Open Questions for John MacArthur

Let me say to begin that I honour John Piper highly. I believe him to be a man of God with a warm heart and desire to serve God in truth. I regard him as the 'acceptable face of contemporary Calvinism' and a very gifted communicator. However, I disagree with some of his fundamental statements.

I doubt that John Piper will ever see this post but I have just listened to his podcast Q&A on the topic of 'election'... and I have some questions.

The introduction suggests that the whole question revolved around the issue of who takes the initiative in salvation. The suggestion is that Calvin and many another including John Piper and the apostles believe that God takes the initiative but that Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Arminians and fellow travellers believe that man takes the initiative. As the programme would conclude that I am among the fellow travellers I feel I need to say that this is a mistaken oversimplification. I also believe that God takes the initiative. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Faith cannot precede God's initiative. If there is no 'word' there can be no faith. Some people with a reformed position use the language of synergism or monergism. Does God do the whole thing 'alone' ie monergism or does God do the thing in cooperation with the believers faith? Does synergism really demean the sovereign authority of God?

As the Q&As progress we are introduced to the idea that by 'election' the speakers are referring to 'election to salvation'. We are informed that the idea is apostolic and earlier... the quote being given... [color=0000ff]“For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.” (Is 45:4 KJVS)[/color] ... but what can this mean in this context? Does this mean that all the physical descendants of Jacob/Israel are 'elected to salvation'? If so what are we to say about the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and what exactly constitutes 'Israel'. Do we want to say that Achan and Ahab were 'elected to salvation'?

Actually the conversation refers also to 'elected for a purpose' but it is presumed that the purpose is 'salvation'. Reference is made to the way that we use the word 'election' in the choosing of someone to fulfill a purpose, but do those we 'elect' always fulfill the purpose of their 'election'?

Where does it say that 'Israel' was elected to 'salvation'?

John Piper also says that the only freedom we have prior to being saved is the 'freedom to choose our poison' (his words). By this he explains that man has no freedom to choose God but only freedom to choose the ways in which he will disobey God. Is this true? What does 'choose you this day whom you will serve' mean if my only power of choice is to choose the way I will refuse to serve God? And what does 'choose life' mean if my only power of choice is the choice of choosing the cause of my death?

I am not really anti-Calvinist. It is just that I am quite unconvinced about some of their pronouncements. Is there anyone out there who could take up these questions in a spirit of gentle enquiry rather than a 'we take no prisoners' rhetoric?

Brother Ron wrote:

What does 'choose you this day whom you will serve' mean if my only power of choice is to choose the way I will refuse to serve God?

Man without revelation is doomed by his carnal mind, his fallen nature. Yet, it is God who reveals Himself to man. Man then has a choice according to the Scripture you have pointed to.

The revelation of God through His word is the means by which man is brought to know His salvation.

Psa. 119:41 VAU. Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word.

Psa. 119:81 CAPH. My soul fainteth for thy salvation: but I hope in thy word.

Psa. 119:123 Mine eyes fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy righteousness.

Those who hear and obey are the seed of Abraham...

Psa. 96:2 Sing unto the LORD, bless his name; shew forth his salvation from day to day.

These are the remnant saved by grace through faith. For they are enabled by God to "shew forth His salvation from day to day."

In Christ
Jeff

These are the remnant saved by grace through faith. For they are enabled by God to "shew forth His salvation from day to day."

a) Israel is mine elect
b) Mine elect is Israel.

the only freedom we have prior to being saved is the 'freedom to choose our poison' (his words)

I would never tell an unsaved person that.

Why proclaim such bad news when God has offered Good News to the world? God is not willing that any should perish.

I believe that the devil tempts countless to feel that there is nothing they can do about their condition, and so they are left in the prison of futility and hopelessness. (That thinking is the root cause of sins, I'd say.)

THAT deception, I feel, is the poison.

Why should we be feeding the the devil's poison to the lost? We just keep them lost.

Diane

John Piper also says that the only freedom we have prior to being saved is the 'freedom to choose our poison' (his words). By this he explains that man has no freedom to choose God but only freedom to choose the ways in which he will disobey God. Is this true?

This brings my mind to two related topics; the so-called Total Depravity of man (the first point in F.P.C) and [i]the bondage of the will[/i]. To simplify for many readers I might say that the belief is that if man's will is [u]not[/u] bound then he is free to obey God. If He is free to obey God then he is capable of obeying the law perfectly (in theory). Some would call this Pelagianism. If man's will is in 'bondage' to the effects of Original Sin then man is incapable of obeying God. Some take this to the extreme as to say that man cannot even respond to God's word in faith.

The danger is viewing God as a lawgiver who gives laws that He knows man cannot obey and then judges the man for not keeping them. By analogy, it would be like placing an 100 pound bag of feed on the back of my 50 lb boy and spanking him for not carrying it. Conscience revolts at such a thought. However, this is generally explained by saying that because we are Totally Depraved we are struck through with Sin in such a way that our reasoning faculties are not reliable in determining right from wrong. This is circular reasoning that begins with the premise that we are [i]totally depraved[/i] to prove we are totally depraved. This is philosophy and not bible. We have the revelation of God that runs counter to this. Never did God command man to do something in such a way that it was [i]impossible[/i] for him to do it. He told Cain if you do well you will be accepted, but if not then Sin lieth at the door. To say that our faculties are so messed up that we can't distinguish right from wrong is to plead insanity in the courts of justice. Man is simply not accountable for his actions if he could [i]not have chosen other than he chose[/i].

We know that Sin entered, but what is the extent of depravity or the power the 'spirit of disobedience' exerts over us. Are we literally automatons of Sin itself? Are we 'possessed' of Sin as was the demoniac the devil? Does it take hold of us in such a way as to throw us into vileness and iniquity apart from our [i]choice[/i]? I would argue that the Sin nature makes one 'bent' towards sins and rebellion. I would argue that this 'bent' is an opression and not a 'possession'. The key word here is 'yield'. We are servants to whom we 'yield' our members. The unregenerate are bent towards 'rebellion' but they are not forced into rebellion.

We are told early on in Genesis that God's Spirit would not always 'strive' with man for he is also mortal. The Holy Spirit obviously sought to press upon sinners that they ought to choose rightly and walk in the revelation they knew. To me, this 'striving' more than compensates for any 'depravity' man may have suffered and leveled the field in terms of obedience. But what? Men do always resist the Holy Ghost (God's prevenient grace). This is why God is utterly just in damning souls to the flames. They could have and were even 'pressed upon' to do rightly and they resisted God.

Error begets error. Soon a doctrine develops that man has to be regenerated before he/she can respond rightly to God. Those who are regenerated are those whom God in His sovereignty 'elects'. We can discover whom God has elected (regenerated) by going around with the four spiritual laws and seeing who will repeat the little prayer after me. Those who do repeat the prayer must have been regenerated by God and are the elect and are eternally saved. Nothing can pluck them from the hand of God. God regenerated them and God sovereignly saw fit to send me around with the message to discover them. No need to focus too much on the details because God is sovereignly at work in the persons life and He is the author of their salvation, etc..

This is why Finney took on the topic of Total Depravity and was labeled a Pelagian. Being from a law court background he knew that justice required that God do justly. If sinners cannot help themselves they are not culpable. I don't know anyone who really believes that man is totally depraved. Proof being, if they are violently violated they usually want justice. If they want mercy then they have to admit some 'wrong' on the part of the offender or there is nothing to forgive.

What a hopeless statement!!!!!

Error begets error. Soon a doctrine develops that man has to be regenerated before he/she can respond rightly to God. Those who are regenerated are those whom God in His sovereignty 'elects'.

In my practice I am more Calvinist that many would guess. I believe that many of the efforts we make to get folks to 'respond' are really what Oswald Chambers would have called 'amateur providences'; man's interference in God's workings. I am not averse to 'an altar call' if that means giving someone an opportunity to respond to what God has said but I would be very uncomfortable with the notion that certain 'evangelical processes' trigger regeneration.

However in my thinking I am not very Calvinist at all. At the last census I was hovering around 20% Calvinist.

Perhaps when others have joined us we could move on to examining the nature of 'election' and asking just what does the Bible mean by that language.

I am not averse to 'an altar call' if that means giving someone an opportunity to respond to what God has said but I would be very uncomfortable with the notion that certain 'evangelical processes' trigger regeneration.

I think GW. North's 'Shipwreck' is most helpful in this regard. I am reminded of the many times I have been witnessing to folk and got to the point and asked them.. and yet they said "I'm just not ready yet." Some are not that honest and will go along to get us off their back. This concerns me. Sometime we ought to have a discussion on I Chronicles 21 when David numbered Israel and the hand of judgment was stayed at the threshing floor. I think there is a great truth there to be discovered. It was on that threshing floor that an altar and then the Temple was built.

God initiates regeneration in my view. This 'initiation' includes revivals also, I think. When we look for 'numbers' and base our evangelism on 'numbers' I think we really miss God. But thats another subject. ;-)

philologos,

I am not really anti-Calvinist. It is just that I am quite unconvinced about some of their pronouncements. Is there anyone out there who could take up these questions in a spirit of gentle enquiry rather than a 'we take no prisoners' rhetoric?

Thank your for this statement. Quite honestly when I see your posts I am amazed at the knowledge and grasp of scripture that you posess. Thank you for your devotion to God and the 'spirit of gentle enquiry' in which you bring forth these questions. I hope to engage in this spirit as I have said before 'in all the wisdom the God can give me.

I do not know of any verse in scripture that says that the entire nation of physical Israel is elected to salvation.

On the contrary, Paul is Romans tells us that not all Israel is Israel. Just beacuse a person was a physical descendant of Abraham does not mean they are elected. Jesus also confronted the Pharisees and called them the 'sons of the Devil.'

Election is the acts of God choosing someone out of his own pleasure (Grace) and it has nothing to do with anything the person has done to earn the the Grace (not of works so that no man may boast.)

So, if I may ask, what is your understanding of the what the Bible describes as 'Election'?

I don't want to jump the gun here, but I wish to show what the 'will and purpose of God is [u]not[/u].

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

It is not God's [i]boulomai[/i] (will, purpose or desire) that any should perish. when we deal with God's purpose we know here what that purpose is [u]not[/u]. When we speak of the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1) we know what that will is [u]not[/u]. I think this passage has to be tha anchor that keeps us from error.

I don't want to jump the gun here...

The 'purpose' that some of the reformed persuasion would give is 'for the glory of God'. That is they do believe that God has elected some to eternal life and not others but that such must be explained by reference to the fact that God's glory is best served by His choices. For many of us, like Krispy, these things make our 'head ache'. In fairness to John Piper he admits that these these issues have their areas of struggle for him too. We must not think that Reformed Christians are 'comfortable' with what they believe the Bible reveals, but they believe it does reveal such things and so in honesty try to give an answer for their convictions.

Some of our older readers here will recall my struggles with the concept of 'the will' which obviously affects the way I synthesise my understanding of scripture. I must admit that I don't recall anyone expressing 'Total Depravity' quite so 'totally' as John Piper in his 'only free to choose our poison' quote. But I believe this is an honest and godly man so I would love to talk to him or others who share his views.

So, if I may ask, what is your understanding of the what the Bible describes as 'Election'?

Is. 45:4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.[/color]

I like to trace things back to their beginnings. The Hebrew word for 'elect' as a noun is [color=0000ff]Strongs 972. בָּחִיר bachiyr[/color], and is used in these scriptures: 2Sam 21:6; 1Chr 16:13; Psa 89:3; 105:6,43; 106:5,23; Is 42:1; 43:20; 45:4; 65:9,15,22

If folk have Bible programmes, I suggest you highlight and copy the above references and put them into your Bible software. (I could do it for you if you don't have the facilities.) The point I would want to make is that if these are the 'beginnings' of the Bible idea it is surprising that none of these references seems to have anything to do with salvation/eternal life. They all seem to have to do with 'role' or 'calling'.

If we pick up some NT verses we see the pattern continuing. We have a reference to the 'elect angels' [color=0000ff]“I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and [u]the elect angels[/u], that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” (1Tim 5:21 KJVS)[/color] In the usual association of 'election' with 'salvation' and 'eternal life'... what might that mean?!? :-? and how did they become the 'elect'? Do angels suffer from 'total depravity' and do they only have the freedom to 'choose their poison'? (I am not mocking John Piper here, but struggling to see where these ideas come from and where they will end up.)

My thinking about 'election' has to do with 'role', 'calling' rather than personal salvation. I see that Paul's meeting with the risen Christ on the Damascus Road may be an example of what happens to all of us, although we don't usually hear voices. What I mean is that the 'election' comes with the 'salvation' rather than the other way around. Paul's 'calling' or 'role' was spelled out to him at the point of his conversion. I think it may be so for all of us. That is, to be saved is to be restored to the will of God and to begin to live the life of the 'called ones'. Personal salvation comes with a calling to be God's chosen ones and to live so. There are 'good works' that God has foreordained that we should walk in, but for us to do the will of God the answer to 'how' lies in the gospel record [color=0000ff]“Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”” (John 6:28-29 NKJV)[/color] Our destiny must begin with the first step of abandonment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

My thinking about 'election' has to do with 'role', 'calling' rather than personal salvation.

You are saying that Election comes with the Salvation rather than the Salvation resulting in Election. You understand election having to do with 'role' and/or 'calling' rather than personal salvation.

Scripture tells us that election happens not at the point of salvation but is done before someone is even born. For example (can't have a discussion on election without bringing up Romans 9)
Romans 9:10-12, "Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."

So, we must understand that election preceeds any works and even preceeds any person. It is 'not by works but by him who calls'.

You are making the case for election to begin when someone becomes a Christian. But this goes against the scriptural definition of election. Election has nothing to do with what a person does. But in your understanding (if I read it correctly...please correct me if I misunderstood) is that election is dependant on salvation, in that one must believe first, then election can occur.

The fact is, before Jacob was born God had a role for him. Jacob did not earn this role, Jacob did not have to believe first in order for this role to occur. Jacob simply received it because God had called him for it.

I see that Paul's meeting with the risen Christ on the Damascus Road may be an example of what happens to all of us, although we don't usually hear voices. What I mean is that the 'election' comes with the 'salvation' rather than the other way around. Paul's 'calling' or 'role' was spelled out to him at the point of his conversion. I think it may be so for all of us.

I also submit to you that Paul did receive a commission during his encounter with Christ. But why did God open Paul's eyes to begin with? Is it not possible that God before the foundation of the world chose Paul for personal salvation?

If so, then God elected Paul to be saved before Paul was born but then did not choose to reveal that election until the Damascus encounter.

The election is not the 'role', it is the Salvation. Salvation must come before the role but election comes before the Salvation.

What I mean by that is that God did not give Paul the task of being the apostle to the Gentiles until after he was converted. Election is the fact that God chose Paul to become converted before Paul was born.

If we pick up some NT verses we see the pattern continuing. We have a reference to the 'elect angels' “I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” (1Tim 5:21 KJVS) In the usual association of 'election' with 'salvation' and 'eternal life'... what might that mean?!? and how did they become the 'elect'? Do angels suffer from 'total depravity' and do they only have the freedom to 'choose their poison'? (I am not mocking John Piper here, but struggling to see where these ideas come from and where they will end up.)

2 Peter 2:4, "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;"
Jude 1:6, "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."

It does appear that some angels sinned. Is it not possible that there are elect and non-elect angels?

You seem to be saying that God gives 'roles' and 'callings' to people when they believe and that this is their 'election'. But what about God giving a non-believer a 'role' and a 'calling'? Is this referred to as election?

Would you go so far as to say that Pharaoh was of the elect? Was Judas of the elect? Judas clearly was used by God to betray Jesus. It was prophesied in Psalms that one would betray Jesus and Jesus made it known that he knew Judas was the one who would fulfill that role. Peter said in Acts 1:16, "...Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus—"

So, in this logic if election has nothing to do with personal salvation and is simply a calling or role that one may fulfill--as in the case of Judas:
- Why then does Jesus say in Matthew 24:24 that, "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.?

- Why does Jesus say in Mark 13:27 that the Son of Man '...will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens."?

- Why does Paul write in Romans 11:5-8, "So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."

- Why does Paul write in Romans 11:25-29 conerning the Israel, "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable." Call to what? Salvation? or a role?

EDIT: [Removed copy of philologos post that was copied by accident.]

Philologos wrote:

The introduction suggests that the whole question revolved around the issue of who takes the initiative in salvation. The suggestion is that Calvin and many another including John Piper and the apostles believe that God takes the initiative but that Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Arminians and fellow travellers believe that man takes the initiative. As the programme would conclude that I am among the fellow travellers I feel I need to say that this is a mistaken oversimplification. I also believe that God takes the initiative. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Faith cannot precede God's initiative. If there is no 'word' there can be no faith. Some people with a reformed position use the language of synergism or monergism. Does God do the whole thing 'alone' ie monergism or does God do the thing in cooperation with the believers faith? Does synergism really demean the sovereign authority of God?

So God takes the initiative because man who loves his sin does not seek for God - "There is none who seeks for God" (Romans 3:11). In so doing, God reveals the ugliness of sin and the beauty of His Son, our Savior. After revealing His glory and His worth, and sin's folly, God calls for a decision - turn from loving sin to loving the Savior. It is the hearing of God's Word that effects the ability to turn from sin to God. Man does not have the ability to turn from sin to God without being drawn by God through the Gospel. God even takes the initiative in the truth that He sends His preachers to preach the gospel - "How will they preach unless they are sent?" (Romans 10:15).

RobertW wrote:

Error begets error. Soon a doctrine develops that man has to be regenerated before he/she can respond rightly to God.

Grace and peace
Olan

The introduction suggests that the whole question revolved around the issue of who takes the initiative in salvation. The suggestion is that Calvin and many another including John Piper and the apostles believe that God takes the initiative but that Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Arminians and fellow travellers believe that man takes the initiative. As the programme would conclude that I am among the fellow travellers I feel I need to say that this is a mistaken oversimplification. I also believe that God takes the initiative. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Faith cannot precede God's initiative. If there is no 'word' there can be no faith. Some people with a reformed position use the language of synergism or monergism. Does God do the whole thing 'alone' ie monergism or does God do the thing in cooperation with the believers faith? Does synergism really demean the sovereign authority of God?

What is the first thing that God must do to save a person?

2Co 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Therefore God must reveal the truth of the gospel to the unbeliever by the Spirit using the Word. Once the unbeliever has the truth revealed to them, choosing salvation through Christ is a "no-brainer". This is where Calvinism and Arminianism come together. God does the revealing and man chooses to accept the truth. I call it Calvarmianism(TM). ;-)

“And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.”

These are vital verses, but just what is 'the purpose of God', referred to in these verses, with reference to 'election'? In other words what is 'election' referring to? Is there any indication in the story of Esau and Jacob that we are talking about 'salvation' or 'eternal life'? And while we are on the topic we can include the reference in Hebrews [color=0000ff]“Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.” (Heb 12:15-17 KJVS)[/color]

Did Esau lose 'salvation' or the 'birthright'? Did he lose 'eternal life' or 'the blessing'? Is 'the purpose of God' my personal salvation or is it something much larger than that of which my personal salvation is but a part? The 'purpose of God' must go on and if Esau rejected it, God must establish another 'carrier'. God, of course, knew this before the event and predicted that 'the elder would serve the younger'. Again, this would not seem to have reference to personal salvation but to the ongoing purpose of God.

[color=0000ff]“It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (Rom 9:12-13 KJVS)[/color] It is important to remember that this quotation from Malachi was a word spoken by God 1300 years after both Esau and Jacob were resting in their graves. The passage in Malachi seems to be clearly speaking of 'nations' rather than individuals.

On another level, of course, Jacob was Israel so we are back to needing a definition of 'Israel'.;-) Back later, just off to the prayer meeting...