Responding to Objections to the Doctrine of Election

Timothy 2 15. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God. A worker who does not need to be ashamed rightly. Dividing the word of truth. Alpha and Omega Ministries presents the dividing line radio broadcast.

The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence. Your host is dr. James White director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed to Baptist Church.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White, you can call now by dialing five zero eight zero nine sixty. That's five zero eight zero nine sixty. And now with today's topic.

Opening the Dividing Line and Introducing Election Objections

Here's James White and good afternoon and welcome to the dividing line. You may be a little bit confused. You may be thinking that you're about to listen to the Bible answer man podcast, but I hate to tell you this.

But you just missed it. It is on from 1 till 2 p .m Now and we are on from 2 to 3 p .m. Here live on kpxq and that means you do have one opportunity that you had do not. Otherwise have it 2 o 'clock on Saturday afternoons and that is you can pick up the phone and you can dial five zero eight zero nine sixty with your questions and comments five zero eight zero nine sixty and As far as we can tell this is where we're gonna be for a while so hopefully you can put that on your calendar and make that adjustments and Those of you who are used to listening to the Bible answer man that's on from 1 to 2.

But we hope you'll stick with us here on the dividing line as we tackle many of the same issues that are discussed on the Bible answer man broadcast a few that We are not and they discuss a few things that we don't as well.

So I guess that's a fair trade-off. In fact to give you an example today one of the things I'd like to be looking at and get your involvement your comments on is the subject of objections to election objections to the concept that God predestines and elects and you might say wow, that's not exactly a subject we hear a lot of Discussion about on the radio and that's true.

In fact most discussion you'll hear on the radio about this subject is how to get it Off of the radio as quickly as possible and on to another subject. But in reality, I was looking at a web page. Actually, I saw this list of questions I would say probably about six months or so ago.

I downloaded them I had the intention of possibly Addressing them in the future hadn't gotten around to it. Someone again sent us the URL to these this web page just recently and I thought it was an excellent example to give you an idea of Some of the objections that people raise to the Reformed Faith.

I'm an elder and Reformed Baptist Church and Unashamedly Calvinistic in my belief. I believe that Calvinism as we call it which is just a nickname is merely another way of referring to being Consistent in your biblical exegesis and your biblical belief.

I believe it is the inevitable result of believing in solo scriptura and tota scriptura. I believe that when you allow all of scripture to speak for itself when you take it in its own context and you don't try to duck out of the quote-unquote tough questions that the result of that is the doctrines that have been understood as the doctrines of grace the sovereignty of God the total inability of man the unconditional electing grace of God the particular redeeming work of Christ where he truly saves those for whom he dies the Irresistibility of the saving grace of God and the perseverance of the Saints.

You may have recognized that as the tulip or the five points of Calvinism. But I threw a sixth one in there that just to keep you off balance Called the sovereignty of God because we can't assume that one anymore that may have been assumed at one point in the past.

But that's not the assumption. Unfortunately in many evangelical churches today. Well, I was given this web page. And it's a fairly well-known web page and this is entitled 11 questions on Calvinism and the Calvinist worldview and what I'd like to do here at the beginning is take a look at some of these questions as examples of really where I think the conversation doesn't need to be going because many of these questions simply are.

They demonstrate to us the fact that most of the conversation doesn't really take seriously What the issues are doesn't really understand what the issues are take things out of context things like that.

But most importantly, I think these illustrate the necessity of being good students of the Word of God. Good students of what the scriptures say and why the scriptures say it and the need to engage in deep exegesis of the scriptures.

To to really handle a right the Word of God. Let me give you just the first question as an example number one. It is often said by Calvinists that dead men can't respond as you say quote. You are dead in your trespasses and sins and quote Ephesians 2 1 in Romans 6.

It says that quote in the same way count yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus and quote. If being dead in sin means you can't respond to God then does being dead to sin Mean that the Christian cannot respond to sin.

Here is the question that is put forward. Well, let's think about this together for a few moments. It is often said by Calvinists that dead men can't respond and I would agree with that assertion. That is that a man who is spiritually dead cannot do anything that is spiritually pleasing in God's sight and is incapable of undertaking Spiritual actions that are pleasing to God.

For example in Romans chapter 8 Paul says that those who are according to flesh Do not submit themselves to law of God neither are they even to even able to do so those who are in the flesh cannot Please God.

And of course the Lord Jesus taught this as well in John 6 44 When he said no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last Day, so very clearly we definitely believe that dead men can't respond.

Lazarus could not just come walking out of the tomb by himself. He had to be given life By the Lord Jesus when he said Lazarus come forth and then you do have the quotation of Ephesians 2 1 you were dead in your trespasses and sins.

Then we have this interesting quotation from Romans chapter 6 in the same way. Count yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus now again in the context. This is an exhortation to Christians to consider themselves as dead to sin.

That is to have the mindset that sin no longer rules over me sin No longer has any power over me that I am not to yield my members in the service of sin. Instead the opposite of that mindset is to being alive to God in Christ Jesus that is it is to be the Christians mindset that we are to be living servants of God in Christ Jesus.

Well that makes perfect sense. That's what Romans 6 is about is is the whole discussion of Deadness to sin and our being alive in Christ and the newness of our life so on and so forth. Now how you then take those two completely different contexts and completely different subjects and come up with a question out of them.

I'm not really sure but one thing we certainly should learn as we listen to any conversation any dialogue in a debate is that very frequently Individuals will give us bad arguments by mixing contexts and so the question is asked if being dead in sin Means one can't respond to God.

Then does being dead to sin mean that the Christian cannot respond to sin? Now such a question commits about three or four category errors. It Assumes that the meaning dead in one place is identical to dead in another it mixes context.

It plays with the phrase respond to sin whatever in the world that means. There are numerous problems with it. But obviously the main problem is being dead in our trespasses and sins in the context in which that is discussed in Ephesians 2.

Results in necessity of God having to make us alive. Contrast that with Romans 6 where it says count yourselves dead to sin that is reckon yourselves consider yourselves. This is something we do as a mindset.

That's a mix those two together. Absolutely boggles the mind that someone could actually come up with a question that puts those things together in that way. The second question of the 11 that are asked Is very very common and and very very useful to examine the Bible says in 1st Timothy 2 for God our Savior wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

It also states that God wants all men to be saved in 2nd Peter 3 9 Matthew 23 37 and Ezekiel 33 11 and 18 30. Obviously not all men are saved. How does Calvinism explain this? Does the God of Calvinism have two wills that are in direct contradiction and I'm just reading this.

This is directly off the web page and hence have a multiple personality disorder. That's the question. The question is After citing 1st Timothy 2 for in 2nd Peter 3 9 How does Calvinism explain this. Does the God of Calvinism have two wills that are in direct contradiction and hence have a multiple personality?

Disorder well. Very interesting 1st Timothy 2 for Does refer to God wanting all men to be saved? Of course, I have noticed that the citations in this particular passage are a little bit loose. They're not exactly the where they should be specifically when Paul addresses this Passage in 1st Timothy.

Let me read the entire section so you can get the context. First of all, then I urge that in treaties and prayers petitions and thanksgivings We met on behalf of all men for kings and all who are in authority so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men the man Christ Jesus Who gave himself as a ransom for all the testimony given at the proper time?

So the question that is being asked is in light of this and the passage of 2nd Peter 3 9. How does Calvinism explain this? Well Some Calvinists will actually say that this passage and 2nd Peter 3 9 Are both in reference to what's called the universal call of the gospel or the universal offer of the gospel?

But I don't agree with that perspective. I think if you examine the context of both passages you will discover that very consistently the Apostle Paul Walks the balance of truth and in this passage if we think for just a few moments We can ask ourselves a question When in it says God our Savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Does that mean all men individually or all kinds of men and someone says? Oh, that's you're just begging the question. I say no wait a minute think for just a moment does the passage Discuss kinds of men and in fact it does in fact the very first verse says be made at behalf of all Men for kings and all who are in authority.

Now what are kings and those who are in authority? They are a kind or a class of men. They are rulers and Paul says he wants prayers to be made now. Why would he have to say that I mean isn't it just generally true?

The Christians would pray for everybody well Christians were a persecuted minority at this time and they were persecuted by those who were in authority and Paul says I want you to Pray for all kinds of men including those kinds of men that you might not want to pray for.

Those who are persecuting you those who are mistreating you. Paul had been mistreated and persecuted not by poor people. But by those who are in authority and so yes the passage does refer to kinds of men.

Are there other clues that this is what the passage is talking about? Yes. Because the very next verse after verse 4 verse 5 says for there is one God and one Mediator also between God and men the man Christ Jesus.

Now for whom does Christ mediate. I Have honestly in and I haven't talked to every person who disagrees the reformed perspective but in all of the conversations that I have had With those who reject the concept of predestination election as laid out in Scripture when this passage has come up I have always asked the question for whom does Christ mediate and so far.

Every person I've talked to had never even thought about that had never even considered the question hmm, well if verse 4 means all men individually then by Context then verse 5 must mean all men individually as well.

And that means that I believe that Christ mediates for all men. Well, if Christ mediates for all men dies for every man mediates for every man. Then why isn't any man every man saved. Well because Christ's death and mediation isn't enough.

Is that what someone really wants to say? Very rarely have any has anyone gone to that type of depth and raising these types of issues. Unfortunately, I think that's exactly what we need to do. And so there is a consistent understanding of 1st Timothy chapter 2 verse 4.

That understands what Paul is saying in light of the context in which he's saying it. The same thing is true and I addressed this a little while back in 2nd Peter chapter 3 verse 9 of Gagana very common Passage let's read verses 8 and 9 but do not let this one fact escape your notice beloved that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years.

Like one day the Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness. But as patient towards you not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. Well, the question assumes that what that means is the any means any individual on the face of the planet and Therefore that this means that it is God's will and God's desire that every single person come to a knowledge of repentance and That therefore this is what it's talking about again.

There are reformed people who say yes. This is just talking about the general will of God in the sense that God commands every man everywhere to repent. But again, I think the context indicates otherwise.

Second Peter is written to those received a faith the same kind or as precious as our own is written to the elect. Look at 2nd Peter 1 1 the context of 2nd Peter 3 9 is the parousia the coming of Christ and Peter is discussing Why has there been this delay?

Why is it that there is this time period between the Ascension and the coming of Christ and he's explaining why this? This delay exists and he's saying there's gonna be those who come they're gonna they're gonna mock the promise.

They're gonna say where is the promise of his coming? Etc. Etc. Etc. And then he has this statement and it's in the context of his promise. It's not slow about his promise. That is the promised coming.

Well, then why has this promised coming been delayed so that all of God's elect people can be brought into relationship with him. If the Lord had returned a thousand years ago, you and I would be in big trouble.

We would not have been brought into relationship with him and so the passage I believe is talking about why the Parousi has been delayed and is giving as the answer for that delay in the parousia the fact that he is gathering his people into the church.

That does not result then in God having a quote-unquote personality disorder as the question asked. It does say does the God of Calvinism. That almost sounds like they're saying that there's a God of Calvinism and there's a God of the Arminians and so on so forth.

But does the God of Calvinism have two wills that are in direct contradiction and hence have a multiple personality disorder. Well It is interesting. I really don't believe that. Whatever perspective a person holds if you believe in the scriptures that you don't have to deal with the fact.

That there is a revealed will of God that is general you shall not murder. But there is also the very specific will of God that is revealed which has included the existence of murder. I don't think rejecting Calvinism gets you out of having to answer that question.

It is very plain. For example when the early church the early church didn't try to get out of having these two different perspectives standing side-by-side. Because when the early church prayed in Acts chapter 4, for example, they didn't blush to say the following words.

For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus whom you anointed Both Herod and Pontius Pilate along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur now what Herod and Pontius Pilate and the Gentiles and the people of Israel did was they murdered the sinless Son of God.

They nailed him to a tree. They caused his death. That's against the general revealed will of God. But it is very plain beyond any question that the cross of Jesus Christ is a Part of the very will of God that he is the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth and that here in Acts 4 28 that these people did whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur so whatever you do, you've got to deal with that and If my God has a personality disorder and you believe Acts 4 28, then I guess yours does too.

Let's not talk about things like the God of Calvinism or the God of somebody else. Question number three Calvinism and I'm just reading these these are directly off and I suppose let me find it. Oh I didn't.

I printed this off my hard drive. So the URL is no longer there. You can pull this off at www .answers .org. Go to Theology and I think underneath the theology you'll find 11 questions on Calvinism and Calvinist worldview, I think.

But since I printed off my hard drive It only shows me where it is on my hard drive. Which hopefully will not be of any use to anyone else because you're not getting into my hard drive to track this particular thing down.

Third question. Calvinism excludes individual faith from the salvation process. Classifying such faith as a work. How can Calvinist classify faith as a work when Paul specifically excludes faith from works in Romans?

327 through 28 and Romans 4 or 5. Now the only thing that I've written on this is three question marks after the question because I can't believe That someone could come up with a question like this. Calvinism excludes individual faith from the salvation process.

Excuse me. We're no longer saved by grace through faith. No what the person who came up with this question is probably asking or probably thinking about is That Calvinism does as the Bible does. Say that faith is the gift of God.

It is not a human work. It is not something saving faith. Anyways is not the type of faith that just any old man on the street can just sort of must Muster up from himself anytime he jolly well feels like it.

It is a gift from God as is repentance for that matter. So when it says Calvinism excludes individual faith in the salvation process, I would correct that to say Calvinism excludes the idea that man's faith is a saving faith or To put it the way I think it was well put by someone this past week the issue is Between saying that faith is something we give to God or saying that faith is something given to us by God.

I think that's another good way of putting it so. When it says how can Calvinist classify faith as a work when Paul specifically includes excludes faith from works in Romans 3 27 28 and 4 5. Calvinists do not classify faith as a work.

They say that true and saving faith comes from God and hence those beautiful passages Romans 3 27 to 28 and probably one of my favorite passages in all of Scripture Romans 4 5 have Absolutely positively nothing to do whatsoever.

With the question at hand next question. I Love this one. Jonah 2 8. Jonah 2 8 says that quote those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs end quote. If as Calvinism teaches God determined before time Began who would be reprobates and therefore does not extend the grace to them by which they could be saved.

How logically can we understand this versus statement that these reprobates quoted? These reprobates quote forfeited the grace that could be theirs. Here is a wonderful example of why you need more than one translation of the Bible.

Because I don't know what translation that is I'm gonna guess off the top of my head. It might be the NIV, but I don't know. I don't have an IV with me to check. But the New American Standard Bible from the Lachman Foundation.

In fact, that's the 1995 edition updated. Just thought I'd mention that in passing says quote those who regard vain idols forsake their faithfulness. But I will sacrifice to you with the voice of thanksgiving.

Now in context, that's pretty obvious what's being said. It's talking about idolaters and how they forsake their faithfulness. I think the New King James says forsake mercy or something along those lines.

And then the contrast is made to Jonah who sacrifices to God with the voice of thanksgiving so that seems to me to indicate that the text utilized does not exactly Substantiate the question that is then asked from it.

Next question and I this starts the way as questions should start the Bible says I like questions that start with Bible passages that are relevant in John 644. Now there is a passage that I like in fact, I should just mention in passing.

That's my book on John 6 35 through 45 drawn by the father has just been reprinted by Reformation Press and We had actually given all of our old copies of that book away, but it's now available again in a nice pretty new cover and It's available through Alphan Omega ministries.

If you'd like to track that down the Bible says in John 6 44. No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him. That's true. The same word draw and it is Helcuso is used in John 12 32. Which says but I when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all men unto myself.

Matthew 23 37 says that men can resist God's will. How do you answer this problem in Calvinism now, obviously? There's two questions here. The first is John 6 44 talks about the drawing of the father to the son and that no man Can come to Christ unless the father who sent me draws him.

That's quite true and in fact the context of John chapter 6 is without question the sovereignty of God and salvation. You begin at verse 35 you read through to verse 45 and over and over again It is clearly presented to us that God in his sovereignty draws actually gives a people under the Sun and that then he draws that people under the Sun and he commits them into the Sun's care and He commits to the Sun the charge that he not lose any of them, but he raised them all up at the last day.

So John 6 the context is specifically salvation and specifically how individuals are saved now in John 12 32. The same word is used but I when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all men unto myself and being lifted up from the earth as The passage indicates is the means by which he was going to die.

He was going to be lifted up on the cross. So it sounds like the questioner is trying to create a contrast between John 6 44 and John 12 32. Assuming that the phrase all men means every individual person.

But this is another one of those wonderful passages that clearly illustrates that When the passage speaks of all men you have to ask the question Do you mean all men individually or do you are you referring to all men of a specific group?

For if there is anything that is in arguable from a New Testament perspective It is that the cross of Jesus Christ is foolishness. To the vast majority of individuals it is in fact something that repels Both Jews and Greeks.

I mean Paul has an entire discussion of this. It is foolishness in the sight of the Greeks it's a stumbling block in the sight of the Jews and So obviously when Jesus says I will draw all men to myself.

If we allow all of Scripture to stand that's not referring to the idea of every single individual finds the cross of Jesus Christ. To be something that is a that draws them that attracts them in no way shape or form.

Instead again in the context what's happening in John chapter 12. What has caused the Lord Jesus to say these words? This is the end of the Lord Jesus's public ministry and The last things that he's saying are in direct response to the fact that some Greeks came seeking after Jesus.

Who are these individuals Greeks? They're Gentiles Gentiles coming to seek after the Jewish Messiah and in that context He says I will draw all men to myself Jew and Gentile. That's why Revelation chapter 5 can refer to the Lamb standing as if slain in heaven and Say by your blood you have purchased for God men from every tribe tongue people a nation that's what all men means in John 12 32 and Then we have a separate question Which I will hold off until after the break and that is Matthew 23 37 says that men can resist God's will.

Well, that's actually not a quotation of Matthew 23 37, but we'll take a look at that and Take your phone calls at five zero eight zero nine sixty five zero eight zero nine sixty if you're outside the dialing area.

One triple eight talk nine sixty. We'd like to hear from you. Maybe you have some specific questions. You'd like to ask in regard to this subject. We'd invite you to give us a call five zero eight Zero nine sixty.

We'll be right back and welcome back to dividing line. My name is James White and it's good to be with you this afternoon. And I unfortunately am listening to myself in delay on my headsets. Which is making everything sound very very strange and let's go to that and that sounds so much better than when you do it the other way around.

Anyways, we're talking about some interesting things this afternoon. At least I hope they're interesting to you. I hope that you will take the time to join us today at five zero eight zero nine sixty five zero eight.

Zero nine sixty is the phone number before we went to the break. We were looking at some questions that people have suggested be asked to Calvinists and That's what I am. So I've been asking those questions and answering some of them and The last one indicated at Matthew 23 37.

This is a popular passage Matthew 23 37. This is where a lot of people end up going. Jesus says Jerusalem Jerusalem who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a Hen gathers her chicks under her wings and you were unwilling behold.

Your house is left to you desolate for I say to you from now on you will not see me until you say blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord and hear a passage from the Lord Jesus addressing the people of Israel and Specifically speaking of the fact that he is the one who has sent prophets To Israel over and over and over again.

That's what the entire Old Testament almost is is witness to is God's constant calling of the people of Israel to repentance his proclamation of judgment upon them over and over and over again. And yet they were unwilling and the idea is see God wanted to do this God it would.

God was really trying but the unwillingness of the people of Israel stymied God's ability to bring people to repentance that seemingly is. What is being read into this passage of Scripture rather than simply allowing it to say what I think it says.

And first of all, this is addressed to Jerusalem. Is Jerusalem a person I? Don't think there's anyone named Jerusalem specifically. Obviously, this is Jerusalem being taken as the capital city of the nation of Israel and As soon as you put it in that context the entire argument falls apart because now we're talking obviously about God's activities throughout history to bring the people of Israel to repentance the cycle they went through over and over and over again of Rebuke punishment falling into apostasy.

Repentance restoration. I mean the process that goes over and over and over again The New Testament tells us is meant for our edification for our warning for our example as Paul uses it when he writes.

It's a Corinthians. So it's it's amazing that in a context that has nothing to do with Discussions of God's sovereign will and men's wills or anything else. That all of a sudden that passage becomes used to say that men can resist God's will.

If you mean that in the sense That God's will is that we all be perfectly loving and obey every element of God's law. Well, of course men resist God's will but when Calvinists talk about Irresistible grace they're talking about God's action of regeneration of bring a person to spiritual life.

Not the idea that men can resist God's law or do this or do that the other thing. There are many places however in Scripture that clearly teach us that God is sovereign over the actions of men. That he can even keep men from sinning if he so chooses to do so.

And if that is therefore the case then who is indeed the sovereign creator? We will take one more question and then we will go to our first caller. There are lines open for you at five zero eight zero nine sixty five zero eight zero nine Sixty.

The Bible says in second Thessalonians 210 that reprobates quote perish because they refused To love the truth and so be saved end quote. From your Calvinistic worldview. How can it logically be said that a reprobate refuses to love the truth and so be saved.

When your God determines that the reprobate can't love the truth can't be saved and therefore it doesn't refuse God at all. Well, of course the question is is any of that true? Well, first of all when you look at second Thessalonians 210 again I'm not sure what translations being used there, but it's it's not the new American standard.

Second Thessalonians 210 specifically says and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish. Because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. So there is a tremendous contrast between those who are perishing and those who are being saved.

Those who are being saved are lovers of the truth. Those who are perishing are those who will not receive or will not love the truth. But the question is from your Calvinistic worldview. How can it logically be said that a reprobate refuses to love the truth?

I would say that a reprobate refuses to love the truth that it is an action of the will of the unregenerate man. That he does not love the truth. I'm having a problem with that that a reprobate refuses to love the truth and so be saved when your God Determines that the reprobate can't love the truth.

Now. There's there's where the rub is. Because the assumption that is being made here is that you have this Morally neutral reprobate which the term doesn't work very well. But you have this morally neutral reprobate who is being prevented by God From loving the truth you see if God wasn't preventing him from loving the truth then then he might do that.

But since God is preventing him from loving the truth, then he can't. The problem of course is that's not what the Reformed position says the person Refuses to love the truth. Because it is their nature to love error to love the lie.

That's the deceptiveness of sin. That's the the horribleness of sin is That those who are in sin are Slaves to sin to use the words Lord Jesus. They are unable to submit themselves to the law of God to use the words of Paul.

They will not submit to God's truth. They are enemies of God and So it is not like they are Neutral and God forces them to be his enemies. No. The very nature that is theirs is that they reject God's truth because that is the natural thing for them to do Can't be saved and therefore as the questioner puts it doesn't refuse God at all.

No, it is the very nature of The person who rejects God's truth of the to use the terminology used here the reprobate To detest God's truth to detest God's law and to do everything he can To rebel against God's law that can be religious rebellion.