MUST HEAR: The Sequence of Election by David Cooper

Finally something on this subject that makes sense.

Thank you for posting this.

Also, thank you for the great pictures that you post along with these sermons.

This man is preaching against the fatalistic interpretation of election. Fatalism denies the responsibility of the believer and negates the consequences of ones choices. Most brothers and sisters on SI who do embrace the doctrines of grace do not hold to this interpretation. This is a common misunderstanding that is often leveled at “Calvinists”

Sermons like this often perpetuate a faulty understanding of what many Calvinists (those that embrace the doctrines of grace) truly believe. Do not make the mistake of assuming those you know to be Calvinists, or adherents to the doctrines of grace, subscribe to this understanding. This is exactly why many wish to not use the name “Calvin” when describing their beliefs. I’m glad to hear that this preacher found his way from this erroneous teaching.

The following excerpt may help others understand the more prevalent and balanced beliefs held by “non-hyper” Calvinistic believers.
________________________________________________

Election Is Not Fatalistic or Mechanistic.

Sometimes those who object to the doctrine of election say that it is "fatalism" or that it presents a "mechanistic system" for the universe. Two somewhat different objections are involved here. By "fatalism" is meant a system in which human choices and human decisions really do not make any difference. In fatalism, no matter what we do, things are going to turn out as they have been previously ordained. Therefore, it is futile to attempt to influence the outcome of events or the outcome of our lives by putting forth any effort or making any significant choices, because these will not make any difference any way. In a true fatalistic system, of course, our humanity is destroyed for our choices really mean nothing, and the motivation for moral accountability is removed.

In a mechanistic system the picture is one of an impersonal universe in which all things that happen have been inflexibly determined by an impersonal force long ago, and the universe functions in a mechanical way so that human beings are more like machines or robots than genuine persons. Here also genuine human personality would be reduced to the level of a machine that simply functions in accordance with predetermined plans and in response to predetermined causes and influences.

By contrast to the mechanistic picture, the New Testament presents the entire outworking of our salvation as something brought about by a personal God in relationship with personal creatures. God "destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ" (Eph. 1:5). God's act of election was neither impersonal nor mechanistic, but was permeated with personal love for those whom he chose. Moreover, the personal care of God for his creatures, even those who rebel against him, is seen clearly in God's plea through Ezekiel, "As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his evil way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?" (Ezek. 33:11).

When talking about our response to the gospel offer, Scripture continually views us not as mechanistic creatures or robots, but as genuine persons, personal creatures who make willing choices to accept or reject the gospel. Jesus invites everyone, Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28). And we read the invitation at the end of Revelation: "The Spirit and the Bride say, 'Come.' And let him who hears say, 'Come.' And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price" (Rev. 22:17). This invitation and many others like it are addressed to genuine persons who are capable of hearing the invitation and responding to it by a decision of their wills. Regarding those who will not accept him, Jesus clearly emphasizes their hardness of heart and their stubborn refusal to come to him: "Yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life" (John 5:40). And Jesus cries out in sorrow to the city that had rejected him, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Matt. 23:37).

In contrast to the charge of fatalism, we also see a much different picture in the New Testament. Not only do we make willing choices as real persons, but these choices are also real choices because they do affect the course of events in the world. They affect our own lives and they affect the lives and destinies of others. So, "He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18). Our personal decisions to believe or not believe in Christ have eternal consequences in our lives, and Scripture is quite willing to talk about our decision to believe or not believe as the factor that decides our eternal destiny. - Wayne Grudem

Article continues [url=http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/misunderstandings.html]here[/url]

All Calvinists believe there is no freewill in salvation. A person cannot choose, therefore only God choses those that go to salvation. I disagree with this fully.

Greg, this is simply not true. Neither now nor in history.

Historic Calvinism believes [b]every[/b] decision is made by your will. However, the burden of proof is on the Arminian to prove how a will that is a "slave to sin" can choose God. A free slave is an oxymoron. Lost men [b]freely choose sin[/b], Greg. That is all the depraved will could choose, were it not for our holy, sovereign God's grace in opening our eyes.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 plainly states that a new heart must be given, 2nd Corinthians 4 plainly states that God must say "let there be light" into our souls. When that happens, the person becomes [b]willing[/b] to lovingly believe the Gospel.

So, Historic Calvinist emphasizes the wicked depravity of man. Specifically, they hate God and would rather murder him than submit to him, however, God's unfathomable grace has intervened.

We don't believe man is "wounded in sin" - we believe he is "dead in sin". We don't believe man has astigmatism, we believe he is blind.

With care in Christ,
Taylor

David Copper is simply sharing what all true calvinists believe.

No.

David Cooper is simply sharing what he believes all true Calvinists believe.

God bless you all. I have said enough. I simply desire to promote a better understanding, not debate.

God choses men for salvation.

Which is what the Scripture teaches. And, there is nothing unjust about this. I know you agree that all men deserve hell. If that is the case, there is nothing unjust if God, in his great mercy, chooses to save some. May it drive us to our knees in humble adoration of his undeserved grace.

[i]Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.[/i] (James 1:18)

[i]And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.[/i] (John 6:35-40)

A sound exegesis has yet to be offered for John 6:35-40 that is consistent with the Arminian position.

With care in Christ,
Taylor

sermonindex wrote:

Lost men freely choose sin, Greg.

Brothers,

This is what I am exactly saying. God choses men for salvation period from a calvinistic perspective. The only freewill "before" salvation for a man is to chose sin! Therefore God is the only one that can elect, man cannot elect himself. Therefore God predestinates those he "desires and wishes" to be saved, period. That is Calvinism's election. And yes it is fatalistic. And it does not bring "utmost" glory to God for all men who believe these things are not made holy.

[url=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/sov.html]The difference between fatalism and what is called compatibilism[/url]

[url=http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm]A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism[/url]

And yes it is fatalistic

Fatalism places the running of the universe into the hands of blind random chance. Calvinists (those that embrace the doctrines of grace) place the running of the universe in the hands of all wise, all loving and all just God. There is a world of difference.

One can call Calvinism deterministic, but not fatalistic.

Pre-destination not Pre-determination. I would hope someone would engage in some good pro calvinistic discussion on this one: I can't choose to accept Christ because of my depraved nature. But when I make a choice to accept Christ, it's then seen as what? I was elected?

sermonindex wrote:

human responsibility

There is simply no "human responsibility" allowed before conversion. If you are not elect all you can choose is evil and therefore your life surely is "fatalistic".

Many Christians from all different theological and philosophical persuasions attack the Calvinistic interpretation of the compatibility of divine sovereignty and human responsibility as espoused in reformed soteriology. The traditional view of freedom in Calvinism is that God can indeed ordain or 'determine' future events, but He does so in such a way that does not violate man's true responsibility. In other words, even though an action may be determined does not annul that fact that when a decision is made it is indeed out of that agent's true moral disposition.

Two camps argue against this: Libertarianism and Fatalism. While many think that the Calvinistic system by logic necessitates a fatalistic view on history it is not the predominant view. There are some who espouse Fatalism which is the view that determinism is incompatible with genuine human freedom, and therefore man's freedom is an illusion. On the other side, metaphysical Libertarianism says that a decision is only free when agents can chose A, B, or ~A/B. They would deny the view that God is a determinative agent in the history of man. Source [url=http://www.imperishableinheritance.com/2006/common-arguments-against-reformed-theology/]here[/url]

There is simply no "human responsibility" allowed before conversion.

They are doing exactly what they want to be doing.

Both of these arguments have been leveled against Calvinism several times on SI. Each time someone, like I am doing now, points out that there is another view that holds credibility and historical significances.

I do not believe Calvinism is fatalistic. I believe it is deterministic, as determined by God. We do not simply wait to see what cards "fate" deals us.

I believe the there is a compatibility of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. I may not understand how it all works, but that makes it no less true.

I have a question.

What about the people that are Calvinists that believe in God and Jesus, but determine themselves to not be one of the elect? Would this not leave them without hope? Would it not cause envy, and bitterness and strife?

I know someone like this. She comes from a strict Reformed upbringing and says that we are all just puppets on a string and that God pulls on the strings just to watch us jump. The closer I get to the Lord, the more this person hates me, and now I think I know why. This is not the way of my Lord - He would not turn away someone that truly wanted to come to Him. But if she thinks He has rejected her, why should she even try?

Edit: Oh, this is horrible. No wonder it has been like trying to talk to a brick wall. No wonder they beat each other up and tear each other down. No wonder it is all about appearances - as if what is on the outside can somehow validate what is missing on the inside. Oh Lord, help me break through. Use me Father - shine forth Thy beautiful Light.

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. [b]All that the Father giveth me[/b] shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:35-40)

A sound exegesis has yet to be offered for John 6:35-40 that is consistent with the Arminian position.

HeartSong wrote:
I have a question.

What about the people that are Calvinists that believe in God and Jesus, but determine themselves to not be one of the elect? Would this not leave them without hope? Would it not cause envy, and bitterness and strife?

I know someone like this. She comes from a strict Reformed upbringing and says that we are all just puppets on a string and that God pulls on the strings just to watch us jump. The closer I get to the Lord, the more this person hates me, and now I think I know why. This is not the way of my Lord - He would not turn away someone that truly wanted to come to Him. But if she thinks He has rejected her, why should she even try?

Edit: Oh, this is horrible. No wonder it has been like trying to talk to a brick wall. No wonder they beat each other up and tear each other down. No wonder it is all about appearances - as if what is on the outside can somehow validate what is missing on the inside. Oh Lord, help me break through. Use me Father - shine forth Thy beautiful Light.

That does sound terrible. I don’t understand any Christian hating another…

One of the worst misconceptions is that Calvinist’s deny human responsibility. That comes from the hyper-Calvinist camp and is just as bad as the other extreme.

Brother Greg,

I don't want to confuse the discussion or be in error, but I think most reformed believers ( I mean most ) believe that salvation is monergistic ( all of God ) and sanctification is synergistic ( done in enablement and help with God but with human responsibility ) Further, sinful mankind behaves wickedly synergistically in the sense they fully cooperate both in desire and deed ( ie., they are responsible ) but not with God but rather with their father the devil by doing his desire and his works.

The bride is tested before she is given to the Groom - just like Rebekah was at the well.

HeartSong,

[i]And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:35-40)[/i]

In this passage, the people are given to Christ before they even come to Christ (believe). There is nothing in this passage about a prior testing before they are considered good enough to give to Christ. It is strictly out of the Father's good pleasure and grace.

So, I assume you mean they are tested as unbelievers in some fashion? If so, it must not be for belief, because they are given to Christ before they believe. What kind of testing do you suppose these unbelievers go through before they are considered worthy (I speak as a fool) to be given to Christ?

With care in Christ,
Taylor