The Theology of John Calvin

The subject of this address is the theology of John Calvin and I shall ask leave to take this subject rather broadly, that is to say, to attempt not so much to describe the personal peculiarities of John Calvin as a theologian, as to indicate in broad outlines the determining characteristics of the theology which he taught. I wish to speak, in other words, about Calvinism, that great system of religious thought which bears John Calvin's name, and which also--although of course he was not its author, but only one of its chief exponents--bears indelibly impressed upon it the marks of his formative hand and of his systematizing genius. Of all the teachers who have wrought into it their minds and hearts since its revival in that tremendous religious upheaval we call the Reformation, this system of thought owes most perhaps to John Calvin and has therefore justly borne since then his name. And of all the services which Calvin has rendered to humanity--and they are neither few nor small--the greatest was undoubtedly his gift to it afresh of this system of religious thought, quickened into new life by the forces of his genius, and it is therefore just that he should be most widely remembered by it. When we are seeking to probe to the heart of Calvinism, we are exploring also most thoroughly the heart of John Calvin. Calvinism is his greatest and most significant monument, and he who adequately understands it will best understand him.

It was about a hundred years ago that Max Gobel first set the scholars at work upon the attempt clearly to formulate the formative principle of Calvinism. A long line of distinguished thinkers have exhausted themselves in the task without attaining, we must confess, altogether consistent results. The great difficulty has been that the formative and distinctive principles of Calvinism have been confused, and men have busied themselves rather in indicating the points of difference by which Calvinism is distinguished from other theological tendencies than in seeking out the germinal principle of which it itself is the unfolding.

The particular theological tendency with which Calvinism has been contrasted in such discussions is, as was natural, the sister system of Lutheranism, with which it divided the heritage of the Reformation. Now undoubtedly somewhat different spirits do inform Calvinism and Lutheranism. And equally undoubtedly, the disunguishing spirit of Calvinism is due to its formative principle and is not to be accounted for by extraneous circumstances of origin or antecedents, such as for example, the democratic instincts of the Swiss, or the superior humanistic culture of its first teachers, or their tendency to intellectualism or to radicalism. But it is gravely misleading to identify the formative principle of either type of Protestantism with its prominent points of difference from the others. They have vastly more in common than in distinction. And nothing could be more misleading than to trace all their differences, as to their roots, to the fundamental place given in the two systems respectively to the principles of predestination and justification by faith.

In the first place, the doctrine of predestination is not the formative principle of Calvinism, it is only its logical implication. It is not the root from which Calvinism springs, it is one of the branches which it has inevitably thrown out. And so little is it the peculiarity of Calvinism, that it underlay and gave its form and power to the whole Reformation movement--which was, as from the spiritual point of view a great revival of religion, so from the doctrinal point of view a great revival of Augustinianism. There was, accordingly, no difference among the Reformers on this point; Luther and Melanchthon and the compromizing Butzer were no less zealous for absolute predestination than Zwingli and Calvin. Even Zwingli could not surpass Luther in sharp and unqualified assertion of this doctrine; and it was not Calvin but Melanchthon who paused, even in his first preliminary statement of the elements of the Protestant faith, to give it formal assertion and elaboration.

Just as little can the doctrine of justification by faith be represented as specifically Lutheran. It is as central to the Reformed as to the Lutheran system. Nay, it is only in the Reformed system that it retains the purity of its conception and resists the tendency to make it a doctrine of justification on account of; instead of by, faith. It is true that Lutheranism is prone to rest in faith as a kind of ultimate fact, while Calvinism penetrates to its causes, and places faith in its due relation to the other products of God's activity looking to the salvation of man. And this difference may, on due consideration, conduct us back to the formative principle of each type of thought. But it, too, is rather an outgrowth of the divergent formative principles than the embodiment of them. Lutheranism, sprung from the throes of a guilt-burdened soul seeking peace with God, finds peace in faith, and stops right there. It is so absorbed in rejoicing in the blessings which flow from faith that it refuses or neglects to inquire whence faith itself flows. It thus loses itself in a sort of divine euthumia, and knows, and will know nothing beyond the peace of the justified soul. Calvinism asks with the same eagerness as Lutheranism the great question, "What shall I do to be saved?" and answers it precisely as Lutheranism answers it. But it cannot stop there. The deeper question presses upon it, "Whence this faith by which I am justified?" And the deeper response suffuses all the chambers of the soul with praise, "From the free gift of God alone, to the praise of the glory of His grace." Thus Calvinism withdraws the eye from the soul and its destiny and fixes it on God and His glory. It has zeal, no doubt, for salvation but its highest zeal is for the honour of God, and it is this that quickens its emotions and vitalizes its efforts. It begins, it centres and it ends with the vision of God in His glory and it sets itself; before all things, to render to God His rights in every sphere of life-activity.

If thus the formative principle of Calvinism is not to be identified with the points of difference which it has developed with its sister type of Protestantism, Lutheranism, much less can it be identified with those heads of doctrine--severally or in sum--which have been singled out by its own rebellious daughter, Arminianism, as its specially vunerable points. The "five points of Calvinism," we have no doubt learned to call them, and not without justice. They are, each and every one of them, essential elements in the Calvinistic system, the denial of which in any of their essential details is logically the rejection of the entirety of Calvinism; and in their sum they provide what is far from being a bad epitome of the Calvinistic system. The sovereignty of the election of God, the substitutive definiteness of the atonement of Christ, the inability of the sinful will to good, the creative energy of the saving grace of the Spirit, the safety of the redeemed soul in the keeping of its Redeemer,--are not these the distinctive teachings of Calvinism, as precious to every Calvinist's heart as they are necessary to the integrity of the system? Selected as the objects of the Arminian assault, these "five-points" have been reaffirmed, therefore, with the constancy of profound conviction by the whole Calvinistic world. It is well however to bear in mind that they owe their prominence in our minds to the Arminian debate, and however well fitted they may prove in point of fact to stand as a fair epitome of Cavinistic doctrine, they are historically at least only the Calvinistic obverse of "the five points of Arminianism." And certainly they can put in no claim, either severally or in sum, to announce the formative principle of Calvinism, whose outworking in the several departments of doctrine they rather are--though of course they may surely and directly conduct us back to that formative principle, as the only root out of which just this body of doctrine could grow. Clearly at the root of the stock which bears these branches must lie a most profound sense of God and an equally profound sense of the relation in which the creature stands to God, whether conceived merely as creature or, more specifically as sinful creature. It is the vision of God and His Majesty, in a word, which lies at the foundation of the entirety of Calvinistic thinking.

The exact formulation of the formative principle of Calvinism, as I have said, has taxed the acumen of a long line of distinguished thinkers. Many modes of stating it have been proposed. Perhaps after all, however, its simplest statement is the best. It lies then, let me repeat, in a profound apprehension of God in His majesty, with the poignant realization which inevitably accompanies this apprehension, of the relation sustained to God by the creature as such, and particularly by the sinful creature. The Calvinist is the man who has seen God, and who, having seen God in His glory, is filled on the one hand, with a sense of his own unworthiness to stand in God's sight as a creature, and much more as a sinner, and on the other hand, with adoring wonder that nevertheless this God is a God who receives sinners. He who believes in God without reserve and is determined that God shall be God to him, in all his thinking, feeling, willing--in the entire compass of his life activities, intellectual, moral, spiritual--throughout all his individual, social, religious relations--is, by the force of that strictest of all logic which presides over the outworking of principles into thought and life, by the very necessity of the case, a Calvinist.

If we wish to reduce this statement to a more formal theoretical form, we may say perhaps, that Calvinism in its fundamental idea implies three things. In it, (i) objectively speaking, theism comes to its rights; (ii) subjectively speaking, the religious relation attains its purity; (iii) soteriologically speaking, evangelical religion finds at length its full expression and its secure stability. Theism comes to its rights only in a teleological view of the universe, which recognizes in the whole course of events the orderly working out of the plan of God, whose will is consequently conceived as the ultimate cause of all things. The religious relation attains its purity only when an attitude of absolute dependence on God is not merely assumed, as in the act, say, of prayer, but is sustained through all the activities of life, intellectual, emotional, executive. And evangelical religion reaches its full manifestation and its stable form only when the sinful soul rests in humble, self-emptying trust purely on the God of grace as the immediate and sole source of all the efficiency which enters into its salvation. From these things shine out upon us the formative principle of Calvinism. The Calvinist is the man who sees God behind all phenomena, and in all that occurs recognizes the hand of God, working out His will; who makes the attitude of the soul to God in prayer the permanent attitude in all its life activities; and who casts himself on the grace of God alone, excluding every trace of dependence on self from the whole work of his salvation.

I think it important to insist here that Calvinism is not a specific variety of theistic thought, religious experience, evangelical faith, but the perfect expression of these things. The difference between it and other forms of theism, religion, evangelicalism, is a difference not of kind but of degree. There are not many kinds of theism, religion, evangelicalism, each with its own special characteristics, among which men are at liberty to choose, as may suit their individual tastes. There is but one kind of theism, religion, evangelicalism, and if there are several constructions laying claim to these names they differ from one another, not as correlative species of a more inclusive genus, but only as more or less good or bad specimens of the same thing differ from one another.

Calvinism comes forward simply as pure theism, religion, evangelicalism, as over against less pure theism, religion, evangelicalism. It does not take its position then by the side of other types of these things; it takes its place over them, as what they too ought to be. It has no difficulty thus, in recognizing the theistic character of all truly theistic thought, the religious note in all really religious manifestations, the evangelical quality of all actual evangelical faith. It refuses to be set antagonistically over against these where they really exist in any degree. It claims them in every instance of their emergence as its own, and seeks only to give them their due place in thought and life. Whoever believes in God, whoever recognizes his dependence on God, whoever hears in his heart the echo of the Soli Deo gloria of the evangelical profession--by whatever name he may call himself; by whatever logical puzzles his understanding may be confused--Calvinism recognizes such as its own, and as only requiring to give full validity to those fundamental principles which underlie and give its body to all true religion to become explicitly a Calvinist.

Calvinism is born, we perceive, of the sense of God. God fills the whole horizon of the Calvinist's feeling and thought. One of the consequences which flow from this is the high supernaturalism which informs at once his religious consciousness and his doctrinal construction. Calvinism indeed would not be badly defined as the tendency which is determined to do justice to the immediately supernatural, as in the first so in the second creation. The strength and purity of its apprehension of the supernatural Fact (which is God) removes all embarrassment from it in the presence of the supernatural act (which is miracle). In everything which enters into the process of the recovery of sinful man to good and to God, it is impelled by the force of its first principle to assign the initiative to God. A supernatural revelation in which God makes known to man His will and His purposes of grace; a supernatural record of the revelation in a supernaturally given Book, in which God gives His revelation permanence and extension ,--such things are to the Calvinist matters of course. And above all things, he can but insist with the utmost strenuousness on the immediate supernaturalness of the actual work of redemption; this of course, in its impetration. It is no strain to his faith to believe in a supernatural Redeemer, breaking His way to earth through a Virgin's womb, bursting the bonds of death and returning to His Father's side to share the glory which He had with the Father before the world was. Nor can he doubt that this supernaturally purchased redemption is applied to the soul in an equally supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

Thus it comes about that monergistic regeneration--"irresistible grace," "effectual calling," our older theologians called it,--becomes the hinge of the Calvinistic soteriology, and lies much more deeply imbedded in the system than many a doctrine more closely connected with it in the popular mind. Indeed, the soteriological significance of predestination itself consists to the Calvinist largely in the safeguard it affords to the immediate supernaturalness of salvation. What lies at the heart of his soteriology is absolute exclusion of creaturely efficiency in the induction of the saving process, that the pure grace of God in salvation may be magnified. Only so could he express his sense of men's complete dependence as sinners on the free mercy of a saving God; or extrude the evil leaven of synergism, by which God is robbed of His glory and man is encouraged to attribute to some power, some act, some initiative of his own, his participation in that salvation which in reality has come to him from pure grace.

There is nothing therefore, against which Calvinism sets its face with more firmness than every form and degree of auto-soterism. Above everything else, it is determined to recognize God, in His son Jesus Christ, acting through the Holy Spirit whom He has sent, as our veritable Saviour. To Calvinism, sinful man stands in need, not of inducements or assistance to save himself; but precisely of saving; and Jesus Christ has come not to advise, or urge, or woo, or help him to save himself; but to save him; to save him through the prevalent working on him of the Holy Spirit. This is the root of the Calvinistic soteriology, and it is because this deep sense of human helplessness and this profound consciousness of indebtedness for all that enters into salvation to the free grace of God is the root of its soteriology, that election becomes to Calvinism the cor cordis of the Gospel. He who knows that it is God who has chosen him, and not he who has chosen God, and that he owes every step and stage of his salvation to the working out of this choice of God, would be an ingrate indeed if he gave not the whole glory of his salvation to the inexplicable election of the Divine love.

Calvinism however, is not merely a soteriology. Deep as its interest is in salvation, it cannot escape the question--"Why should God thus intervene in the lives of sinners to rescue them from the consequences of their sin?" And it cannot miss the answer--"Because it is to the praise of the glory of His grace." Thus it cannot pause until it places the scheme of salvation itself in relation with a complete world-view in which it becomes subsidiary to the glory of the Lord God Almighty. If all things are from God, so to Calvinism all things are also unto God, and to it God will be all in all. It is born of the reflection in the heart of man of the glory of a God who will not give His honour to another, and draws its life from constant gaze upon this great image. And let us not fail punctually to note, that "it is the only system in which the whole order of the world is thus brought into a rational unity with the doctrine of grace, and in which the glorification of God is carried out with absolute completeness." Therefore the future of Christianity--as its past has done--lies in its hands. For, it is certainly.true, as has been said by a profound thinker of our own time, that "it is only with such a universal conception of God, established in a living way, that we can face with hope of complete conquest all the spiritual dangers and terrors of our times." "It, however," as the same thinker continues, "is deep enough and large enough and divine enough, rightly understood, to confront them and do battle with them all in vindication of the Creator, Preserver and Governor of the world, and of the Justice and Love of the divine Personality."

This is the system of doctrine to the elaboration and defence of which John Calvin gave all his powers nearly four hundred years ago. And it is chiefly because he gave all his powers to commending to us this system of doctrine, that we are here today to thank God for giving to the world the man who has given to the world this precious gift.

Well, now, are going to do a dispensational defense of Calvinism?

Just because I don't uncritically follow Scofield doesn't mean that I think that there are no dispensations. The amils do too. I've seen Hendriksen use the term "dispensation" to refer to the paradigm shift between the old and new testaments.

An Old Testament saint was already saved, Corinilus got saved by going to Peter and hearing and believing the Gospel. What the passage states is that one could be 'devout' and 'pray' and be unsaved!

I'll concede here.

Does it describe the 'rich young ruler' who Jesus loved?

Yes, he worshipped his wealth rather than the Creator.

Even Calvinists admit that there are unbelievers who are moral men.

Total depravity does not mean that man does not behave morally at times. It means that all men are as bad off as they can be, but not necessarily as bad as they can be. That men will reject God everytime, left to their own devices.

Considering the history of mankind -- one of rape, murder, and torture -- total depravity seems a cinch to prove to me; the opposite position is untenable in light of those simple facts.

That's pretty close, but its not at all funny.

Considering that total depravity is completely scriptural, I cannot comprehend how you can reject it. My only guess is that you enter into the equation assuming that mankind is not inherently evil. I know otherwise, including by experience.

Did I type all that? Sorry everyone

No, don't be! I disagree with it, but it is very well done.

First, I agree with this statement: but using the selection process of the Twelve Apostles to validate an entire theology of the "elect" is bewildering.

Now, why do I disagree? In the Reformed Faith, we don't take one piece of scripture and build doctrine around said passage. Rather, we use scripture to interpret scripture. What does that mean? Well, I look at this passage and ask what does the rest of the Bible teach?

So, let's see: God choose Abraham, and Israel. God choose Jonah and Paul. And if you look at the following scriptures, God choose his elect:

Romans 9:15 "For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (God will do whatever he wants)

1 Thessalonians 5:9 "For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Who is "us?" In the context of the passage, the elect.)

Romans 9:17 "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (Sounds like Pharoah didn't have a choice. Other passages in Exodus clearly state God hardened Pharoah's heart. Now, why would he harden a heart if free will exists. This flies in the face of free will)

Isaiah 55:11 "so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it" (What God decrees will happen. None of this God wants you to do something and I might do it.)

There are several more, but I think if you read through it all, it is clear, God has choosen some to himself.

But most reply, "God is a loving God! I don't believe He would do that!" Paul anticipated that very question:

Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (God made us (the pottery) and can do with us what he wants. A lot of folks say God knew the decision we would make, and we were made elect because of that. This passage clearly states the opposite. We cannot resist His will! We have no objection. And don't forget, the unsaved don't care! They are getting exactly what they want.)

And who are we to question Gods purpose? Does not the great prophet say "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9 (We will not understand why he does what he does. Scripture is clear, he chooses some!)

sure I follow you. It's sounds like you are saying that God is able and willing to blot the name of an Old Covenant saint out of the Book, but that He is not able or is unwilling to blot the name of a New Covenant saint out of the Book. Have I misunderstood?

No, that is correct.

The Old testament saint was not part of the Church, which is the Body of Christ.

The believer in the New Conveant is put into Christ and thus, cannot be lost.

That is why in Rom.8:38-39 we see that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ.

And in Eph.4:30 we are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of Redemption.

Old Testament saints did not have this type of security.

The Old Testament saint could have his name blotted out of the book of life, since he was not in union with Christ. The first thing that popped into my mind was the Passover in Exodus chapter 12. The children of Israel are commanded to mark their door posts with the blood of a perfect lamb, male and first born, and to consume its flesh in order that they be spared from the wrath of God visited upon Egypt.

True, and those same people did not enter Cannan because of their lack of faith and whom God was going to blot out of the Book of life.

While true, that the Christ had not yet visited the Earth in flesh, I would still say He was very much in union with these children of Israel. The lamb slaughtered was akin to the Christ and His flesh and blood saved them, just as it does a New Covenant saint today.

No, the blood represented redemption from sin, not Union with Christ.

Only a New Testament saint is said to be a temple of the Holy Spirit (1Cor.6:19), a new creature in Christ (2Cor.5:17), Christs body (Eph.1:22-23) and His Bride (Eph.5:30).

Well, now, are going to do a dispensational defense of Calvinism? Just because I don't uncritically follow Scofield doesn't mean that I think that there are no dispensations. The amils do too. I've seen Hendriksen use the term "dispensation" to refer to the paradigm shift between the old and new testaments.

The issue in Dispensations (and there are Calvinist Dispensationalists such as Chafer, and Ryrie but they are generally rejected by hard-line Calvinists such as Gerstner) is that there is a difference between Israel and the Church.

That the Church age believer is different then a Old Testament believer.

Yet, that view will not hold up in the case of Cornilus since it says he came to Peter to get saved, not receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which would have put him in Union with Christ (as a saved gentile)

An Old Testament saint was already saved, Corinilus got saved by going to Peter and hearing and believing the Gospel. What the passage states is that one could be 'devout' and 'pray' and be unsaved! I'll concede here. Does it describe the 'rich young ruler' who Jesus loved? Yes, he worshipped his wealth rather than the Creator.

That was his sin, but not of 'rushing to shed blood', not 'a mouth full of cursing'

Now, I will grant that when one breaks one commandment, one breaks them all, but Paul is not pointing out the issue of sin pe se, his point is that Jews and Gentiles are both under condemnation even though the Jews think their race is going to save them (like having the Temple in Jerusalem was going to save it)

Even Calvinists admit that there are unbelievers who are moral men. Total depravity does not mean that man does not behave morally at times. It means that all men are as bad off as they can be, but not necessarily as bad as they can be.

And those verses in Romans are depicting man as bad as he can be, hence the hyperbolic nature of them.

That men will reject God everytime, left to their own devices.

Ah, if left to their own devices

Exactly!

God never leaves man to 'his own devices' but has made Himself clear to man through nature so that man may respond to God's drawing (Psa.19, Rom.1)

Considering the history of mankind -- one of rape, murder, and torture -- total depravity seems a cinch to prove to me; the opposite position is untenable in light of those simple facts.

Not at all.

What it states is that man has to reject God's drawing of them via nature and finally the Cross, but not all men do, some respond (such as Cornilus) and thus are saved.

Now, the Calvinist will admit that man rejects God, but ofcourse, that same man could never respond to God since he was not part of the 'chosen' of Unconditional election.

So, because he is born in sin and in Total depravity he hates God, rejects God, and is condemned by God, yet, never had a chance to accept God since God did not give him the irresistable grace that those who are saved get.

That same condemned individual is held responsible for his rejection (doing what he wanted) even though it was God who willed Lucifer's fall, Adams fall and that man's eternal damnation by not choosing him!

It is about this time someone quotes (out of context) Rom.9:20!

So God puts man into Total Depravity,(Willing that Adam would fall and the consquences of the Fall) so that man cannot respond to the God's calling, but it is man who is responsible for not responding! That's pretty close, but its not at all funny. Considering that total depravity is completely scriptural, I cannot comprehend how you can reject it.

Nowhere does it say that man is unable to respond to the Gospel.

Total Depravity is a result of philosophical speculation of unconditional election.

My only guess is that you enter into the equation assuming that mankind is not inherently evil. I know otherwise, including by experience.

No, I know that man is evil, but I am willing to ask how man got that way (according to Calvinism)

According to calvinism, God put Adam into sin for God's own glory (see Calvin Bk.3), thus, tracing back the source of this evil, you find God responsible for it!

Moreover, granted that all men deserve hell, why are some saved and some not?

Thus, you are left with a abitrary God, who acts contrary to what Scripture reveals Him to be, one who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.(Ezek.33:11)

Finally, we have in Rom.5:18 the damnation of the race through the first Adam, but the salvation of that same race through the Second Adam.

Thus, 'original sin' is trumped by grace and all any man has to do is accept the free gift of salvation offered to all men (Jn.3:16, Jn.12:32)

The issue, as has been stated before, is not how 'bad' man is, but how good God is!

The sad thing is all of this confusion was pushed by Calvin so one could have confidence in eternal security ('I was chosen by God, thus cannot be lost), when the issue in eternal security for the Christian is the love of Christ,(Rom.8:38-39)which is in the Bible, not unconditional election, which is not

That was his sin, but not of 'rushing to shed blood', not 'a mouth full of cursing'

You don't "rush to shed blood"? I doubt that.... Remember -- mere anger (without cause) is considered in the same breath as murder (Mat. 5:21)-- because anger is the mens rae of murder. If we could get away with it, there are times when we would all kill. The fact that the fear of the law restrains us does not speak in our favor.

God never leaves man to 'his own devices' but has made Himself clear to man through nature so that man may respond to God's drawing (Psa.19, Rom.1)

That is certainly not true:

11 And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables,
12 so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN."
-- Mk. 4:11-12 [NASB]

Hiding the gospel so that people may not turn and be forgiven? Revealing it only to a select few (in this case the 12)? Leaving the rest to their own devices? Sure sounds like what's happening here.

(Incidentally, this verse always confused me as a little kid, when I encountered it. Why wouldn't God want everyone to turn and be forgiven? But few little kids encounter Romans 9-11.)

What [the opposite] states is that man has to reject God's drawing of them via nature and finally the Cross, but not all men do, some respond (such as Cornilus) and thus are saved.

So why are some being saved and some rejecting it? Are those saved more devout or more spiritually attuned, so that they are more receptive? Or perhaps they're smarter? Or less evil? No, those that are saved are such without any merit of their own. Or, in the words of Scripture,

For who maketh thee to differ one from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
1 Cor. 4:6 [AV]

Contextually, this refers to the Corinthians, who were proud of their wealth and power, but the premise still holds.

Thus, you are left with a abitrary God, who acts contrary to what Scripture reveals Him to be, one who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.(Ezek.33:11)

Ezekiel refers to physical death as judgment. REgarding eternal states, Romans already makes clear that God chooses based upon His counsel alone. I doubt it's arbitrary, but it's certainly not because of any merit on the part of the elect:

So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. - Rom 9:18

19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory. - Rom 9:19-23 [NASB]

It's there in black and white; you just refuse to see it.

So the whole thing was a crap shoot?

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

In John chapter 6 that we just looked at in such detail, Jesus drew many disciples unto Him. At the end of the day only twelve remained. But while weeding down to the predestined twelve, He paved the way for the rest to return to Him after the resurrection. Like the Prodigal Son, many of those would choose to do so, and the Father rejoices in it.

On God's side of the table, nothing is a crap shoot. He gave His only Son to die that none should perish. He gave His Holy Spirit to whisper to the hearts of all men. He has predestined teachers for us to light the way. Everything that could be done to pave the way for our return to Him, He has done.

On our side of the table, do we accept the will of the Father and live, or do we deny Him and remain dead in our sin? It's not a crap shoot there either, only two options and nothing left to pure "chance".

From what I've read on this thread, I believe all of us have accepted the gift of Christ's salvation and will live. Some feel they have done so because they did not have a choice, it was decided for them. The Bible tells me this is true in certain circumstances where God has a specific purpose in mind. But just like supernatural miracles are not an every day occurrence, neither is predestination. For the rest of us, the Bible says we are given the opportunity to accept God and live, or deny Him and die.

There's an old saying: "If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it was and always will be yours. If not, it was never meant to be." I don't think this has Biblical origin, but sure could have. God loves us very much.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

In John chapter 6 that we just looked at in such detail, Jesus drew many disciples unto Him. At the end of the day only twelve remained. But while weeding down to the predestined twelve, He paved the way for the rest to return to Him after the resurrection. Like the Prodigal Son, many of those would choose to do so, and the Father rejoices in it.

Actually the purpose of that discourse was to drive disciples away not to him. That was the intent and that was the effect. He drove those away that were not predestined . He said He KNEW who would leave

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

No man comes to Jesus unless the Father draws him..and EVERYONE that hears from the father comes..it says nothing about "choosing" does it?

On God's side of the table, nothing is a crap shoot. He gave His only Son to die that none should perish.

So then all men without exception are saved? Or did God make a mistake in his plans? Or did Jesus not complete the work?

He gave His Holy Spirit to whisper to the hearts of all men. He has predestined teachers for us to light the way.

He predestined teachers but not apostles??

Everything that could be done to pave the way for our return to Him, He has done.

Do you have a scripture where God says I have done my part and throws up his helpless hands and says the rest is up to you? As far as Jesus was concerned it was a crap shoot right??

On our side of the table, do we accept the will of the Father and live, or do we deny Him and remain dead in our sin? It's not a crap shoot there either, only two options and nothing left to pure "chance".

The response of man is left to chance right? Do men sit in a equal position to God at this table?

From what I've read on this thread, I believe all of us have accepted the gift of Christ's salvation and will live. Some feel they have done so because they did not have a choice, it was decided for them.

Where did anyone say that they did not have to repent and believe? Would it injure your ego to find out that you did not choose God He chose you? Does it make you less a man to hear that you loved God because He loved you first?

The Bible tells me this is true in certain circumstances where God has a specific purpose in mind.

Will you show me where it says that? Is God a respecter of persons? Are some men more important to God than others? Is the man that lead Billy Graham to Christ foreordained? What about his mother and father? What about the man that led him to Christ?

But just like supernatural miracles are not an every day occurrence, neither is predestination.

Would you cite me some scriptures on that ?

For the rest of us, the Bible says we are given the opportunity to accept God and live, or deny Him and die.

Did the man born in the bush in 1400 , what about the Muslims in Saudi?

NO MAN COMES TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER DRAW HIM

And all that are drawn by the father come and are saved!

There's an old saying: "If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it was and always will be yours. If not, it was never meant to be." I don't think this has Biblical origin, but sure could have. God loves us very much.

You are right it is not biblical. The Bible says that Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

I assume then you believe seeing that all men without exception are called by the father and the word says that all men that have heard come that all men without exception are saved ?

Do not blame the Calvinists for the greek words

ALL

pas {pas}

TDNT - 5:886,795 including all the forms of declension

Part of Speech adj Outline of Biblical Usage

1) individually

a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2) collectively

a) some of all types

++++ ... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ... C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption

Marlowe all does not always mean all.

If you said to your wife " all the men were at the meeting" She would understand that all was not all without exception, it was all the men that were expected to be there.

In the case of scripture the term all was understood by the Jews that heard it. it meant that all types of men ,not only the Jews that thought they had an exclusive relationship with God..but the gentile nations would be included in salvation.

The alls and whosoevers were a strong message to the Jews

I do not understand the need for men to have control over God..

In your reply, you asked me 20 questions! I'm just not able to think or study in that many directions all at once and my hands still ache from John chapter 6 post :-) The answers for many of the questions you've asked are in previous posts if you don't mind re-reading them. For the rest, let's go point by point, please.

I do not, however, want to leave you with the impression that I believe all people are saved without exception. You should include the meaning of the word "should" where it appears in Bible verse. That does not mean you can't dismiss it, only that you should not dismiss it. It is certainly my desire that you gain meaning from Bible verse by including it. But you have the freedom to ignore it if you choose. Case in point:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

It is not God's desire that any should perish. But we know many indeed will perish because man with his freedom to choose often chooses sin and death.

If God had wanted to say that no one would perish, the verse would have read something like: "... but is longsuffering to us-ward, so that no one will perish, for all will come to repentence."

You can not dismiss the word "should" without altering the meaning dramatically.

And as far as the bushmen go ...

Luke 12:47-48 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.