Premise: The initial reformers were very invested in God's sovereign will being the only factor in whether or not we are saved. There is nothing that we can do that results in us being saved. Even our cooperation after initial salvation is not of our own doing. This is clear in Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

Question: What if God's sovereign decision is to let us make an active choice to respond to His calling? Rather than only giving saving grace to a select few, what if He prefers to offer the option to all (prevenient grace) and let us choose to follow or reject? Would you see this as violating His sovereignty?

Quote:

---

The initial reformers were very invested in God's sovereign will being the only factor in whether or not we are saved. There is nothing that we can do that results in us being saved. Even our cooperation after initial salvation is not of our own doing. This is clear in Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

---

I don't think I've ever read that. At the very least, faith is a condition of salvation.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

The initial reformers were very invested in God's sovereign will being the only factor in whether or not we are saved. There is nothing that we can do that results in us being saved. Even our cooperation after initial salvation is not of our own doing. This is clear in Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

---

I don't think I've ever read that. At the very least, faith is a condition of salvation.

---

Luther's bondage of the will. Calvin in basically everything Calvin wrote on free will. Zwingli just followed Calvin. Their view was that if man chooses to cooperate with God, then man has an active role in his salvation. Therefore they flatly rejected it.

Some of their protegees tried to teach that we cooperate with God to be saved (Melanchthon in Lutheranism and Arminius in Calvinism) but both teachings were fully repudiated by councils in their respective denominations.

I just wonder why this has to be seen as an affront to God's sovereignty when logic would dictate that God could sovereignly decree that He wants us to exert our free will in choosing to follow Him

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

The initial reformers were very invested in God's sovereign will being the only factor in whether or not we are saved. There is nothing that we can do that results in us being saved. Even our cooperation after initial salvation is not of our own doing. This is clear in Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

---

I don't think I've ever read that. At the very least, faith is a condition of salvation.

---

Luther's bondage of the will. Calvin in basically everything Calvin wrote on free will. Zwingli just followed Calvin. Their view was that if man chooses to cooperate with God, then man has an active role in his salvation. Therefore they flatly rejected it.

Some of their protegees tried to teach that we cooperate with God to be saved (Melanchthon in Lutheranism and Arminius in Calvinism) but both teachings were fully repudiated by councils in their respective denominations.

I just wonder why this has to be seen as an affront to God's sovereignty when logic would dictate that God could sovereignly decree that He wants us to exert our free will in choosing to follow Him

---

Can you provide a quote that says God's sovereignty is the ONLY factor? There is NOTHING we do to be saved? Not even have faith? You would have to cut out 90% of their works on man's duty.

"free will" is just the power to discern what is good and evil, and to choose good. Aquinas called it the "rational appetite."

What natural man, apart from God's grace, has this power regarding spritual things? He must be born again.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

The initial reformers were very invested in God's sovereign will being the only factor in whether or not we are saved. There is nothing that we can do that results in us being saved. Even our cooperation after initial salvation is not of our own doing. This is clear in Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

---

I don't think I've ever read that. At the very least, faith is a condition of salvation.

---

Luther's bondage of the will. Calvin in basically everything Calvin wrote on free will. Zwingli just followed Calvin. Their view was that if man chooses to cooperate with God, then man has an active role in his salvation. Therefore they flatly rejected it.

Some of their protegees tried to teach that we cooperate with God to be saved (Melanchthon in Lutheranism and Arminius in Calvinism) but both teachings were fully repudiated by councils in their respective denominations.

I just wonder why this has to be seen as an affront to God's sovereignty when logic would dictate that God could sovereignly decree that He wants us to exert our free will in choosing to follow Him

---

Can you provide a quote that says God's sovereignty is the ONLY factor? There is NOTHING we do to be saved? Not even have faith? You would have to cut out 90% of their works on man's duty.

"free will" is just the power to discern what is good and evil, and to choose good. Aquinas called it the "rational appetite."

What natural man, apart from God's grace, has this power regarding spritual things? He must be born again.

---

Lutheran perspective:

Augsburg Confessions:
That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel; to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sak

Formula of Concord:

Now, if in St. Paul and in other regenerate men the natural or carnal free will even after regeneration strives against God's Law, it will be much more obstinate and hostile to God's Law and will before regeneration. Hence it is manifest (as it is further declared in the article concerning original sin, to which we now refer for the sake of brevity) that the free will from its own natural powers, not only cannot work or concur in working anything for its own conversion, righteousness, and salvation, nor follow [obey], believe, or assent to the Holy Ghost, who through the Gospel offers him grace and salvation, but from its innate, wicked, rebellious nature it resists God and His will hostilely, unless it be enlightened and controlled by God's Spirit.

There are plenty of statements from Luther himself that go far beyond this such as:

"When the Spirit of God begins to work faith in a person, the will is no longer in the same bondage as before. It is loosed from the chains of sin and death and becomes willing to follow God's commandments. But this willing is not of its own strength or nature; rather, it is moved, bent, and renewed by the Spirit, who causes the will to desire and do what pleases God.
Yet this new freedom of the will does not mean that the person is perfectly free from sin in this life. The will is still weak and inclined to evil, but it now strives against sin and cooperates in good worksnot by its own power but by the grace that the Spirit continually imparts.
Therefore, the will is truly free only insofar as it is governed by the Spirit and united to Christ. Apart from this union, the will remains captive and powerless."

Calvin:

"The grace of God does not merely offer assistance to our will, as if the choice were ours, but actually causes us to will rightly. He does not move the will in such a manner as has been taught and believed for many agesthat it is afterwards in our choice either to obey or resist the motionbut by disposing it efficaciously. In other words, God not only makes salvation possible for us, but indeed impels the mind to choose what is right, moves the will effectively to obedience, and arouses and advances the endeavor until the actual completion of the work is attained

"This movement of the will … is not … one which thereafter leaves us the choice to obey or resist it, but one which affects us efficaciously. We must, therefore, repudiate the oft-repeated sentiment … 'Whom he draws, he draws willingly,' insinuating that the Lord only stretches out his hand, and waits to see whether we will be pleased to take his aid. … The Apostle's doctrine is not, that the grace of a good will is offered to us if we will accept of it, but that God himself is pleased so to work in us as to guide, turn, and govern our heart by his Spirit, and reign in it as his own possession. … And the only meaning … of our Savior's words, 'Every man… that hath heard … cometh unto me,' (John 6:45), is that the grace of God is effectual in itself.


I hate proof texting, but you asked for quotes. If you review scholarship on their beliefs from people who have much more time to research, their belief that man does not cooperate with God is not really debated. Both founders believed that we do not cooperate with the spirit working within us with our own will, but because He makes us do it. Man's duty is more of a descriptor of what happens to believers, because believers clearly don't have the autonomy to agree without being made to agree.

Quote:

---

Both founders believed that we do not cooperate with the spirit working within us with our own will, but because He makes us do it. Man's duty is more of a descriptor of what happens to believers, because believers clearly don't have the autonomy to agree without being made to agree.

---

This is not what they teach. William Perkins:
When any man is converted, this work of God is not done by compulsion, but he is converted willingly.

He sites Augustine:
The will of the regenerate is kindled only by the Holy Ghost: that they may therefore be able because they will thus: and they will thus, because God works in them to will. (On Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 12 https://www.logoslibrary.org/augustine/rebuke/12.html)

He was Anglican. I left those guys out on purpose lol Should have been clearer about that.

The Banned said:

---

He was Anglican. I left those guys out on purpose lol Should have been clearer about that.

---

He was also a double predestination Calvinist. Can't get more hard core than that.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Both founders believed that we do not cooperate with the spirit working within us with our own will, but because He makes us do it. Man's duty is more of a descriptor of what happens to believers, because believers clearly don't have the autonomy to agree without being made to agree.

---

This is not what they teach. William Perkins:
When any man is converted, this work of God is not done by compulsion, but he is converted willingly.

He sites Augustine:
The will of the regenerate is kindled only by the Holy Ghost: that they may therefore be able because they will thus: and they will thus, because God works in them to will. (On Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 12 https://www.logoslibrary.org/augustine/rebuke/12.html)

---

He was still a member of the Anglican church, so his views would have to be interpreted as true or false by their standards. I'll look more into it. If his views were fully accepted, I would say it make Anglican origins even more problematic.

If he was truly a double predestination Calvinist, then the logical conclusion of his beliefs mean that there is no room for us to do anything willingly. God already chose who believes. He put the belief into them and any "willingness" on the believer's part is an illusion.

Premise:
- God has chosen which people are saved
- God gives grace to only these people
- Only these people are free to cooperate with God, and only after His grace regenerates us.

Problem:
If a person is free to cooperate, then they are free to reject. If a person persistently rejects, this would mean that he is choosing his damnation. If he is choosing his damnation, then he isn't predestined in the Calvinistic sense (God alone chooses who is and isn't saved in order to keep His sovereignty intact).

Conversely, if the person is assured by God's grace that he will not persistently reject God, was he ever actually free to reject God? If God, in His sovereign will, ensures that the believer He chooses will never persistently reject Him, then the believer, by definition, is not free to choose.

If I can't choose "yes", then I am not a willing participant. If I can choose "no", I'm not predestined. If I can choose "yes" I also wasn't predestined, as my choice was necessary in my salvation. Perkins can say that the person predestined to say yes without their input is willingly converted, but it's essentially the same thing as me saying a square can be a circle. There is a reason Calvin clung to irresistible grace. Like moths to a flame, the saved have no more choice than the damned. The only way out of this is an appeal to some sort of mystery, which I'll address in my post to 10.

To be honest, I think this is a perfect example of why Calvinism should have been abandoned from the start. MacArthur is forced to appeal to paradox/mystery where historical faiths are not. And this is solely because he holds firmly to his interpretation of the bible. This should be a massive red flag, as God is the author of logic. To say that God wills against His own desires, as outlined in the bible, is a logical fallacy. Not a paradox, but a fallacy. However, if MacArthur would allow himself to consider that he may have misinterpreted the bible, there is a very simple explanation for the questions he poses. Here are the main points as I see them:

- Problem 1: On the one hand the bible teaches the sovereignty of God on every point, and on the other hand, the responsibility of the sinner on every point
o Answer: YES! Yes it does. And we don't even need to appeal to paradox. If God's sovereign will was to allow us to participate in His plan for our salvation (as He allowed Adam and Eve), then He is both sovereign and the sinner is responsible for his/her sin. If He asks each of us to follow Him, those that follow are choosing to agree as He sovereignly allowed. They didn't do it on their own. And those that don't are responsible for their sins, because He sovereignly allowed us to choose the affirmative, and we didn't. He didn't choose to leave them there. He allowed them to choose to be left.

- Problem 2: How did both Paul and the Spirit write Romans?
o Answer: The spirit didn't "write" anything. It inspired Paul to write. So how are we sure Paul did not err? Because Christ says that the Church will not err, and Paul is very clearly part of the Church. However, to say that Paul did not err does not necessitate that the Spirit dictated his words. If the Spirit let's Paul write, but saves him from writing error, the writing is still free from error despite Paul being a free agent to write the letter. They are both authors in that Paul did the writing and the Spirit ensured that he wrote accurately. Paul could have received God's grace to write everything down the way God dictated. Or he could have received God's grace to not mess up as he wrote. Either way, it's God's grace. But one position easily allows for Paul and the Spirit to be co-authors of a sort, while the other has to claim paradox in order to make sense of how they both could have wrote it.

- Problem 3: "Whatever noble, God-honoring thing you do, you produced?"
o Yes and no. Did I decide what does and doesn't honor God? NO. He inspires us to realize this thing honors Him and that thing doesn't. But does that mean He makes me do what I do? NO. I had to assent to His inspiration and go do the thing. I didn't decide to be a good person, but He also didn't force me to be a good person. There is nothing paradoxical required, unless you believe God, in His sovereignty, did not allow for us to freely love Him back.


He says "The human element and the divine element… we don't know how they come together but we believe both" as if it's an unknowable mystery. But it isn't. All we have to do is look back at Adam and Eve. They are created as free agents to love or separate from God. That is what man is meant to be. The fall in Genesis requires one of three reasonings:

1. God was sovereign in that moment and, in His sovereignty, allowed them to choose as they willed. This means that, even though God desired for them to choose the right path, He allowed them to choose the wrong. This was an act of love, because love is an action towards the person, regardless of their choices
.
2. God was sovereign in that moment and, in His sovereignty, chose for them to sin. It was His active choice for the sin to happen. This makes God the author of sin. He and only He could have stopped it. Adam and Eve were dependent upon Him to stop it… and He chose to let it happen. Not even Calvin wanted to go that far.

3. God was not sovereign, and Adam and Eve had equal say. If anyone believes this, more power to you.

If 1, then why would God allowing us in 2025 to choose to follow His call be any different than the proposition for Adam and Eve?

If 2, why does this conversation matter at all? If what MacArthur said was a good work, it wasn't his. And if I disagree with MacArthur, it's because I wasn't given the grace to agree. All He has to do is make you or I convert to the other side and we'll be in agreement… but He clearly doesn't choose to do that. In this framework, He actively chooses for one of us to be wrong.

If 3, then we have a whole host of issues and Christianity is likely untrue.

If there is not free will to choose to follow or reject Jesus and God, then what is the need for the Gospel or atonement?
Why does a man need to hear the Gospel if everything has been pre determined?
And I do not understand how giving man free will takes away from the sovereignty of God.

The doctrine of the Trinity in itself is a way of expressing/thinking about a mystery, and faith requires wisdom, or Sophia if you will, so claiming that of all things the Orthodox faith(s) don't require and have a strong tradition of mystery is simply silly imho. Heck, the ancient ecumenical councils essentially were trying to reconcile the mysteries of the doctrines of the faith/divine nature of God. The mysteries of the Rosary? And the Bible is full of mysteries, where either the reader, people in the parables, or even disciples just show/have a lack of understanding.

I am not arrogant enough to think that if God wants me to believe/do something, I will be strong enough to refuse. That doesn't require me to sacrifice all belief in individual agency, but I don't claim, as MacArthur pointed out with his questioning, to have a perfect understanding of the workings/mind of God.

Nor do I discard the enduring lessons of the Old Testament as to God choosing the most unlikely people in His works. Those prophets/messengers also then didn't stop working once chosen, of course, as many a Calvinist would point out.

“No unbelief made Abraham waver concerning the promise of God.” Today on Solid Joys, John Piper explores how our faith in God’s promises glorifies him. Discover how living by faith in future grace strengthens your faith and honors God. https://t.co/2u1IJBM9fr

— Desiring God (@desiringGod) June 23, 2025

Quote:

---

If he was truly a double predestination Calvinist, then the logical conclusion of his beliefs mean that there is no room for us to do anything willingly.

---

Obviously they would disagree. The quote by Perkins and Augustine show we believe willingly.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

If he was truly a double predestination Calvinist, then the logical conclusion of his beliefs mean that there is no room for us to do anything willingly.

---

Obviously they would disagree. The quote by Perkins and Augustine show we believe willingly.

---

This is what I don't understand. They say they believe in double predestination yet then seem to back down when pressed about it.

How can a person choose if they are predestined to the choice they make? Maybe it is me.

The Banned said:

---

Premise: The initial reformers were very invested in God's sovereign will being the only factor in whether or not we are saved. There is nothing that we can do that results in us being saved. Even our cooperation after initial salvation is not of our own doing. This is clear in Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

Question: What if God's sovereign decision is to let us make an active choice to respond to His calling? Rather than only giving saving grace to a select few, what if He prefers to offer the option to all (prevenient grace) and let us choose to follow or reject? Would you see this as violating His sovereignty?

---

I'm at work, so I won't be able to give a particularly robust response. I'll try to add additional, if necessary, but it's my son's birthday, so not sure if it will happen today or at a later date.

First, your premise is incorrect (I've crossed through what is wrong).

Lutherans make this statement:

Salvation is a monergistic act. That is achieved only through the works of God. (Romans 3-4 as proof texts).

Our cooperation with God is absolutely a synergistic act. The Lutheran Reformers talked of the mystical union (form of theosis) with God.

I'll comment here on your future post (for timeliness).

You quote random verses from the Augsburg Confession and Formula of Concord, but here's my basic question. Both of those books contain entire sections on Good Works. Why, instead, did you quote from a section "On the Ministry" (Augsburg Confession) and "Free Will" (FOC)? Why cherry pick quotes out of any context to make a claim?

Would it not have been easier to ask if your premise was correct and then go from there?

Every Christian has to be open to mystery, so no debate there. But let's take the trinity, as you offered. What are we asked to believe? We are asked to believe that God is a trinity, God has the power to be a trinity and how that works is mysterious.

But with the view of God's sovereignty as offered by the main reformers, we are asked to accept the following: God wants every man to be saved, God is the only active agent in saving people, but God doesn't save everyone? So God wants what He doesn't want. This is a logical contradiction, and appealing to mystery here is done simply to avoid the obvious conclusion.

There is a simple answer that doesn't require us to make God illogical: He wants to save everyone, and in His total sovereignty, He allows us to choose the accept His call. It's logical, it's biblical, and God is still in the driver's seat.

The Banned said:

---

Every Christian has to be open to mystery, so no debate there. But let's take the trinity, as you offered. What are we asked to believe? We are asked to believe that God is a trinity, God has the power to be a trinity and how that works is mysterious.

But with the view of God's sovereignty as offered by the main reformers, we are asked to accept the following: God wants every man to be saved, God is the only active agent in saving people, but God doesn't save anyone? So God wants what He doesn't want. This is a logical contradiction, and appealing to mystery here is done simply to avoid the obvious conclusion.

There is a simple answer that doesn't require us to make God illogical: He wants to save everyone, and in His total sovereignty, He allows us to choose the accept His call. It's logical, it's biblical, and God is still in the driver's seat.

---

Agree and very well stated. Scripture clearly states God desires to save all people. To me that nips TULIP in the bud.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

If he was truly a double predestination Calvinist, then the logical conclusion of his beliefs mean that there is no room for us to do anything willingly.

---

Obviously they would disagree. The quote by Perkins and Augustine show we believe willingly.

---

This is what I don't understand. They say they believe in double predestination yet then seem to back down when pressed about it.

How can a person choose if they are predestined to the choice they make? Maybe it is me.

---

It's not just you. There was a reason the Council of Orange accept some of Augustine's writings and rejected others. He did great in refuting Pelagius, but they said his idea of double predestination went too far. No church father was perfect, and that's ok.

At the end of the day, if God is doing all of the choosing, any "willingness" on our end is an illusion. I'm aware that Perkins would disagree, but he is contradicting himself in order to do it. This is why Calvin just bit the bullet and limited free will as much as possible, while still claiming it is there in some sense. Everyone else was just too gun shy to go there.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Premise: The initial reformers were very invested in God's sovereign will being the only factor in whether or not we are saved. There is nothing that we can do that results in us being saved. Even our cooperation after initial salvation is not of our own doing. This is clear in Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

Question: What if God's sovereign decision is to let us make an active choice to respond to His calling? Rather than only giving saving grace to a select few, what if He prefers to offer the option to all (prevenient grace) and let us choose to follow or reject? Would you see this as violating His sovereignty?

---

I'm at work, so I won't be able to give a particularly robust response. I'll try to add additional, if necessary, but it's my son's birthday, so not sure if it will happen today or at a later date.

First, your premise is incorrect (I've crossed through what is wrong).

Lutherans make this statement:

Salvation is a monergistic act. That is achieved only through the works of God. (Romans 3-4 as proof texts).

Our cooperation with God is absolutely a synergistic act. The Lutheran Reformers talked of the mystical union (form of theosis) with God.

I'll comment here on your future post (for timeliness).

You quote random verses from the Augsburg Confession and Formula of Concord, but here's my basic question. Both of those books contain entire sections on Good Works. Why, instead, did you quote from a section "On the Ministry" (Augsburg Confession) and "Free Will" (FOC)? Why cherry pick quotes out of any context to make a claim?

Would it not have been easier to ask if your premise was correct and then go from there?

---

I figured you'd comment, which is why I broke the premise out. I wanted you to be able to to have an easy opportunity to cut my premise off at the knees. If I'm wrong, I look forward to being corrected when you have time to do it. Happy birthday to you son!

As to why I picked a few quotes: He asked for quotes. Cherry picking is part of that game, but I don't mean to do it a way that misrepresents you. If it's better for us to abandon quote mining, and talk conceptually, I'd prefer it. The main thing I'm driving at with Luther is that he said that any good work on our part is a passive act when he says things like "God gives the will and the doing". The logical conclusion here is that we aren't actually in a synergistic relationship.

I know Jordan Cooper is not an official church reference, but he said it how I've always heard it from other Lutherans:
- When we do good, that is simply us not resisting God.
- Problem: if we're required to not resist, we are still an active agent in the doing of good. For example, if I don't resist arrest, it doesn't mean I do nothing. It means I choose to stand still and let the cops cuff me versus fighting them. My will is still be exerted. And if my will is exerted in not resisting God, I'm not predestined by God alone. I play an active role in being saved.
- Solution: Since God gives the will and the doing, even the non-resistance is God's work, not ours.

This solution is basically repackaged irresistible grace. The logical conclusion is no different, but wrapped in different language to try and make God-only predestination single and not double. Maybe you can point to where I'm misunderstanding the true Lutheran argument.

At the end of the day, either we have the capacity to choose the good and the bad, or we have the capacity to choose neither. Choosing the good is caused by God enlivening us through the Holy Spirit, but we still have to bend our own wills to His call, which means we are active participants in being justified. However, if He is bending our wills, then there is no synergy. It's an illusion of synergy. Any writings on good works after initial justification need to be read through that lens. At least it seems clear to me, so looking forward to your thoughts

The Banned said:

---

Every Christian has to be open to mystery, so no debate there. But let's take the trinity, as you offered. What are we asked to believe? We are asked to believe that God is a trinity, God has the power to be a trinity and how that works is mysterious.

But with the view of God's sovereignty as offered by the main reformers, we are asked to accept the following: God wants every man to be saved, God is the only active agent in saving people, but God doesn't save anyone? So God wants what He doesn't want. This is a logical contradiction, and appealing to mystery here is done simply to avoid the obvious conclusion.

There is a simple answer that doesn't require us to make God illogical: He wants to save everyone, and in His total sovereignty, He allows us to choose the accept His call. It's logical, it's biblical, and God is still in the driver's seat.

---

"Whosoever will…".
If He wants to save everyone, and fails, that would be a problem. In this fractured world as a result of Adam's allegorical choice, people have individual freedom, but if God chooses to motivate/stir one's soul to believe and be redeemed in this world/life, I again just don't think anyone, including myself, could and would resist this. And maybe He chooses to save some pedophiles/murderers etc, in His wisdom, but that is not for me to know or understand. It's biblical as well to point out that many Old Testament prophets tried not to accept the calling, but were compelled to do so (not just Jonah).

Or, take Judas. Clearly, Christ knew what he was doing, but chose not to correct/change the action, in any way in the betrayal. That doesn't mean that I believe God couldn't have changed or doesn't/didn't want to save him. He chose not to do so at that time and place.

As stated by MacArthur up above, when Jesus wept that the people of Israel didn't gather in Jerusalem as he would have wanted, this is a powerful of the Lord weeping that His people have fallen into darkness. He doesn't then stand up and triumphantly order a gathering.

Quote:

---

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

---

And Jesus clearly had the power to cast out demons and bring people together, but chose not to, in this time. I am probably not a pure/true Calvinist anymore as I also believe that the Bible means what it says when it says "every knee shall bend" (Phil. 2:10) so take this for what it's worth.

nortex97 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Every Christian has to be open to mystery, so no debate there. But let's take the trinity, as you offered. What are we asked to believe? We are asked to believe that God is a trinity, God has the power to be a trinity and how that works is mysterious.

But with the view of God's sovereignty as offered by the main reformers, we are asked to accept the following: God wants every man to be saved, God is the only active agent in saving people, but God doesn't save anyone? So God wants what He doesn't want. This is a logical contradiction, and appealing to mystery here is done simply to avoid the obvious conclusion.

There is a simple answer that doesn't require us to make God illogical: He wants to save everyone, and in His total sovereignty, He allows us to choose the accept His call. It's logical, it's biblical, and God is still in the driver's seat.

---

"Whosoever will…".
If He wants to save everyone, and fails, that would be a problem. In this fractured world as a result of Adam's allegorical choice, people have individual freedom, but if God chooses to motivate/stir one's soul to believe and be redeemed in this world/life, I again just don't think anyone, including myself, could and would resist this. And maybe He chooses to save some pedophiles/murderers etc, in His wisdom, but that is not for me to know or understand. It's biblical as well to point out that many Old Testament prophets tried not to accept the calling, but were compelled to do so (not just Jonah).

Or, take Judas. Clearly, Christ knew what he was doing, but chose not to correct/change the action, in any way in the betrayal. That doesn't mean that I believe God couldn't have changed or doesn't/didn't want to save him. He chose not to do so at that time and place.

As stated by MacArthur up above, when Jesus wept that the people of Israel didn't gather in Jerusalem as he would have wanted, this is a powerful of the Lord weeping that His people have fallen into darkness. He doesn't then stand up and triumphantly order a gathering.

Quote:

---

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

---

And Jesus clearly had the power to cast out demons and bring people together, but chose not to, in this time. I am probably not a pure/true Calvinist anymore as I also believe that the Bible means what it says when it says "every knee shall bend" (Phil. 2:10) so take this for what it's worth.

---

Doesn't Scripture state God desires to save all? 1 Timothy 2 3-4 and 2 Peter 3 9.

THIS!

"There is a simple answer that doesn't require us to make God illogical: He wants to save everyone, and in His total sovereignty, He allows us to choose the accept His call. It's logical, it's biblical, and God is still in the driver's seat."

Whosoever will… So we have a will to choose?

Again, the idea that He wants to save everyone and fails is a problem to calvinist/reformed because the premise of absolute sovereignty is essentially "He gets what He wants" so if we aren't saved it's because He didn't want us. Well, what if He wants us to have an active role in choosing Him? Problem solved. He wants us to choose to respond to His call. We all choose (good or bad) so He gets what He wants. The choice is what he wants. He is Sovereign, so we all make a choice.

OT prophets? Doesn't force them to do His will. He keeps calling until they finally agree. He does this with all of us, just less dramatically

Judas? God could have stopped him and didn't? You could say God wanted to be betrayed. Or you could just say He desires men to be able to make their own choices and that's what Judas chose.

Weeping for Israel? We see Jesus say he would have gathered them but the weren't willing. He wants them to come to Him, but He let's them refuse him. When God chooses not force them to come to Him, that is Him exerting His sovereign will: to let people choose Him or not. He gives them the call and they decide how to respond.

I'm not saying you are capable of truly resisting God if He wanted to force you into believing Him. What I am saying is that this all makes way more sense when we see that the degree to which God sovereignly chooses to exert His will over you is to let you choose. He is sovereign because your choice, in the positive or negative, is what He wants.

Agilaw said:

---

THIS!

"There is a simple answer that doesn't require us to make God illogical: He wants to save everyone, and in His total sovereignty, He allows us to choose the accept His call. It's logical, it's biblical, and God is still in the driver's seat."

---

Amen.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying you are capable of truly resisting God if He wanted to force you into believing Him. What I am saying is that this all makes way more sense when we see that the degree to which God sovereignly chooses to exert His will over you is to let you choose. He is sovereign because your choice, in the positive or negative, is what He wants.

---

It just comes down to how much sovereignty one chooses to believe God has. Yes, we agree (I think) He wants to save all. You think he will fail, after giving people a choice, as with the fall of Adam. I disagree, and suspect Adam/Eve (to the extent literally real) were/are saved. Again, maybe I am not representing the 'high Calvinist' perspective correctly, but I certainly think I have a higher respect for His sovereignty than you are staking claim to.

I don't think any Calvinist, be it MacArthur, Piper, you name it, would claim to have a perfect understanding, and I certainly do not, and again admit to seeing some of His decisions as a mystery. And I'm not going to get into Supra/infralapsarianism or some of the finer details of Calvinist discussions/theology. But I do respect that Calvinists have a valid, coherent Biblical viewpoint/theology. I wish more people took their faith seriously as such.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

If he was truly a double predestination Calvinist, then the logical conclusion of his beliefs mean that there is no room for us to do anything willingly.

---

Obviously they would disagree. The quote by Perkins and Augustine show we believe willingly.

---

This is what I don't understand. They say they believe in double predestination yet then seem to back down when pressed about it.

How can a person choose if they are predestined to the choice they make? Maybe it is me.

---

If you are defining free will as "completely unrestrained" (where second causation is removed and we are all first causes like God), then yes, nobody has free will. But nobody in history defines it that way except for modern libertarians. It has always been a "rational appetite." In which case, in the words of the Westminster confession of faith on this topic: nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

If he was truly a double predestination Calvinist, then the logical conclusion of his beliefs mean that there is no room for us to do anything willingly.

---

Obviously they would disagree. The quote by Perkins and Augustine show we believe willingly.

---

This is what I don't understand. They say they believe in double predestination yet then seem to back down when pressed about it.

How can a person choose if they are predestined to the choice they make? Maybe it is me.

---

If you are defining free will as "completely unrestrained" (where second causation is removed and we are all first causes like God), then yes, nobody has free will. But nobody in history defines it that way except for modern libertarians. It has always been a "rational appetite." In which case, in the words of the Westminster confession of faith on this topic: nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

---

I get that. What I do not get is that the Calvinist/Reformed say that and then say they believe in double predestination where a person has no control over whether they are saved or damned. It is all pre determined by God. Which means Hid creates beings He pre ordains to ECT hell.
Maybe it is me but it seems completely illogical.

You read my post, the article I linked, digested it, and came up with that reply all in 5 minutes? You say "I get that", but I'm thinking you don't understand their position because you don't want to understand. Your post reflects that since you just repeated your earlier post.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

If he was truly a double predestination Calvinist, then the logical conclusion of his beliefs mean that there is no room for us to do anything willingly.

---

Obviously they would disagree. The quote by Perkins and Augustine show we believe willingly.

---

This is what I don't understand. They say they believe in double predestination yet then seem to back down when pressed about it.

How can a person choose if they are predestined to the choice they make? Maybe it is me.

---

If you are defining free will as "completely unrestrained" (where second causation is removed and we are all first causes like God), then yes, nobody has free will. But nobody in history defines it that way except for modern libertarians. It has always been a "rational appetite." In which case, in the words of the Westminster confession of faith on this topic: nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

---

I get that. What I do not get is that the Calvinist/Reformed say that and then say they believe in double predestination where a person has no control over whether they are saved or damned. It is all pre determined by God. Which means Hid creates beings He pre ordains to ECT hell.
Maybe it is me but it seems completely illogical.

---

Would you still not have to answer this question?

The early church fathers believed foreknowledge to be that of God knowing what we choose, before the foundation of the world.

So even before the world was put into motion, he knows there would be billions of people who wouldn't choose Him. But he still created/allowed them to be created, knowing they would perish. For what purpose? Is that loving?

So the limited sovereignty idea now is presented in that while God desires all to be saved, he has no power over the outcome. Christ essentially bore the full wrath of God on the cross in vain, since some reject it. Did he trade in some of his sovereignty for human free will?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

If he was truly a double predestination Calvinist, then the logical conclusion of his beliefs mean that there is no room for us to do anything willingly.

---

Obviously they would disagree. The quote by Perkins and Augustine show we believe willingly.

---

This is what I don't understand. They say they believe in double predestination yet then seem to back down when pressed about it.

How can a person choose if they are predestined to the choice they make? Maybe it is me.

---

If you are defining free will as "completely unrestrained" (where second causation is removed and we are all first causes like God), then yes, nobody has free will. But nobody in history defines it that way except for modern libertarians. It has always been a "rational appetite." In which case, in the words of the Westminster confession of faith on this topic: nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

---

I get that. What I do not get is that the Calvinist/Reformed say that and then say they believe in double predestination where a person has no control over whether they are saved or damned. It is all pre determined by God. Which means Hid creates beings He pre ordains to ECT hell.
Maybe it is me but it seems completely illogical.

---

Would you still not have to answer this question?

The early church fathers believed foreknowledge to be that of God knowing what we choose, before the foundation of the world.

So even before the world was put into motion, he knows there would be billions of people who wouldn't choose Him. But he still created/allowed them to be created, knowing they would perish. For what purpose? Is that loving?

So the limited sovereignty idea now is presented in that while God desires all to be saved, he has no power over the outcome. Christ essentially bore the full wrath of God on the cross in vain, since some reject it. Did he trade in some of his sovereignty for human free will?

---

According to Reformed doctrine, not just to perish, but to suffer ECT hell. So you believe God creates human beings who are damned to eternal torment with no recourse?
And Scripture clearly states God desires all men to be saved. And that God is love. And just. And merciful. And our father.
Is it just to create human beings to be tortured forever? What would you think of an earthly father who did that?
And I think you know I am not a penal substitutionary atonement guy.
I do not believe it is limiting God's sovereignty by giving us free will to accept or reject Him. And we differ wildly there.
Maybe it is the way I am wired but double predestination is completely illogical and frankly horrifying to me. Hard to worship a God who creates someone I love who has no chance for salvation.
Happy 4th!

And after re reading your post, I agree with you that God's sovereignty trumps man's free will. Couple that with He desires all to be saved and you get to where I am, an Ultimate reconciliation guy.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

You read my post, the article I linked, digested it, and came up with that reply all in 5 minutes? You say "I get that", but I'm thinking you don't understand their position because you don't want to understand. Your post reflects that since you just repeated your earlier post.

---

I just read your post and responded. Sorry, will read the link.

I think what I was mainly getting at is that everyone has to deal with the question of if God is not limited in his sovereignty, why not save everyone? Either God chooses from before the world began or He saw our choices from before the world began. Either way, God is passing over some (Calvinist) or watching man perish while knowing they will not choose him (and not intervening). If God desires all to be saved, which Scripture affirms, God is obviously not getting what he desires. Lots of hard questions that none of us will ultimately know the complete answer to.

God allowing us to make our own choice doesn't make Him a failure. It's only through the lens of God has to be in charge of every single outcome that would lead to this conclusion. Once we realize that He wants us to choose Him, our failure to choose is just that: our failure. He offered, we refused.

Adam and Eve is a great case study for Calvinism. I think we would all fully agree that God was sovereign in the garden. So this leads us with two explanations for the fall:

1) God wanted humans to have free will from the beginning and choose to be with Him. We are still humans, so He still wants our free will to be a factor in being with Him.

2) God was in charge of all outcomes, so He is the reason Adam and Eve sinned. He and He alone could have stopped them, and He didn't So He actively chose for them to sin. He becomes the author of sin, no matter how much Calvin and the others try to work their way out of it.

If we choose 1, we can easily stay consistent in that God's sovereign plan included letting us choose in the affirmative of negative. Very simple. He is still fully sovereign.

If we choose 2, we have to twist ourselves into logical pretzels ala Calvin, MacArthur, et al. We have to appeal to some mysterious way that God is the reason sin came into the world, but He didn't want it to come into the world, so He is responsible for something He didn't want. It's logically incoherent.

When viewing these two options, I can see no reason to choose number 2 other than the need to agree with Luther and Calvin's novel approach that we can in no way have a hand in being saved. If we reject they way those two guys interpreted the bible, this gets much easier. Just stick to what was held to be true before these guys taught something different. And yes, this is what was held to be true. Augustine's doctrines were put before a council and they decided that much of what he had to say was good, but he took it a step too far. And that's ok, because being a saint doesn't require perfect theology.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

You read my post, the article I linked, digested it, and came up with that reply all in 5 minutes? You say "I get that", but I'm thinking you don't understand their position because you don't want to understand. Your post reflects that since you just repeated your earlier post.

---

I just read your post and responded. Sorry, will read the link.

---

Just google or research first and second causation and see if you agree with it. Because I don't know any denomination who doesn't besides modern evangelicalism or open theists.