"Election: Christ’s Honor and Our Blessing"
http://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/81-49
The following passages are interpreted differently by Calvinists and Arminians:
John 6:37
"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away."
Calvinists argue that this passages teaches irresistible grace. The individual cannot refuse God's choice, therefore all those given to Christ will respond.
Arminians reply that "those given to me" in 37 are the same as those who "believe in him" in vs. 40. In other words, when God foresees that some will believe, he gives them to Christ. See that in vs. 45, those who "have heard and learned from the father" are the ones who "come to me."
John 6:44,65
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
The Calvinist holds that these passages teach total depravity, unconditional election, and also imply limited atonement and double predestination. This is because:
"No one can come to me unless . . . " because they are totally depraved
"it has been granted him from the Father" or "the Father draws him" meaning unconditional election. Unconditional in this case, because the cause is the father, not the individual.
Limited atonement and double predestination are usually inferred from the face that it is impossible to come to him without election. Therefore, those whom the Father has not drawn are naturally destined for judgement, and are therefore those for whom Christ did not die.
The Arminian agrees that these passages teach total depravity. However, they argue that the father draws all men to Christ (Jn. 12:32; 16:8). They further hold that to assign the cause exclusively to the Father ignores vss. 29; 35; 40; and 47. To attribute the cause exclusively to the Father regardless of the response of the person, flies in the face of the stated will of the Father in vs. 40 that "Everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him" be saved. Finally, with regard to limited atonement and double predestination, these positions depend on the earlier conclusion (unconditional election), and therefore beg the question.
John 15:16
"You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain..."
Some Calvinists (and Augustine) have argued that this a proof text for unconditional election, emphasizing the irrelevance of human choice.
Arminians point out that the statement is made to the disciples with reference to their apostleship, not to their salvation. This interpretation accords well with the next phrase "that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain." See also Jn. 6:70 referring to the same choice. Judas was chosen but not saved.
Acts 13:48
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."
The Calvinists argue that this verse teaches unconditional election, because it would have been easy to say "as many as believed were appointed eternal life" but the reverse is stated.
The Arminians point out that the participle translated "were appointed to" (tetagmenoi) is in the middle-passive voice. This means that the same form is used in Greek to designate both the middle voice and the passive voice. The NASB has translated it in the passive voice. However, if it is translated in the middle voice, the passage would read ". . .as many as set themselves to eternal life believed" (cf I Cor. 16:15 where the same participle is translated in the middle voice).
Romans 9:16,22,23
The Calvinist position is that Romans 9 teaches unconditional election and double predestination. This is because:
Vs. 16 "it [God's choice] does not depend on the man who wills"
Vs. 18 refers to double predestination.
Vs. 22, 23 refer to "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and "vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory."
The election involved is not a national election, because vs. 24 states that the vessels of mercy are "us, whom He called not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles,"" (i.e. believing Christians).
Arminians argue that the first part of Romans 9 deals with God's choice of nations and their roles in his plans.
Vs. 1-5 make clear that the context is that of national choice. This is confirmed in verses 6,7 because all Israelites were not saved and all Ishmaelites were not damned. Also, in vs. 13 Malachi 3:2 is cited to demonstrate that God had favored the nation of Israel over the nation of Edom.
Vs. 16 refers to God's choice of how to lead the nation of Israel through the wilderness, which was independent of Moses's opinion. Personal salvation is not in view in the original passage (Ex. 33:19).
Vs. 18 is in the context of vs. 16 see above, and vs. 17 which refers to God's temporal destruction of the Egyptians when they wanted to destroy Israel. The verse teaches therefore, that God caused his choice of Israel to stand regardless of Moses' attempts to help or Pharoah's attempts to hinder. Neither Moses' nor Pharoah's personal salvation was in view in these passages.
Vs. 22,23 refers to nations which have either glorious or a judgmental role in history. God allows evil nations to exist, and often uses them to bless the chosen nation, Israel. Today, believers are able to participate in the covenant blessings of Israel, because they have been "grafted in to the rich root" of God's purpose in history.
Another explanation is that the "lump" of clay in vs. 21 refers to national Israel. God has the right to divide Israel into two vessels: unbelieving Israel, which has now become a vessel of wrath (for "prepared", read fit or suited to destruction), and believing Israel, which, along with believing Gentiles has become a vessel of mercy.
Any interpretation of Rom. 9 must account for the transition that Paul makes from national choice in vss. 1-5ff. and individual salvation in vss. 24-33. Therefore, neither view can claim that the other is completely out of context. The question becomes one of which transition is more believable, and makes the most sense of the Old Testament quotations.
http://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/81-49
The following passages are interpreted differently by Calvinists and Arminians:
John 6:37
"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away."
Calvinists argue that this passages teaches irresistible grace. The individual cannot refuse God's choice, therefore all those given to Christ will respond.
Arminians reply that "those given to me" in 37 are the same as those who "believe in him" in vs. 40. In other words, when God foresees that some will believe, he gives them to Christ. See that in vs. 45, those who "have heard and learned from the father" are the ones who "come to me."
John 6:44,65
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
The Calvinist holds that these passages teach total depravity, unconditional election, and also imply limited atonement and double predestination. This is because:
"No one can come to me unless . . . " because they are totally depraved
"it has been granted him from the Father" or "the Father draws him" meaning unconditional election. Unconditional in this case, because the cause is the father, not the individual.
Limited atonement and double predestination are usually inferred from the face that it is impossible to come to him without election. Therefore, those whom the Father has not drawn are naturally destined for judgement, and are therefore those for whom Christ did not die.
The Arminian agrees that these passages teach total depravity. However, they argue that the father draws all men to Christ (Jn. 12:32; 16:8). They further hold that to assign the cause exclusively to the Father ignores vss. 29; 35; 40; and 47. To attribute the cause exclusively to the Father regardless of the response of the person, flies in the face of the stated will of the Father in vs. 40 that "Everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him" be saved. Finally, with regard to limited atonement and double predestination, these positions depend on the earlier conclusion (unconditional election), and therefore beg the question.
John 15:16
"You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain..."
Some Calvinists (and Augustine) have argued that this a proof text for unconditional election, emphasizing the irrelevance of human choice.
Arminians point out that the statement is made to the disciples with reference to their apostleship, not to their salvation. This interpretation accords well with the next phrase "that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain." See also Jn. 6:70 referring to the same choice. Judas was chosen but not saved.
Acts 13:48
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."
The Calvinists argue that this verse teaches unconditional election, because it would have been easy to say "as many as believed were appointed eternal life" but the reverse is stated.
The Arminians point out that the participle translated "were appointed to" (tetagmenoi) is in the middle-passive voice. This means that the same form is used in Greek to designate both the middle voice and the passive voice. The NASB has translated it in the passive voice. However, if it is translated in the middle voice, the passage would read ". . .as many as set themselves to eternal life believed" (cf I Cor. 16:15 where the same participle is translated in the middle voice).
Romans 9:16,22,23
The Calvinist position is that Romans 9 teaches unconditional election and double predestination. This is because:
Vs. 16 "it [God's choice] does not depend on the man who wills"
Vs. 18 refers to double predestination.
Vs. 22, 23 refer to "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and "vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory."
The election involved is not a national election, because vs. 24 states that the vessels of mercy are "us, whom He called not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles,"" (i.e. believing Christians).
Arminians argue that the first part of Romans 9 deals with God's choice of nations and their roles in his plans.
Vs. 1-5 make clear that the context is that of national choice. This is confirmed in verses 6,7 because all Israelites were not saved and all Ishmaelites were not damned. Also, in vs. 13 Malachi 3:2 is cited to demonstrate that God had favored the nation of Israel over the nation of Edom.
Vs. 16 refers to God's choice of how to lead the nation of Israel through the wilderness, which was independent of Moses's opinion. Personal salvation is not in view in the original passage (Ex. 33:19).
Vs. 18 is in the context of vs. 16 see above, and vs. 17 which refers to God's temporal destruction of the Egyptians when they wanted to destroy Israel. The verse teaches therefore, that God caused his choice of Israel to stand regardless of Moses' attempts to help or Pharoah's attempts to hinder. Neither Moses' nor Pharoah's personal salvation was in view in these passages.
Vs. 22,23 refers to nations which have either glorious or a judgmental role in history. God allows evil nations to exist, and often uses them to bless the chosen nation, Israel. Today, believers are able to participate in the covenant blessings of Israel, because they have been "grafted in to the rich root" of God's purpose in history.
Another explanation is that the "lump" of clay in vs. 21 refers to national Israel. God has the right to divide Israel into two vessels: unbelieving Israel, which has now become a vessel of wrath (for "prepared", read fit or suited to destruction), and believing Israel, which, along with believing Gentiles has become a vessel of mercy.
Any interpretation of Rom. 9 must account for the transition that Paul makes from national choice in vss. 1-5ff. and individual salvation in vss. 24-33. Therefore, neither view can claim that the other is completely out of context. The question becomes one of which transition is more believable, and makes the most sense of the Old Testament quotations.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
