Category Archives: Election & Predestination

Divine Election Explained – Paul Washer

Posted on by

Some time back I posted a video of a conversation where seemingly unannounced, a young man walked up to Paul Washer asking him if he could explain the doctrine of election (with another friend standing by with a video camera). The result was a very poor quality audio recording but with the transcript provided, it is fairly easy to follow.

I spent some time writing out a full transcript of the conversation. There are some people who for some reason find the viewing of videos to be problematic. I hope adding the transcript below serves you.

So, here’s the video once again, this time with the transcript (which starts after the initial question has been asked). God bless, John

What it all comes down to is this. You have to answer one question: is man radically depraved?

That’s the only question you have to ask. Because if he is truly dead in his sin, if he truly hates God, if all men are equally evil, and they are, then the question is, how are you standing here right now believing God while some of your friends who are more moral than you still hate Him?

What happened?

If you say you opened up your heart, I’ll say, “no you didn’t” because the Bible says God opened up Lydia’s heart.

If you say, “well I repented.” Well, repentance is an evangelical grace in all the confessions. That means it comes from God as a gift.

If you say, “well I believe.” Ephesians 2. It is also a gift.

Questioner: (I know the Bible says that no man can come to God unless he is drawn by God. I know that well. My question is, “is the offer of salvation for all men or did God sit back in eternity and say, ‘its for you, you, you and you, and you, you, you, you are going to go to hell”?)

See, first of all, your problem is this: let’s say there’s no election. None. Ok. Let’s just start fresh and say there’s no election. Alright.. now, let’s say that men really are radically depraved and no man can come to God unless God draws him. So God comes down to every man and says “Anyone who will bow the knee to Me, anyone who will accept my Son as their Savior will be saved.” Since every man is radically depraved, they all hate God, they all blaspheme Him, turn around walk away and go to hell. The whole world goes to hell. Is that God’s fault?

(No.)

Alright, let’s say that really is the reality. Let’s say the Bible is true and that men hate God that much. So, who is going to be saved? Absolutely no one!

And if God saved no one because everyone is evil and rejects Him, is God wrong in doing that?

No, so that is what you’ve got without election – you’ve got the whole world hating God and going to hell.

That’s it…. and the other option is this:

Among these evil men, for His own glory and to demonstrate His own kindness before the foundation of the world He chooses a group of men out of there to demonstrate His glory in them. Is that wrong?

Did He rip the other men off?

What did He do?

You’ve got two choices: God saves a group of people by His own sovereignty or everybody goes to hell. Everybody!

Because men are that evil.

See, what you need to realize is that if God, right now, were to throw open the door of hell and say “everyone who wants out of hell, the only thing you have to do is bow your knee to Me and recognize My Lordship.” they’ll slam the door and stay in hell.

See what you don’t realize because of the humanistic Christianity in America, you don’t realize that men are really evil. They really ARE evil.

I’ll give you an example.

Have any of you seen Lord of the Rings?

Saruman makes these orcs, they come out of the ground evil. EVIL.

Alright, Aragon, all the heroes in the movie, slaughter them like they were insects. Slaughter them. And every time an orc gets killed, what do you do…

Yay! (Cheer)

Why?

Because those orcs really are evil. They are evil.

There’s your problem. You don’t think men are.

Men really are evil. Men really deserve hell. They really do.

(I believe that)

We talk about the doctrine of inability – that men cannot come to God. Jesus said that. Alright, men CANNOT come to God.

Now, if you say, “if men can’t come to God then how can God judge them? Its like judging a blind man because he can’t read. If men can’t come to God then man is not a culprit, he’s a victim.”

But here’s what you have to understand. Men cannot come to God because they WILL not come to God and they will not come to God because they hate Him… and therefore they are responsible.

Men are evil. God is good.

So, men hate God, they hate His law, they hate everything about Him. OK.

It says of Joseph’s brothers: they could not speak to him peaceably.

Now they spoke Aramaic. Why couldn’t they speak to him peaceably?

They could not because they hated him.

Alright, that’s why no man will ever come to God.

If God comes down and says, “Alright, everybody make their choice.”

No one is coming to God.

Why?

They hate Him.

And that is why they are judged, for their moral inability. Their inability is moral. They really hate God.

So, you’ve got the whole human race, every one of them is fallen, everyone of them hates God. God comes down to them and says, “who wants to be saved?”

Everybody blasphemes the name of God, walks into hell and slams the door. That’s what you’ve got. Because men really are evil.

and if out of that God says, “For My own glory, I am going to redeem a people and give them to My Son, by My own choice and by My own Sovereign election. He’s done wrong to no one.

Now how does He save them?

Here’s a question: Are you spiritually dead prior to salvation?

(Yes)

Well then, how did you come to Christ?

If you are spiritually blind, how do you now see Him?

(He draws me unto Him)

But you’re a dead man.

If some of it has to do with you, you’re a dead man.

If God calls your name, you hate Him. You’re not going to come, you’re going to run farther away from Him.

That is why in all.. now listen very carefully… in all the Christian confessions – the old Christian confessions, in the Reformation, early Baptist confessions, … you have been raised on this” ‘If you believe in Jesus you can be born again.’

ALL the early Baptist confessions say you must be born again in order to believe in Jesus.

That’s the difference.

Because if I tell a dead man, “Look, you’re dead, but there’s a hospital over here, where they can put some electrodes on you – so get up and follow me over to the hospital.”

Its nonsensical. He’s dead.

If he can get up he doesn’t need to go to the hospital.

So when Jesus looked at Lazarus and said, “Lazarus come forth” – there’s a problem – Lazarus is dead.

How does he hear the command?

The command was not only to be given, the moment the command is given, Lazarus must be resurrected to be able to even hear the command and respond.

That’s why you probably heard the Gospel for many years, and you’re sitting there and you didn’t care, it’s no big deal, maybe you made a profession of faith.. nothing.

And then one day, the Gospel is preached and wooosh – the blinders are taken off and not only that but you want Him.

Some people say, “well, what God does is He draws us to a certain point and then gives us a choice.”

There’s a problem. If God only illuminates the mind of the sinner then the more the sinner sees God, the more he’s going to hate Him.

So He not only illuminates the mind, He changes the heart.

With a new heart, for the first time you want Jesus and say, “I love Him and am irresistibly drawn to Him. I want Him more than anything.”

That’s what it is.

Exegeting 2 Peter 3:9

Posted on by

2 Peter 3:9, without doubt, is the single most popular verse used by Arminians/synergists to dismiss the biblical doctrine of election, bar none. The meaning of the verse is simply assumed, and because of this, no time is taken to study it, which is the very hallmark of tradition. I have to admit that I made this exact assumption for the first couple of decades of my Christian life, even as a pastor. I was a synergist and the synergistic interpretation seemed obviously correct to me. Because of this, I saw no need to study the text in order to examine my traditions. In this regard, it’s been well said, “those most enslaved to tradition are those who think they do not have any.”

The Arminian/Synergist Interpretation

Roger E. Olson (PhD, Rice University) is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University. He self identifies as an Arminian. Insisting that 1 Timothy 2:3-4 teaches much the same truth as 2 Peter 3:9, Olson writes these words,

“Above all Arminians insist that God is a good and loving God, who truly desires the salvation of all people. Note 1 Timothy 2:3–4: “This is good, and pleases God our savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”; and 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead, he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” Arminians regard these and similar passages of Scripture as clearly and unequivocally pointing to God’s universal desire for salvation of every person.” 1

But is this interpretation correct? To answer this question, let us begin by reading the verse in its context, beginning with the first portion of the chapter:

2 Peter 3:1-9 – “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.’ For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

Exegesis of the Text

The first thing we notice is that the subject of the passage is not salvation but the second coming of Christ. Peter is explaining the reason for the delay in Christ’s second coming. He is still coming and will come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night. (v. 10) The second thing to notice is that the verse in question (v.9) speaks of the wishing or willing of God (depending on the translation utilized). “God is not willing” for something to happen.

Theologians have long recognized that there are three ways in which the will of God is spoken of in Scripture.

There is what is called the Sovereign Decretive Will, sometimes referred to as the Sovereign efficacious will. This refers to the will by which God brings to pass whatsoever He decrees. This is something that always happens. Nothing can thwart this will (Isa 46:9-11). This will is also known as the secret will of God because it is hidden to us until it comes to pass in the course of time.

Secondly, there is the Preceptive Will of God. This is God’s will revealed in His law, commandments or precepts. As the course of human history reveals, people have the power to break these commandments and do so every day. It is important to state that although men have the power to break these precepts, they do not have the right to do so. His creatures are under obligation to obey all His commandments and will face His judgment for not doing so.

Thirdly, we have God’s Will of Disposition. Dr. R. C. Sproul states, “This will describes God’s attitude. It defines what is pleasing to Him. For example, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, yet He most surely wills or decrees the death of the wicked. God’s ultimate delight is in His own holiness and righteousness. When He judges the world, He delights in the vindication of His own righteousness and justice, yet He is not gleeful in a vindictive sense toward those who receive His judgment. God is pleased when we find our pleasure in obedience. He is sorely displeased when we are disobedient.”2

There are many in the Reformed community who look at 2 Peter 3:9 and feel that what we have here is God expressing His will of disposition. They believe the text to be saying that God is not wishing or desiring to see any human being perish (in one sense), even though that is exactly what will happen if a person does not come to repentance. The fact that people perish is not something that makes God happy. And yet, to uphold His holiness and justice, He must punish rebellious sinners by sending them to an eternity in hell. John Frame expresses this view as he writes, “God’s will is sometimes thwarted because he wills it to be, because he has given one of his desires precedence over another.” And again, “God does not intend to bring about everything he values, but he never fails to bring about what he intends.”3

A lot could be said for this view of the text and I have many Reformed friends who hold to it. It does seem to solve many problems. However, I am convinced of a different view.

What follows is a lengthy quote by Dr. R.C. Sproul. He writes, “Let us apply these three possible definitions to the passage in 2 Peter. If we take the blanket statement, ‘God is not willing that any should perish,’ and apply the sovereign efficacious will to it, the conclusion is obvious. No one will perish. If God sovereignly decrees that no one should perish, and God is God, then certainly no one will ever perish. This would be a proof text not for Arminianism but for universalism. The text would then prove too much for Arminians.

Suppose we apply the definition of the preceptive will of God to this passage? Then the passage would mean that God does not allow anyone to perish. That is, he forbids the perishing of people. It is against his law. If people then went ahead and perished, God would have to punish them for perishing. His punishment for perishing would be more perishing. But how does one engage in more perishing? This definition will not work in this passage. It makes no sense.

The third alternative is that God takes no delight in the perishing of people. This squares with what the Bible says elsewhere about God’s disposition toward the lost. This definition could fit this passage. Peter may be saying here that God takes no delight in the perishing of anyone.

Though the third definition is possible and attractive to use in resolving this passage with what the Bible teaches about predestination, there is yet another factor to be considered. The text says more than simply that God is not willing that any perish. The whole clause is important: “but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”4

I find Dr. Sproul’s logic here convincing. So let’s ask a further question of the text, namely, Who are the “all” and who are the “us”? Are these references to all people everywhere on planet earth?

When we follow the pronouns of the passage the answer becomes immediately apparent. The people Peter is addressing are clearly identified. He speaks of the mockers as “they”, but everywhere else he speaks to his audience as “you” and the “beloved.” This is vitally important.

But surely “all” means “all,” right? Well usually, yes, but not always. This has to be determined by the context in which the words are found. When a school teacher is in a classroom and is about to start the class and asks the students, “Are we all here?”, he is not asking if everyone on planet Earth is in the classroom. Because of the context in which the question is framed, we understand that he is referring to all within a certain class or type; in this case, all the students in the class. To say that he is referring to all people on planet earth would be to grossly misinterpret the intended meaning of his question. So, the question in 2 Peter 3:9 is whether “all” refers to all human beings without exception, or whether it refers to everyone within a certain group. The context of 2 Peter 3:9 indicates that Peter is writing to a specific group of people and not to all of mankind. The audience is confirmed when Peter writes, “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved…” (2 Peter 3:1)

According to the first chapter in this epistle, this group had “received a faith of the same kind as ours” by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1, NASB).

Can we be even more specific about who this group is? Indeed, yes, because if this is the second letter addressed to them, the first letter makes it clear who he is writing to. 1 Peter 1:1 begins this way, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect…”

As we read through the passage in 2 Peter 3, there is nothing that would indicate that the audience changes in any way. The same group is being addressed throughout. So Peter is writing to the elect in 2 Peter 3:8, 9 saying “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (emphasis mine)

I would agree with Dr. Sproul (and other scholars) who believe that the will of God spoken of here is not God’s will of disposition but His Sovereign decretive will. God is not willing that any should perish. He will not allow it to happen. Allowing for this premise then, if the “any” or “all” here refers to everyone in human history, the verse would prove universalism rather than Christianity. Universalism is the false doctrine that teaches that everyone will in the end be saved, with no one going to hell.

As has been established, if God is not willing (in His decretive Sovereign will) that any person perish; then what? No one would ever perish! Yet, in context, as Dr. James White asserts, “Peter limits his use of ‘all’ and ‘any’ to a specific audience, ‘you.’”5 In other words, the “any” that God wills not to perish is limited to the same group he is writing to, the elect; and the “all” that are to come to repentance is the very same group.

This interpretation makes total sense of the passage. Christ’s second coming has been delayed so that all the elect can be gathered in. The elect are not justified by election, but by putting their faith in Christ. If a person is to be saved they must come to Christ in repentance and faith. The doctrine of Sovereign Election simply explains who will do so. The elect will. Jesus assured us of this when He said, “All that the Father gives to me will come to me” (John 6:37) and is confirmed by the testimony of Luke in Acts 13:48 when he observed that “… all who were appointed to eternal life believed.” All who had the appointment, made the appointment.

Conclusion

2 Peter Chapter 3 teaches us that the reason Christ has not yet returned is because there are more of His elect to come into the fold. That is why He did not return yesterday. At this point in time, not all of the elect have come to repentance and faith. Therefore, Christ has not yet returned to the Earth in power and glory. Christ’s second coming may seem to be delayed but God is being very longsuffering toward us (you, beloved) not willing that any should perish but that all come to repentance. Rather than denying election, 2 Peter 3:9, understood in its biblical context, is one of the strongest verses in favor of it. The Lord Jesus will return, but only after all His elect, beloved people have come to repentance.

Bibliography

  1. Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism electronic [Kindle] edition, p. 68
  2. R. C. Sproul Essential Truths of the Christian Faith Tyndale Elevate; Illustrated edition (1998)
  3. John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterean & Reformed, 2001), 113
  4. James White, The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free, Calvary Press; Revised edition (May 15, 2000)
  5. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, Tyndale Elevate (April 6, 2021)

Why I teach on Sovereign Election

Posted on by

There’s no doubt that the doctrine of election is controversial. Some Christians don’t like it. More than that, some Christians actually hate the doctrine with a vengeance.

Why then would I teach it, knowing this?

Well, firstly, because it is the responsibility of all Bible teachers to teach what the Bible teaches, I teach Sovereign election because the Bible teaches the doctrine. I have no right to say to the Lord, “I know your Word teaches it, but I don’t think the people of God need it.” Such would be sheer arrogance and even treason on the part of the Lord’s herald. No, the solemn charge I have been given (and every preacher has been given) is to preach the word in season and out of season – when it is welcomed with joy by many and when no one wants to hear it whatsoever. Of course, election is not all I teach, but in that it is a Bible doctrine, I do indeed teach it.

Secondly, while it is a controversial doctrine, there is very little in Scripture that is not in some way controversial. The very first verse of our Bibles is controversial, and almost everything else that follows is likewise so. The pastor’s/preacher’s job is to preach and teach what the Word declares, even as he knows ahead of time, not all will embrace the truth he proclaims. He preaches and teaches to please an audience of One. To quote Dr. Steve Lawson, “If He is pleased, it doesn’t matter who is displeased. If He is displeased, it doesn’t matter who is pleased.”

Thirdly, I preach the doctrine because of the great sustaining comfort it brings to God’s people. While some are outraged by it, God means it to be a comfort to the saints, and has revealed this truth for that very purpose. He didn’t reveal it to cause division in the body of Christ. He revealed it because He determined in His infinite wisdom, it would be a blessing to His people to know this truth.

How exactly can this doctrine bring comfort?

Here’s an email I received today from someone I shall simple call “A” (her full name is withheld). Though lengthy, I believe your heart will be encouraged to see the Lord’s great comfort found in this doctrine by this precious saint, in the midst of great torment of soul.

Hi Pastor Samson,

My name is A*, and I wanted to reach out because you have given me such an unexpected gift, and I wanted to thank you. I saw you on Justin Peters’ YouTube channel, and I just listened to your podcast about “Lost loved ones” I have to say, I started crying so hard. I have been very conflicted over a certain situation, and you are the only person who has enlightened me on it.

My brother P* (name withheld) died by suicide 1.5 years ago, and he was not saved. At the time, neither was I. (I’m a new believer, saved out of the New Age movement. My brother & I both went to church when we were young, but strayed in our teenage years.) He was my only sibling, and we were extremely close, so his death completely destroyed my life. 

I became suicidal myself, not wanting to live without my brother, and I came extremely close to ending my life. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit saved me in a moment of grace, without me asking for it or looking for it (this is partially why I believe in the doctrine of election, because my salvation was not my choice or my doing.) I had a sudden revelation that the Bible was real (just like that, a full-body flash of awareness that the Bible is real), and I was instantly convicted that Christ is real and Hell is real and Heaven is real, and I had a strong urge to read the entire Bible ASAP.

So that was the good news, but after becoming a Christian, I was grieved beyond words that my sweet, kind brother was burning in hell. He died alone in my mom’s garage (she found him), without the possibility of anyone saving him (either physically or spiritually). And because I now believed that Hell was real, I felt dread beyond belief to imagine my sensitive brother suffering there for eternity. You have no idea how this has tormented me for the past 19 months. I asked many Christians and the people at my church if there was any hope for him whatsoever, and I did lots of research on my own to see if God could possibly have mercy on his soul, after dying as an unbeliever. Was there ANY possibility that my brother was somehow saved? Most people didn’t give me any response whatsoever (I imagined they thought, “he’s burning in hell, but I’m too scared to tell her that”), and my own research also came up empty.

But Pastor Samson, you finally gave me an answer. You are the only person I’ve come across who has actually given a forthright response. I’ve spent HUNDREDS of hours listening to sermons and lectures on this topic, and nobody gave a straight answer. You finally turned on the lightbulb in my head, with your podcast on lost loved ones.

Although I already believed in predestination (I’m an avid listener of John MacArthur & I have his study Bible), I hadn’t thought to apply that to my brother’s situation. (HELLO!!!!) You made me realize that if it was God’s will for my brother to be saved, then the Lord Jesus would have saved him in his final moments. He would have found a way. In your podcast you said, “Absolutely no one is beyond God’s reach, even to the last moment of a person’s life.” Considering that my brother died by suicide, without any hope of resuscitation, you have no idea the hope this has given me. In my own suicidal moments, the Lord intervened and saved my life. In my brother’s case, although he died, there is still the possibility that he was saved before death, just like the thief on the cross.

And even if my brother wasn’t part of the elect, then that would still be God’s plan. Although I can’t understand it with my grieving heart, I can still accept it as God’s sovereign will, because He is supreme, and SOMEHOW it is for His ultimate glory. I will never understand it on this side of Heaven, but at the very least I can accept the reasoning. (When people get mad at the idea of predestination, I think they forget that God can do whatever He wants. He created us, and He can destroy us. None of us deserves to be saved, so we’re lucky if He saves even one person!)

In your podcast, you also quoted the scripture that says, “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “All that the father gives me will come to me.” Those words went straight to my heart, and they changed my life. I’ve heard & read them before, but never considered the context or applied them to my brother’s death. It means, if my brother was meant to be saved, then the Lord saved him. And if he wasn’t, then He didn’t.

But most importantly, it made me realize that my brother had a 50/50 chance of salvation. Either he was one of the elect (in which case he’s safe & secure, and I will see him again), or he wasn’t. But those odds are the biggest blessing to me. There is now a 50% chance that my brother is saved. Before, that chance in my mind was 0. I did not see ANY way that my brother could be saved, because I hadn’t considered predestination, and nobody had explained it to me that way.

Pastor Samson, you gave me a 50% chance of my brother being saved. Do you have any idea what gift you’ve given me? There is hope. I’ve cried so hard over the idea that I will never see my brother again, that there was absolutely no chance of him being saved, and I have been hurting so badly over the idea of his sweet kind soul burning in hell. But now, there is a 50% chance that he is saved, and that I will see him again. 

You truly have no idea how much you’ve changed my life. I have cried so hard over this. I’m even crying as I’m writing this, but now it’s tears of hope and relief. I can live the rest of my life on these 50/50 odds. Before, I had a 0% chance of seeing my brother again. I had ZERO hope. I was so miserable, and couldn’t imagine living out the rest of my days with this burden weighing so heavily on me. I was even suicidal over it! But now, there’s a 1 in 2 chance of being reunited with my beloved brother. I will never forget you for this amazing gift you’ve given me. I will also be sharing this with my mom, who is equally grieved that her son is in hell.

And yes, I understand that there’s still that 50% chance that he was not of the elect, but I already lived and grieved in reality for the past 19 months. And having that framed as being God’s ultimate will, I can accept it. It doesn’t make it less painful, but at least I can accept it, as I humbly accept God’s sovereign will regardless of my preferences. 

The Bible tells us that there will be no more pain or tears in Heaven, so *even if* I never see my brother again, I know that my eternal soul will somehow be comforted. I can’t possibly understand that now in my brokenhearted state, but I have faith that Christ will wipe away these tears, and the remaining years of my mournful life will be nothing compared to eternity.

Anyway, I know this was long, but I felt compelled to email you because you truly truly have changed my life and my grief. I needed this so much. You have given me hope. A 50% chance is…. a gift from God, honestly. You took me from 0 to 50, from hopeless to hoping. I can’t express my gratitude enough. Thank you for putting this content out there. (I suppose I should thank Justin Peters as well, since I found you through his YouTube channel.) 

I have prayed to the Lord Jesus to please bless your ministry in this upcoming year, because you have blessed my life. The next time I’m in Arizona, I will be sure to stop by your church and thank you in person. You have given me the biggest gift. Thank you again, truly.

~A* (full name withheld)

P.S. P* (name withheld) was my older brother, but next month I will officially be older than him. You know how weird that’s going to be? I have been dreading this milestone since he died. But now… it’s not as daunting as it has been. It’s just a little less painful. I’m curious to see how else this new “50% chance” will relieve & alleviate my grief in the future. Thanks again ❤💔

Answering a Critic of Reformed Theology

Posted on by
Reply

Pastor Jim McClarty – an ex-rocker, current preacher, saved by astounding grace (and my friend) provides very good (biblical) responses to a critic of Reformed theology:

Because I am a very public advocate for Calvinism (which is a nickname for the historic theology that lays at the heart of the Protestant Reformation), I occasionally hear from critics. Sometimes, their arguments are logical and well-presented. Other times, they’re little more than rants. Usually, they’re somewhere in-between. And I answer most of them — avoiding the really silly or truly angry ones.

The reason I’m sharing this particular exchange is because it includes assumptions and arguments that are typical and that show up in my in-box with increasing frequency. Some folk simply cannot conceive of God being absolutely sovereign so they attempt to argue against it by insisting that such sovereignty would necessarily make God evil. And that’s where we’ll jump into the exchange –

The Critic writes:
When the philosophy that drives Calvinism is projected to its logical conclusion, even Satan’s activity is an extension of God’s sovereignty. God sovereignly controls Satan’s every move.

Jim:
Not only is that the logical conclusion of Calvinism, it’s the logical conclusion of Biblical sovereignty. The alternative is to have an uncontrolled devil running roughshod over God’s creation. But, the Bible is full of examples of God limiting and binding Satan. Consider Job. Or Satan’s desire to sift Peter, but Christ intervened. Even Legion could not take the herd of swine without Jesus’ consent.

Or, to look at it another way, we know that in the book of Revelation Satan is bound and put into an abyss for 1000 years. Afterward he is released, vanquished, and placed in the Lake of Fire. Now, since we know that God has the power to do that, why has He not done it yet? The only rational answer is: Satan plays a part in God’s economy. When God is done with him, He will judge him and seclude him eternally.

Remember, God’s way are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts. As high as the Heavens are above the earth, so are God’s ways higher than our ways and His thoughts higher than our thoughts. Just because we struggle with the idea of God’s absolute power, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true or that God cannot exercise it.

Critic:
This makes God the author of everything evil, and the most wicked sinner of all.

Jim:
The Bible repeatedly declares God’s holiness and righteousness. So, if Calvinism led to the idea that God was not only the “author of evil,” but the most wicked of sinners, the whole theology would have been abandoned by thoughtful churchmen years and years ago. The reason Calvinism continues to thrive is that it recognizes God’s sovereignty and His holiness. Straw man arguments about how that makes God sinful are just banal.

Theologically, God does not have to be evil in order to create evil in His universe. Just as darkness is the natural state of all unlit matter and energy is necessary to produce light, God can produce evil in His creatures simply by withholding His goodness. He does not have to be positively evil to do this. He merely has to withhold Himself and allow the natural darkness to have its way.

Critic:
Some Calvinists actually admit what I said and seek to defend it from Scripture. If ultimately God sovereignly is in control of everything, and if free will of man, angels, or even Satan, is ultimately under the control of God, then the responsibility for all wickedness and evil must be placed at the feet of God Himself.

Jim:
There are no Calvinists who “actually admit” that God is “the most wicked sinner of all.” Please attempt to present our position in a manner consistent with what we ourselves say about it.

Volumes have been written on this topic. God is the creator, sustainer, and purpose behind all things. But, that is not tantamount with being the author of evil. That’s why Satan exists. Satan is the instrument through which necessary evil occurs in God’s universe. Think, for instance, of how God used Satan to bring calamity to Job. God allowed it and limited the extent of it. But, it was Satan who performed it.

Or, who brought about the fall in the Garden of Eden? Satan. But, was that God’s design? Yes. Christ is the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:8) Why have a sacrifice prepared prior to creation unless the Fall is ordained and inevitable? But, God did not sin in ordaining the lapse. He used an intermediate cause: Satan.

Everything God does is designed to bring Him the greatest glory. And that includes His control over the events of human history and celestial eternity. The responsibility for everything that occurs in God’s universe can rightly be laid at His holy feet. But, that is not the same as charging Him with evil, which no man can do.

Isa 45:5-7 — “I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.”

If you are going to attempt to limit God’s sovereignty, then what exactly will you use as your plumb line? How far is God capable of going before He reaches the edge of what men will allow? What events is God involved in and what events require His absence? And how will you discern between the two? Where exactly is the limitation on the One who calls Himself “Almighty”?

Critic:
Are Satan’s actions of his own free will? If so, then God has obviously limited His own sovereignty regarding Satan’s activities.

Jim:
Of course not. The book of Job (arguably the oldest book in the Bible) proves that. Satan was not free to interact with Job, his family, his possessions, his health, or his life without God’s consent and restrictions. The truth of the text is just the opposite of your conjecture. God limited Satan’s will and activity in keeping with His own purposes and design.

Critic:
God allows Satan free will.

Jim:
No He doesn’t and you’ll be hard pressed to produce any Biblical evidence that He does.

By the way, if Satan does indeed have a free will, then I think we could make pretty good argument that free will leads to evil. Then again, that’s precisely what the Bible teaches; the human will is limited by its incapability to be righteous and natural proclivity for sin.

Critic:
If Satan’s actions are ultimately under the control of God, then Satan is merely God’s puppet, or “dark side.” The God of the Bible does not resemble this kind of god.

I John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Jim:
I smell straw. Do you smell straw? It’s like someone is building straw men …

This is not good argumentation. You cannot accuse us of holding a position we do not hold and then blame us for holding that position.

Is Satan God’s puppet? I’d say yes. And when God’s done with him, He will put the devil away permanently. But, to posit a form of dualism in which God has a dark side and a light side is rank heresy. So, no respectable Calvinist has ever claimed it — despite your effort to assert it.

The problem is your misunderstanding of God’s character and actions. The problem is not the consistently Biblical theology of the Calvinist.

We agree that God has no dark side. But, the Calvinist sees no discrepancy in allowing the Bible to say what it says. God is the absolute ruler and authority who empowers everything in His universe, the whole time remaining absolutely holy and just. Remember, God is not held to a standard higher than Himself. Whatever He does is right by virtue of the fact that it is a completely holy God doing it. Whether that boggles our human sensibility is of no consequence. It’s still how God portrays Himself.

Critic:
We must keep in mind that Satan’s ultimate ambition is to usurp God’s position, (Isa. 14:13-15, 2Thes. 2:3,4). Satan cannot make himself holy, but he can make God appear to be unholy, closing the gap between man’s perception of God and Satan. Satan simply assumes the dark side of God. Calvinism’s philosophical merging of God and Satan in effect fulfills Satan’s ultimate aspiration.

Jim:
This is really sad argumentation. You are ascribing to Calvinists a position that they themselves never advance. You are attempting to equate Calvinism with a form of Satanic darkness or blindness. But, since this is a philosophical position you’ve invented and not anything to do with the systematic theology of Calvinism, it does no damage to our position at all.

Anyone can claim that God is on their side and those who oppose their side are under the control of Satan. The important ingredient in this discussion is whether or not the Bible states what you’re stating. And, since it doesn’t, I don’t plan to worry over it.

Critic:
The danger for Christians is that only one baby step separates the Calvinism taught in mainstream Evangelical churches from the logical philosophical conclusion that God is both good and evil. Calvinism leads to the conclusion that God is Satan and Satan is God. In the last days this philosophy will facilitate Christians worshipping the Beast.

Jim:
God is Satan! Satan is God! And my cat is the Antichrist!!!!

A tad hysterical, eh? Don’t worry. Calvinism has been around for hundreds of years and has never led to satanic rituals and devil worship. You’re getting wwaaayyy too wrapped up in your emotionalism. Painting one of the major theological streams in the history of Christendom with the broad “it’s from the Beast!” brush does nothing to advance your argument. It just makes you sound like an alarmist. Perhaps studying and replying to the actual doctrines of Calvinism would serve you better.

And, just for clarity’s sake, no Christians will be “worshipping the Beast.” Why? Because God is sovereign.

Critic:
I am very troubled by the logical implications that the Calvinist philosophy forces Christians to embrace. And I’m also concerned about the image of the Christian “God” presented to the world.

Jim:
Ummm … if “the Calvinist philosophy” forces Christians to embrace these logical implications, then why is it that no Calvinist I know teaches or believes this?

You’re arguing about a position that does not exist. Take a step back, take a breath, and try to argue about the things we actually do say … as opposed to your unwarranted conclusions.

I am equally concerned about how the Christian Church presents God to the world. The world does not need a God who has the power to save but who is hampered by the apparently superior will of His own creatures. Why would anyone worship such a weak and powerless Deity? The concept of freewill, and the supposition that God will not or cannot encroach on human freedom, leads to creature worship. It places human decisions above God’s decrees. Worse, there is no such God found in the pages of Scripture. So, if you’re truly concerned about the image of God we’re presenting, take a moment to consider the alternative you’re offering and ask yourself two things: (1) is your conception of God biblical and (2) does it promote worship and admiration for God or does it emphasize the superiority of the creature?

Critic:
Calvinism, when consistently taken to its logical conclusions, implies all of the following:

1. God’s offers of salvation to “whosoever will” are insincere. God is not completely honest in Scripture.

Jim:
There is no Greek equivalent for the English term “whosoever.” Consequently, God never offers salvation to “whosoever will.” Look it up. And please make sure to include specific texts that prove your contention that God actually offers salvation universally to anyone who wants it.

Critic:
2. God offers to save the non-elect IF they will do what is utterly impossible. God taunts the damned.

Jim:
Again, where do you find God’s universal offer of salvation to “whosoever will”? If that does not exist (and it doesn’t) then there is no basis for claiming that the Calvinistic position results in God taunting the damned. Saving faith is utterly impossible among all people. There is none who does good, there is none who seeks after God (Rom. 3:11). Therefore, only those whom God graciously enlightens will be drawn to God. It takes more than merely an offer. It takes empowerment, enlightenment, and regeneration.

But, since you bring up taunting, what do you make of texts like this? —

Psalm 59:7-8 “Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips: for who, say they, doth hear? But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.”

Psalm 2:1-5 “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.”

It turns out that God is perfectly comfortable laughing at His enemies and treating them derisively.

Critic:
3. God created most people for the purpose of torturing them forever. God is cruel and sadistic.

Jim:
So, you’re saying that God will eventually save absolutely everyone? That’s the only way around what you’ve charged here. Because, whether God elects people on the basis of His own free choice or whether He saves them on the basis of their own faith, either way God ends up making people for the purpose of judging and condemning them. I mean, if He is truly all-knowing, then He realizes who is going to reject Him. Yet, He makes them anyway.

The Arminian has no advantage over the Calvinist on this point. Your God is every bit as “cruel and sadistic” as the God of the Calvinist.

But, the question is not whether God lives up to human notions of cruelty. The question is whether or not God describes Himself as absolutely sovereign over the affairs of men. And, since the Bible is emphatic on that point, our human estimation of His relative cruelty is of no consequence. Hell is a pretty cruel concept, humanly speaking, but it’s still a reality.

Critic:
4. God CAN save all, and DESIRES to save all, but chooses to damn many for no apparent reason. God is insane.

Jim:
Anyone whom God judges is fairly and rightly judged. He does not condemn people “for no apparent reason.” They are sinners and they have rebelled against the righteousness of an eternally holy God. Their judgment is just.

Agreed, God can save as many as He is pleased to save. But, there is no verse in the Bible that says He desires to save everyone. Sure, people misread and misunderstand texts like 2Peter 3:9 and 1Timothy 2:4 (as I assume you have), but straightforward exegesis demonstrates that those texts are perfectly in league with the doctrine of God’s sovereignty that permeates Scripture. 

Reprobation

Posted on by
Reply

There is an aspect of salvation that is seldom addressed, namely, the issue of “reprobation.” The fact is, if (or rather, since) God has elected some to salvation, He has also chosen to pass over others, leaving them in their hostile rebellion against Him, and these will face an eternity in hell, removed from God’s kindness and mercy forever. This truth is hard for us to accept, not because the Bible is not clear on the matter – it is – but because we feel a stronger emotional attachment to rebel sinners than we do the holiness of God. There’s much to say regarding this, and this is what this Bible study focuses on.

https://embed.sermonaudio.com/player/a/812201738147963/