Hypo-Calvinism's Resistible Grace

Hypo-Calvinists often make the very same arguments against Calvinism that Arminians make. For example, they lift out of Scripture isolated verses which seem to suggest that God's grace can be resisted to support their false teaching of a universal resistible grace of God which does not actually save. When they do this they behave as heretics not interpreting according to the rule of Scripture which clearly teaches:

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (Rom. 9:18-20)

I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let [prevent] it? (Isa. 43:12-13)

Sometimes the hypo-Calvinists claim that they only want to teach that there is a different grace of God which concerns common gifts like rain and sunshine (good providence, but not grace, and which is turned into a trap and a snare to the unthankful and ungodly; Ps. 69:22), that has nothing really to do with salvation, except that it supposedly restrains sin by making people less than totally depraved (in fact, God has appointed many other ways in which the expression of sin is restrained). At the same time, their concern is to prove that God somehow has a will or desire to save the reprobate which is unfulfilled (or effectually resisted). In their clamour to find passages to support this idea (and because the only grace that Scripture knows is saving grace), they fall upon passages that are clearly speaking about salvation.

One of these passages is Acts 7:51, in which Stephen accuses his Jewish hearers (and accusers) that they are uncircumcised in heart and always resist the Spirit just as their fathers did (after giving many examples of the resistance of their fathers to the Spirit). The saving work of the Spirit throughout the entire Old Testament is in view here (not common good gifts like rain and sunshine or any kind of inner restraint of sin). The Arminian and the hypo-Calvinist latch on to the term "irresistible" in the doctrine of "irresistible grace" as if that meant that this grace cannot be resisted in any sense. In fact, the doctrine of irresistible grace is that the grace of God cannot be resisted effectually (because it is God's grace, and God cannot be resisted effectually). Can God be resisted? Yes, of course, Scripture is literally full of examples (as Stephen's speech proves). For example, one might resist God by resisting the powers He has appointed (Rom. 13:2) or by resisting His truth (II Tim. 3:8). But all of this resistance fails miserably:

And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? (Dan. 4:35)

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. (Ps. 2:1-4)

But the passage itself tells us they were unable to resist the wisdom and Spirit by which Stephen spoke (Acts 6:10; cf. Luke 21:15). Does that mean they didn't resist in any sense? Of course not, the whole passage is a description of their energy and zeal to resist, culminating in their stoning Stephen to death. But they could not effectually resist, so that by their efforts the witness of the church spread further and all the more powerfully (Acts 8:4). Even then they were not satisfied and continued and increased their persecution. One of these persecutors was Paul. Paul also resisted the Spirit in Stephen's witness, even consenting unto his death (Acts 8:1). Yet Paul failed to effectually resist God's will to save him when the time came on the Damascus road.

Did God really only will to save men in general using resistible grace (as the Arminian claims), or did God will to save Paul in particular and make him an apostle to the Gentiles?

Whereof [the gospel] I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: (Eph. 3:7-9)

And the salvation of Paul is a pattern for all of us who likewise by nature resist the Spirit:

And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first [pre-eminently] Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." (I Tim. 1:12-16)

In the history related by Stephen, God actually accomplished His will (and promise) to save His people despite all the resistance. That's the apostolic explanation in Romans 9:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Rom. 9:6-8)

Positively, God's word and promise was effectual! It cannot be otherwise, because it is God's word and promise. God's grace must always be effectual because it is God's grace. Besides, the passage (Acts 7:51) speaks about resisting the Spirit. The Spirit is the omnipotent God Himself who cannot be effectually resisted. God is almighty, therefore His grace is almighty. God is one, therefore His grace is one.

What God has joined together...

Because the covenant of God is a gracious covenant, so that it depends only upon God Himself in all its establishment and maintenance with all the elect in Christ, the Reformed faith has rejected conditions in the covenant. The concept of conditions is especially attributed in the Canons of Dordt to the errors of the Arminians. However some have misunderstood the rejection of conditions (whether deliberately in malice or mistakenly in confusion). Some have even gone so far as to accuse those who faithfully teach the Reformed faith according to Scripture of re-introducing or promoting conditions when we speak of things which God has joined together both in His eternal counsel and in His revealed will.

Their argument is very simple, if God will not do a certain work (e.g. bestow a particular blessing) except in the case that some other thing is present, occurs, or is done, either strictly first or at the same time (whether logically or temporally), then this is plainly a condition. But the argument falls over at the outset because it uses the broadest possible definition of condition rather than asking what exactly the Reformed confessions mean when they reject conditions. It is a simple example of equivocation: one man uses a word in a particular sense, and chooses not to use this word because it can be used in this particular sense, and then an accuser uses the word in a different sense, and accuses the man for not rejecting this sense also.

The root idea of the term "condition" is not limited to the sense rejected at Dordt. The broadest possible meaning is simply two or more things which must agree together from the Latin "con-" (with) and "dicere" (to say). Because this term has been abused historically (especially by the Arminians), the best of the Reformed faith tradition has avoided the use of the term without qualification in favour of more precise, careful and distinctive language. Scripture does not use the term condition, but the broad concept is present in at least three legitimate senses which it commends, and also in at least three illegitimate senses which it condemns. The simplest way to survey these different senses, and to have the right judgement of them, is to consider God's eternal counsel from the viewpoint of His absolute sovereignty and in harmony with all His attributes such as His wisdom, holiness, justice, and righteousness.

The three illegitimate senses, all used by Arminians, and more or less used by other conditional covenant theologians are as follows:

1. Something which distinguishes a man from others, by which he receives what was supposedly offered or promised by God to more than those to whom He determined to give what was offered or promised
2. Something that man is able to do to cause himself to differ from others in order to receive something supposedly offered or promised by God
3. Something outside of God upon which some aspect of God's eternal counsel depends

There is some overlap between these. The third sense is the most obviously contrary to Scripture and plain reason. If God's counsel is eternal there was nothing with God when He determined all things, and Scripture plainly teaches that there is nothing outside God's counsel, and that all things happen according to the good pleasure of His will:

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." (Job 38:4) 

"But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." (Psalms 115:3) 

"Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?" (Isaiah 40:13-14) 

"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Daniel 4:35) 

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28) 

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:" (Ephesians 1:11)

Since the third sense is explicitly rejected in Scripture, by implication, the second sense is also rejected. There can be nothing that man can do to cause himself to differ from others for anything. That God alone causes men to differ from one another is also explicitly taught in Scripture:

"Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?" (Isaiah 45:9) 

"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Romans 9:16-21) 

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (1 Corinthians 4:7) 

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10)

Then remains the first sense which so often undergirds or leads directly to the second sense. It is often used alone by conditional covenant theologians, who are often too happy to leave the ignorant to conclude by implication the second sense without instructing them otherwise. This is typically presented as either that God promises salvation to all baptized children, or that God promises salvation to all hearers of the gospel, but they will only receive the promise if they fulfil the condition. When questioned, some of these will protest that men fulfil the condition only by the effectual work of grace, and they may either honestly or dishonestly deny that they intend the second, overtly Arminian sense, but either way the logic is difficult to escape for two reasons.

First, they do not always explicitly deny that man can cause himself to differ from others in order to fulfil this type of condition proposed by a universal or broad offer. This leaves the possibility open to the interpretation of the hearer. Second, the whole premise is not only difficult to describe, but plainly absurd. If it is God who makes a man to differ so that he fulfils this type of proposed condition, it is thoroughly absurd to speak of God offering or promising anything to those in whom God has determined not to fulfil the condition, and then also absurd to speak of God fulfilling His own condition as if something was in doubt or as if God's counsel were not immutable and eternal. Further, if the promise is only to those who will actually receive what is promised, it is absurd to speak of an offer, as if it could be rejected effectually. Therefore, the most natural implication of this sense, to resolve the absurdities, would be that man can do something to make himself to differ from others. This is why for example, Amyraldianism naturally leads to the more logically consistent Arminian position, and why conditional covenant theology has led to the Federal Vision. Besides this, Scripture also explicitly rejects this first sense, because God's promises are always sure for all to whom they are given:

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all," (Romans 4:16) 

"That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Romans 9:8) 

"For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." (2 Corinthians 1:20) 

"Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;" (Hebrews 6:17-19)

What then are the legitimate senses in Scripture, if we can speak of these senses as a kind of condition at all without being extremely unhelpful and confusing? These are at least as follows:

1. Two or more things joined together by a necessary order in God's eternal counsel
2. Two or more things joined together by a necessary means in God's eternal counsel
3. Two or more things joined together by a necessary manner in God's eternal counsel

Now we can move from absurdly complicated and unbiblical philosophy into very simple and elegant biblical categories. These three are so obvious, that the very blind can recognize them from the mere surface of Scripture. The reason that two or more things can be necessarily joined together in God's eternal counsel is related to the proper understanding of who God is. In a sense, all things are joined inseparably in God's counsel, as Christ is the goal and purpose for all of history and creation and everything in heaven and earth. God's wisdom fits everything into its proper place, with all the right interconnections and establishing all the appropriate proximate causes and effects with the sum all working perfectly towards the goal of God's incomparable glory. At the risk of sounding condescending (since we can all already think of multiple biblical examples for each of these), I'll give one clear example of each.

First, in God's eternal counsel, there is a necessary order established concerning the resurrection:

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." (1 Corinthians 15:23)

One could say that Christ's resurrection is a condition for ours, since His must come first. One could even say more in this case, since the relationship between Christ's resurrection and ours is not merely that His comes first, but this suffices to show God establishes a necessary order.

Second, in God's eternal counsel, there is a necessary means established concerning the new testament:

"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." (Hebrews 9:15-16)

Christ's death was therefore a necessary means by which we receive the promise of eternal inheritance. One could say that His death was a condition for our reception of the promised inheritance, but this is unclear and potentially confusing. More accurate is to explain the precise relationship, that His death was a necessary means, and better yet, then explain how Christ's death functions as a means.

Third, in God's eternal counsel, there is a necessary manner established concerning our high priest's life:

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Hebrews 2:17-18)

It was necessary in God's eternal counsel that the manner of Christ's life should be one in which He suffered being tempted, and that therefore He must be made like unto His brethren. One could say that His being tempted in our human nature was a condition for Him to be a merciful and faithful high priest, but less confusing and more appropriate would be to explain how and why these two things must be joined together in agreement in God's eternal counsel.

I have deliberately given examples central to our Christian faith, which few gainsayers should have the audacity to deny. I could have also multiplied examples concerning the necessary order of our salvation, the necessary means of our salvation, and the necessary manner of our salvation, all three of which include to an extent God-worked human activities in their proper places. The following are some very brief but clear examples which I won't elucidate now, good works preceding the reward of grace in a necessary order, faith as a necessary means in pleasing God, and holiness as a necessary manner in seeing God:

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." (Revelation 22:12)

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:" (Hebrews 12:14)

If God has joined these things together, rather than object, as if these are some kind of Arminian conditions, we ought to understand properly what the relationship is and why God has established this relationship, and in so doing, we will grow in our knowledge of God, and grow in our understanding of how we ought to glorify Him.

John Owen's doctrine of the atonement

Owen's work, the Death of Death in the Death of Christ is without question the greatest treatise on the atonement that has ever been written and for anyone who has read the book and studied the arguments from Scripture, no criticism has ever or could ever be effective laid against it. It is especially important in our day, with the popularization of faulty unbiblical speculative theories on the atonement by certain neo-Calvinists. It goes back to the fundamentals and smashes these false theories completely.

Of course there are many areas regarding the atonement which Owen treats which the 3FU does not talk about (since even the Canons are more summaries of doctrine and refutations of specific errors), but the basic doctrine of limited atonement as expounded by Owen is the doctrine taught in the Canons of Dordt. Ursinus made some comments in his commentary on the Heidelberger which seem to be closer to an Amyraldian view of the atonement (although it would be anachronistic to call it that), but his commentary is not the catechism itself, and it is not the official interpretation of it by the Reformed church. 

The Form for Ordination calls the Canons of Dordt an interpretation/explanation/clarification of certain points of doctrine in the Heidelberger and the Belgic Confession - and this is exactly what the Canons are. The Canons explain the doctrine of atonement in the catechism and confession as particular efficacious atonement, excluding the Amyraldian views (although it obviously does not deal with Amyraldianism as directly and fully as the Second Helvetic Confession does - history accounts for that). Nevertheless when the various statements in the Canons of Dordt are put together, especially along with the Rejection of Errors (which are part of the Canons, despite the fact that so many "Reformed" churches today have removed them), they do not allow for the idea of a hypothetical universal redemption or any kind of conditional redemption in the atonement. 

On this point, the doctrine of the atonement in the Canons is precisely that which is so much more fully expounded and proved by Owen's work (and remember Owen wrote much later than the Synod of Dordt, when Amyraldianism was being further developed and promoted as a half-way house between Calvinism and Arminianism). If the Rejection of Errors are ignored/removed, this greatly weakens the position of the Canons (understandably - otherwise they would not have seen it necessary to include them!) - although even so, still Amyraldian ideas do not sit well with them (and a case could still be made). The Westminster actually is not a strong as the Canons with regard to particular efficacious atonement - since the Canons include the phrase "the elect and them only". Sadly, the prevailing view among the neo-Calvinists is a form of the Amyraldian view of the atonement - even though they often claim to hold to the five points of Calvinism (the Canons ARE the original five points)!

But aside from the confessional issue, the Scriptural arguments of Owen are compelling and solid. For a man who has studied these arguments, and confesses that the Bible is the very word of God, he cannot consistently then deny limited atonement with Amyraldian ideas - and any Reformed church ought to discipline a man who is promoting Amyraldianism - on the basis of the Canons, and on the basis of the clear teaching of Scripture (which on this point, has been so fully explained to us by Owen's work). This is the reason that Owen's work is becoming unpopular today, because it stands in history as the greatest refutation of Amyraldian and Arminian views of the atonement ever to have been written - and these false views of the atonement promoted today by the neo-Calvinists simply cannot stand in light of it.

Owen goes back to the basics of the nature of Christ's work, as it is pictured in the Old Testament and especially as explained in Hebrews. Hebrews stands on the foreground of his book. He shows what it means that Christ is our High Priest, the nature and meaning of redemption, propitiation, atonement, etc. These are the topics which are shied away from today. People love to talk about the extent of the atonement, but they do not want to talk about its very nature. And Owen shows that its nature determines its extent. I could not praise this book highly enough. Its greatest strength is that is builds with the basics and is so thoroughly comprehensive (of course, this does means that Owen can be very long-winded at times - but long sentences were in fashion then, it was assumed that people had a longer attention span than five seconds, to be able to remember and tie in the beginning of the sentence with the end of it). Its weakness today is only that people today have such difficulty with long sentences and long trains of thought - they forget the beginning of the argument by the time they reach the end, and respond more to immediately felt emotional appeals. When someone says "Christ died to save everyone" that has a half-truth, and a strong emotional appeal, but it does not stand up to scrutiny, no matter about the sophistication of the Amyraldian position. But such snap-responses are not the Christian way: "Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." - I Cor. 9:24-27.

Sometimes that means have the spiritual self-control and discipline to study and remember long step-by-step arguments written by people who didn't realise that long sentences would be so difficult for people in our modern times. But it is rewarding.

In fact, a more accurate and emotionally appealing description of the extent of the atonement would be the word "catholic" (Rev. 5:9). "Limited" although true just does not give the main idea or the emphasis of Scripture - and this is one reason why people have such reactionary problems to it.

Choose who you will serve: New Idols or Old?

‎"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." - Joshua 24:15.

This is where Joshua speaks about a "choice". Now, I don't dispute that we make choices, but I deny that we can of ourselves choose to serve God - because we are by nature sinners in need of a Saviour.

But notice that the choice that Joshua gives them here is not between the true God and idols, but between the false gods of the Amorites and the false gods that their fathers served in Ur. See verse 2, "And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods."

God loves the kosmos

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16

Please read your Bible correctly - this love is the love of God expressed in Him giving the greatest possible gift, the gift of His only begotten Son. Is this describing a lesser universal love? Does He have a greater love than this for the elect? Not only so, but the verse says "so", meaning "in this way" - this way God loved the "kosmos", that He gave His Son for the salvation of all who believe (that is, His sheep, those given by the Father, the elect).

Secondly, the very context: spoken at night in secret, to just one person. But significantly spoken to a Jew still thinking in Old Testament terms who thought the love of God was restricted to the Jews. Christ shows that God loves the whole world, every tongue, tribe, and nation, and so gave His Son for the salvation of all who believe. Not the descendants of Abraham therefore, and not merely the believing descendents of Abraham.

Thirdly, there is not one place in Scripture where "world" can be shown to mean "every single person throughout all history". In almost cases it very obviously cannot mean this: http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/allmeansall.htm

Fourthly, where therefore does your definition of "world" come from? Is it from the context? Is it from the use of the word elsewhere in Scripture? Or is it simply your reading into the text your own pre-conceived ideas (or someone else's)?

Furthermore, in ransoming the elect, God saves the kosmos. By preserving a remnant saved from every tongue, tribe, and nation, God saves the entire world (Rev. 5:9). Did God need to save every animal and every human to save the kosmos through the Flood of Noah? No, rather, the destruction of the wicked was necessary for the salvation of the world.

Concerning the salvation of the kosmos, which God loves (the salvation of which rests on the salvation of the elect) the Scriptures say this:

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." Romans 8:18-23.

The whole creation is included in God's everlasting covenant of grace:

"And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth." - Gen. 9:12-17.

The inheritance of the saints, is the new heavens and the new earth, renewed by God, as we are being, and will be - through fire. This kosmos was created for man to dwell in fellowship with God. But through the work and person of Christ, heaven and earth are united, and we who have borne the image of the earthy shall also bear the image of the heavenly, being equipped in the resurrection with a spiritual body by the last Adam: so that then the tabernacle of God will be with men, the final fulfillment and goal of the covenant will be realised and enjoyed forever.

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful." - Rev. 21:1-5.

See the problem is, people know sound-bites and superficial verses without understanding context, and without learning how the Bible fits together in glorious theology. And so they exude this confidence in their views, which doesn't stand contextual, theological scrutiny.

Our first principle must be that Scripture alone interprets Scripture, because it is God's Word, not ours. We must not let our own ideas run ahead.

Foreknown by God

Those predestined are also called, justified and glorified by God (Rom. 8:28-30). If that is not predestination to heaven, what is? And how can one who is conformed to the image of Christ not go to heaven? The destiny therefore, of all those foreknown by God (the relational knowledge of love, cf. Matt. 7:23) is heaven.

Furthermore Ephesians 1:3-14 speaks of this same predestination:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."

The language is clear: we have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy. We are predestined to be adopted as children, and as children in Christ, we have also an inheritance, to which we were predestined by God's purpose. Not only so, but we have already an earnest of this inheritance in the Holy Spirit. The blessings flowing from this predestination are, adoption, acceptance, redemption, forgiveness, etc.

The Arminian thinks that the "foreknowledge" of Romans 8:29 is God's omniscient, a comprehensive prescience. This leads to statements like the following: "Also, if God foreknows the elect, then, logically, He would also know the damned."

That is precisely what the logic of Romans 8:28-30 will not allow. ALL those foreknown by God are predestined by Him to eternal salvation. If the Arminian wants to avoid blatant unqualified universalism, they better reconsider their false definition of "foreknow".

I have explained that this "foreknowledge" is to "know" personally, relationally, in the sense of loving knowledge. It is not to know about a person, but to really know a person in loving fellowship. And this is why Christ can say in Matthew 7:23 to the damned, "I never knew you."

The Arminian understanding of "foreknow" which must include "the damned" results in irreconcilable contradiction. Romans 8:28ff tells us that all those foreknown by God are saved, yet the Arminian tells us that some that God foreknows are damned? This explanation is contrary to Scripture and must be rejected.

Drawn by the Father

Some try to escape the clear teaching of particular election unto eternal life in John 6 by means of various convoluted distinctions. But an examination of the text in its context, and in the light of the rest of Scripture, demonstrates that the Arminian cannot escape this word of God:

"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."
Here Christ equates "believing" in Him with "coming" to Him. He does not mean locational displacement - but to come spiritually by believing. His message is therefore: You believe not, but all that the Father gives me will come (believe), therefore you were not given to me by the Father.

And this is confirmed by His words in John 10: "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." Here he says likewise: Your unbelief demonstrates that you are not my sheep, since my sheep hear me and follow me and cannot be plucked out of my hand.

It is also confirmed in that Christ says "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." So all who "come" to Christ will not be cast out, and in verse 44: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." He clarifies again that all who "come" to him (which are only those whom the Father draws) will be raised up at the last day.

So all who "come" are the same as all those who "believe" since to "come" to Christ is to "believe" in Him, and since all these who believe have eternal life, just as all who come have eternal life. And should anyone ask if there are some who do not believe or do not come who have eternal life, John 3:36 shows that only those who believe have eternal life. But more directly, this cannot be the case, since Christ's argument here would then be pointless. His entire argument hinges on the fact that those who do not come do not have eternal life.

He is explaining that they do not come/believe because they are not given to him by the Father and are not drawn by Him.

Another place this is proven is John 8: "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

Here Christ proves to them that their spiritual father is not God, but the devil, on the basis that they cannot receive his teaching. The reason they do not believe him, is because he is telling them the truth about God. Therefore they are not of God, because those who are of God hear/receive/believe God's words. It is those who are of the devil who cannot receive the truth, whose native language is lies.

This is also corroborated by II Thess. 2: "...they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The plain meaning here is that there are those who do not receive the love of the truth (and so are not saved). For this cause God sends them strong delusions with the purpose that they believe a lie so that all those who do not believe the truth are damned. In contrast to this are those whom the Apostle must give thanks to God (since it is all of God's grace, not at all of their ability) for those who were chosen from the beginning to believe the truth and be sanctified by the Spirit and so be saved. And this is the salvation which we have been called to by the gospel. Just as Romans 8:28ff teaches concerning those who are thus called, that they are all those whom God foreknew, and predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, and justified, and glorified. No others were glorified, justified, called, predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, or foreknown by God.

This is why Christ will say to the wicked reprobate on the last day, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt. 7:23). Clearly this is the knowledge of a loving relationship therefore. Not a clinical knowledge of certain actions or decisions, but a loving knowledge of particular people, since those who are not saved, according to Romans 8 are not foreknown by God.

Finally the objection that a man can resist being drawn by the Father is useless, since no doubt the fish resisted being dragged in the net, but when the disciples were with Christ, the net did not break. The question is whether one can effectually resist. Since all who are drawn by the Father are raised up at the last day, are those who come/believe and who are given eternal life, therefore our sinful nature which always opposes the work of the Spirit cannot defeat Almighty God, who renews our will, giving us a new nature, so that we love Him freely from the new heart that He gives us. As Christ said: "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ... Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."

If you can show where I have misunderstood all these texts, please do so. But if you find that you are fighting against the truth of God's Word, then please restrain yourself - because those who stumble at the word and oppose Christ in disobedience will find themselves smashed into pieces by Him. "Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." - I Pet. 2.

I might add: "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2:12-14)

Also the objection based on the use of "draw" in John 12 is futile. Immediately preceding this teaching is recorded: "And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus."

The clear meaning which does not contradict the rest of Scripture therefore is that Christ is referring to the whole world of every tongue, tribe, and nation when He uses the phrase "all men". He means that the benefits of His atonement are for all men, including these Greeks, not just the Jews. His atonement will bear "much fruit". He does not mean every single person, but all men without distinction. The same chapter records: "The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him." - Clearly the Pharisees did not mean by "world" every single person, since for example, they themselves had not gone after him, nor had the Chinese.

http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/allmeansall.htm