tone does begin to change towards election. Beginning in Romans 8:18 the tone begins to take on a flair of “God ordained it.” Particularly in chapter 9 (as Fr Robert pointed out yesterday, and is why I read through chapter 9 today) I see a definite support for election.

      In all fairness, in chapters 1-7, I asked myself the question “would a man who believed in strict election write these words?” that is, a man who believed ALL souls are predestined either “in” or “out.” I find it hard to believe that to be the case. I would need to read chapters 1-7 “in a clever way” to get pure election to fit.

      Likewise, when I read chapters 8 and 9 (10-16 still to come) I ask myself the question, “would a man who believed there was NO election write these words?” that is, a man who believed NO souls are predestined “in” or “out.” Again, I find it hard to believe that to be the case. I would need to read chapters 8-9 “in a clever way” to discount election entirely.

      Which leaves me with my paradoxical conclusion that a biblical case can be made for both. And because of that, I personally accept that “both” may be the biblical case.

      I admit I have my preconceived bent towards free will. In my reading of the whole of scripture, I see both, but if we were to put it in a balance, I find the weightier side to on the side of free will. But there is also election because God is, after all, Sovereign. 🙂

      In none of this do I discount the sovereignty of our God. IN HIS SOVEREIGNTY, he generally gives us freedom to choose him or not. And within that framework, some are predestined one way (Paul) or the other (Pharoah).

    • Mike O

      @Chancellor, the idea that God would create someone he “loves” predestined to eternal torture in hell doesn’t make sense. But Calvinists believe that. The idea that God can be sovereign and yet allow free will doesn’t make sense, but non-Calvinists believe that. The idea that God would do ANY of this in any way for people who are as much trouble as we are doesn’t make sense. But He did.

      It may not make sense, but the Bible does seem to support both views.

      Paradox.

Comments are closed.