Unconditional Election: What is Reformed Theology? with R.C. Sproul

Unconditional Election: What is Reformed Theology? with R.C. Sproul


Ulysses S. Grant who was the head of the
Union forces in the war between the states and later became the President of the
United States received the nickname during his military career based upon his
initials U. S. Grant of “Unconditional Surrender Grant” because when he defeated
the enemy he would not allow for a negotiated peace that meant acquiescing to
certain conditions. And so we have this concept of that which is unconditional and
so in the acrostic TULIP the U stands for unconditional election. It’s another one
of those terms that I think can be a little bit misleading, and I prefer simply
to use the term sovereign election, but that totally destroys our TULIP and not
only is in now RULIP but it becomes RSELUP and doesn’t quite work. What are we
talking about when we use the term unconditional election? It doesn’t mean
that God will save people no matter whether they come to faith or not come to
faith. There are conditions that God decrees for salvation not the least of
which is putting one’s personal trust in Christ. But that is a condition for
justification and the doctrine of election is something else. It’s related to the
doctrine of justification but when we’re talking about unconditional election we’re
talking in a very narrow confine here of the doctrine of election itself. The
question at this point becomes then on what basis does God elect to choose or
elect to save certain people? Is it on the basis of some foreseen reaction, response,
or activity of the elect? That is, many people who have a doctrine of election or
predestination look at it this way: That from all eternity God looks down through
the corridors of time and He knows in advance who will say yes to the offer of
the Gospel and who will say no. And on the basis of this prior knowledge those whom
He knows will meet the condition for salvation, that is, of expressing faith or
belief in Christ knowing that there’re those who will meet that condition on that
basis then He elects to save them. So conditional election means that God’s
electing grace is distributed by God on the basis of some foreseen condition that
human beings exercise themselves. Whereas the Reformed view is called unconditional
election meaning by this that there is no foreseen action or condition met by us
that induces God to decide to save us, but that election rests upon God’s sovereign
decision to save whomsoever He is pleased to save. Now we turn to Paul’s letter to
the Romans to the 9th chapter where we find a discussion of this difficult
concept. Where in Romans 9 beginning in verse 10 we read this: “And not only this,
but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac, for the
children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of
God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve
the younger. ‘ As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau have I hated. ‘” Here
in chapter 9 the Apostle Paul is giving his exposition of the doctrine of
election. He had dealt with it significantly in the 8th chapter and now
he is illustrating his teaching of the doctrine of election by going back into
the past of the Jewish people and looking at the circumstances surrounding the birth
of twins–Jacob and Esau. And in the ancient world it was customary that the
first-born son would receive the inheritance or the Patriarchal blessing.
But in the case of these twins God reverses the process and gives the
blessing not to the elder but to the younger. And the point that the apostle
labors here is that this decision is not with a view to anything that they had done
or would do. The point is is the decision is not only made prior to their birth,
that would be manifestly obvious, but what Paul labors here is that it is not with a
view to their doing any good or evil, but Paul uses this illustration to show that
the purposes of God might stand. So that it does not rest on us, but it rests
solely on the gracious sovereign decision of God. Now in verse 14 we read these
words: “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not. ”
Or other translations read, “God forbid. ” And still others, “By no means. ” Now I
find it fascinating that Paul raises this rhetorical question immediately after
setting forth his metaphor of the birth of Jacob and Esau and the preference of God
for one rather than the other without a view to their works. I remember when I was
a seminary student and deeply struggling over the doctrine of election as most
seminary students do, and there was just something that didn’t fit with me. It
didn’t sit right at all to think that God dispenses His saving grace to some and not
to others and that the reason for giving some salvation and not to others doesn’t
rest in us, but solely in the determinate grace of God. That bothered me. Because my
initial response was this just doesn’t seem to be fair. I thought how can this be
fair that God would choose to save some and not others. Now I understood that
nobody deserved salvation in the first place. And I know that if God would let
the whole human race perish, He would be perfectly just so to do. I also understood
by then that the only way we could ever be saved at all is somehow by the grace of
God. But I certainly didn’t think it rested this heavily on the grace of God,
and I thought why would God give His grace to some people in a greater measure than
He would to others? It just didn’t seem fair to me. And as I struggled with it and
read Edwards and the other Reformed theologians I still wasn’t convinced, and
I had a little card I had in my desk in seminary and it said this: “You are
required to believe and to preach what the Bible says is true, not what you would
like it to say is the truth. ” And that put some restraints on me because I read
this passage every conceivable way, and I knew there were people who said well,
Paul’s not really talking about the election of individuals here; he’s talking
about the benefits of salvation that were given to the Jews rather than the Arabs.
And he’s talking about nations that are chosen not individuals. That didn’t
persuade me for five minutes, because even if he were talking about nations, he
illustrates it by the individuals who are at the head of that nation, so no matter
how you slice it you’re still back down here wrestling with one person receiving a
blessing from God and the other person not, and it’s based ultimately on the good
pleasure of God Himself, and it still seemed not right. Now I’ve written lots of books and I’ve
taught lots of courses, and I know that when I set a thesis forth that if I’ve
done that often enough you have enough practice that you can almost anticipate,
or you can anticipate, not almost but altogether anticipate, the objections or
the questions that people will immediately raise to a certain thesis. And at this
point, at least, one of the few points I can identify with the Apostle Paul as a
teacher is here, because the apostle when he was setting forth this doctrine
anticipated a response or a question. He no sooner spells out the sovereign grace
that is given to Jacob over Esau that he stops and says, “What then? Is there
unrighteousness in God?” Now one of the things that persuaded me that the
Reformers had it right with respect into election was contemplating this very
question, because I thought like this: I thought if Paul is trying to teach a
semi-Pelagian or Arminian view of election by which in the final analysis a person’s
election is based upon that person meeting some kind of condition so that in the
final analysis it’s on you and what you have done and this person hasn’t done it,
who would raise any objection about that’s being unfair? Who would possibly raise an
objection about that being, involving an righteousness in God? That would seem
manifestly fair. And I am sure that people who teach Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism
and articulate their views on this matters, they have certain questions that
come to them all the time that they have to answer and they have to respond to just
like anybody else, but I wonder how often people protest against their teaching by
saying that’s not fair? I doubt if they’ve ever heard that. Or wait a minute, this
means that God is unrighteous, but the apostle does anticipate that response. And
what is the teaching that engenders that response. It is the teaching that election
is unconditional. It’s when you’re teaching that election rests ultimately,
exclusively on the sovereign will of God and not of the performance or actions of
human beings that the protest arises. And so Paul anticipates the protest, “Is there
unrighteousness in God?” And he answers it with the most emphatic response he can
muster in the language, I prefer the translation, “God forbid. ” Then he goes
on to amplify this, “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whomever I will have
mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. ‘” So here the
apostle is reminding people of what Moses had to declare centuries before; namely,
that it is God’s divine right to execute executive clemency when and where he so
desires it. He says from the beginning, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.
Not on those who meet my conditions, but upon those whom I am pleased to bestow the
benefit. Now I like to draw a picture on the blackboard of a group of stick figures
and representing people and these people represent the masses of the human race,
and I’ll put six stick figures on the board, and I’ll put a circle around three
of them and another circle around the other three. And I say let’s let the one
circle represent the people who receive this unspeakable gift of divine grace in
election and the other circle represent those who do not. And ask the question if God chooses
sovereignly to bestow His grace on some sinners and withhold His grace from other
sinners is there any violation of justice in this? If we look at those who do not
receive this gift, do they receive something they do not deserve? Of course
not. If God allows these sinners to perish, is He treating them unjustly? Of
course not. One group receives grace; the other receives justice. No one receives
injustice. And God, like a governor in a state, can allow certain criminals who are
guilty to have the full measure of their penalty imposed against them, but the
governor also has the right to pardon, to give executive clemency as he declares. So
that that person who receives clemency receives mercy; the other … and if the
governor commutes one person’s sentence, does that mean he’s obligated to do it for
everybody else? By what rule of justice? By what rule of righteousness is that so?
Not at all. Paul was saying there is no injustice in this because Esau didn’t
deserve the blessing in the first place, and he doesn’t get the blessing. God
hasn’t been unfair to Esau. Well Jacob didn’t deserve the blessing either, and he
does get the blessing. Jacob receives blessing; Esau receives the justice. And
then no where in there is an injustice perpetrated. But why is that? What is the
purpose for that? Well Paul then comes to verse 16, and this is a very important
verse in Romans 9. He begins it with this word, “So. ” It’s just kind of like the
word therefore. He’s coming to a conclusion. And he says, “So, so then, it
is not of him who wills nor of him who runs but of God who shows mercy. Now the
Scripture says to the Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up that I
may display my power in you and that My name may be declared in all the earth. ‘
Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills. And whom He wills He hardens. ” Now you
would think when Paul speaks as emphatically and clearly as he does here
when he declares it is not of him who wills or of him who runs, you would think
that that would end all of the debates and all the discussions and all of the
theories and all of the doctrines that in the final analysis makes election
conditional on the one who wills. But Paul demolishes human will as the basis for
God’s sovereign election. The only basis I can find according to the Scripture is
that, yes, salvation is based upon will. And yes, it is based upon free will. Now
I’m confusing everybody. But it is based upon the will and the free will of a
sovereign God who elects, Paul teaches elsewhere, according to the good pleasure
of His will. Now if you ask me why I came to faith and why I’m in the kingdom and my
friends aren’t, I can only say to you I don’t know, but this much I do know. It’s
not something I did to deserve it; it’s not some condition that I met in my flesh.
The only answer I can give is the grace of God. And you ask me why does He give that
grace to me and not to somebody else? And if I begin to give an answer that suggests
that it was something good in me that He perceived, I would no longer be talking
about grace. I would be talking about some good thing
that I did that was the basis for God to elect me. But I don’t have anything like
that to offer. If the Bible teaches anything over and over and over again, it
is that salvation is of the Lord. And this, yes, is at the heart of Reformed
theology, not because we’re interested in abstract question of sovereign
predestination and that we just enjoy the intellectual titillation that speculation
on this doctrine engenders, but rather the focal point in this theology, as it was in
the T of total depravity going back to Augustine, is on grace that the accent
here removes all merit from me, all dependence on my righteousness for my
salvation and puts the focus back where it belongs on the unspeakable mercy and grace
of God who has the sovereign, eternal right to have mercy upon whom He will have
mercy; so that it is not of him who wills, except of the divine will, not of him who
runs but of God. That’s where the accent is in the Reformed doctrine of election.

56 thoughts on “Unconditional Election: What is Reformed Theology? with R.C. Sproul

  1. TULIP which is also known as the five points of Calvinism is a summary of Biblical theology held by the faithful church since the days of the apostle Paul but formalized at the Synod of Dordt in 1618-19

    “The Synod gave a very close examination to the ‘five points’ which had been advanced by the Remonstrants, and compared the teaching in them with the testimony of Scripture. Failing to reconcile that teaching with the Word of God, . . . they unanimously rejected them. They felt however, that a mere rejection was not sufficient. It remained for them to set forth the true Calvinistic teaching in relationship to those matters which had been called into question. This they proceeded to do, embodying the Calvinistic position in five chapters which have ever since been known as the five points of Calvinism." (Steel and Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism.

  2. John Calvin did not get his version of "predestination/election" from the Bible, but he borrowed it from his idol, Augustine. His version of it is identical to Augustine's perversion of it.

    1) ….."salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it." – John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion – Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5.

    2) "We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, ETERNAL LIFE IS FORE-ORDAINED FOR SOME, ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR OTHERS." – John Calvin – Institutes of the Christian Religion – Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5.

    3) …"we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into SALVATION, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to DESTRUCTION…he has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation." – John Calvin – Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 7.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

    "That owing to one man all pass into condemnation who are born of Adam unless they are born again in Christ, even as He has appointed them to be regenerated, before they die in the body, whom He PREDESTINATED TO EVERLASTING LIFE, as the most merciful bestower of grace; while to those whom He HAS PREDESTINATED TO ETERNAL DEATH, He is also the most righteous awarder of punishment not only on account of the sins which they add in the indulgence of their own will, but also because of their original sin, even if, as in the case of infants, they add nothing thereto. Now this is my definite view on that question, so that the hidden things of God may keep their secret, without impairing my own faith." – Augustine, City of God, On the Soul and its Origin, 4.16.

    It appears that Calvin's definition and Augustine's definition of "predestination/election" is identical to Islam's belief in FATALISM and also identical to Stoicism's belief in DETERMINISM. Satan has packaged the same thing under different names – "Predestination/Election", "Foreordination", "Fatalism", and "Determinism."

  3. If man has been predestined to perish wherefore is God's legal right to punish? Wherefore is sin? For if a man has been predestined to fulfill God's plan and he does so because he has no choice, then therefore whatever sins he does is because God predestined him to do, where is his sin?

    God therefore becomes the author of sin. So man was created to be what God predestined him to be, he has fulfilled God's plan, then he has obeyed God's will. Where then is man's sin?

    How can God proclaim a righteous wrath against those who do not obey His commands if He has predestined them not to obey His commands? How can God proclaim to be just when He creates a person to disobey Him, and then punishes that person for doing what he was predestined to do?

    So why would God predestine a person to love Him which is in essence God loving Himself through that person because that person has no choice? This doctrine of Calvin takes accountability and blame out of man's hands and throws it right into God's lap.

    If man creates a weapon and uses it to fulfill his plan to kill someone; who is guilty? the man who created the weapon or the weapon itself? In Genesis God says, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil" Does this mean we don't know how to choose between good and evil?

  4. I herd this message today on podcast and I really wanted to know how does unconditional election go with Luke 19:41-44? Why would Jesus weep for those who was not willing to be gathered if Unconditional election is correct?

  5. If properly understood, the scriptures Will not contradict. Sovereign election simply means that God is sovereign and man is not. If you understanding this way, you Will have no Problem understanding all the seemingly contradicting pass ages. God bless you.

  6. why did god put the tree in the garden? to test man with  love which he is all about. without choice man is a robot an god did not make robots.an if that is so, then how could god be all loving.sending people to hell before they were born. why did GOD so love the world then- why send JESUS at all, if he already judged us before we were born. DONT the bible say that judgement comes at the end? why do calvanist say- i dont know why GOD DONT save EVERYONE. CAUSE HE CAN. yet GOD will damm many just beacuse HE CAN. this is non sense an ill quote CALVIN himself who said -i believe this but its a TERRIBLE DOCTRINE!

  7. "Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." Romans 14:13

    I can't think of a more adequate verse to describe the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate. Balancing ones entire theology on 1 or 2 words in Ancient Greek syntax. Pure Lunacy.! The Bible was written for everyday people so that everyday people could understand its meaning, without having to be taken apart word by word by the "theologians" of the day. Makes me angry that "scholars" try to interpret the bible in one form or fashion and instill doubt in the minds of believers.

  8. True point that it is not injustice to not predestine some for glory and others for damnation. Yes they are getting what they deserved. However, it does shed light on that such a Calvinistic God, has not shown mercy on some or on many when He had the free will, power and sovereignty to do so to fulfill 2 Pet 2:3 – God is not willing that any should perish but that all come to the knowledge of the truth".  Therefore, even  with perfect Justice, such on such a Calvinistic God lays the decision to not to pour out more grace which then presents another problem. Not choosing unconditionally to predestine all towards "regeneration, repentance & salvation" while  will  that did not want that any should perish is in  conflict with His "executed unconditional will" in not predestinating them to eternal life. If rather, we avoid this whole conflict by understanding that God pours out as much grace to the humble as they don't refuse by actively working against His will to save, then it is not of works, because they did nothing, in fact less that, those who did work against His will to save all. Now the conflict that the Calvinist has with such an apparent "condition" placed on God's predestination, namely, only giving grace to the humble – James 4:6 – is that salvation would seem to be a formula of two – God's grace + man's ability to receive it. This apparent conflict is not necessary nor possible. Since with God all things are possible, He did all of this predestination before the foundation of the world before man was even created. Only God existed. At that future time, man hadn't time, space or matter to express works, righteousness, free will nor humility. Therefore, it was only based on God's ability to move and experience the future, experience man's future receiving of God's grace, not actually man's actual humbling, receiving, turning etc…  With God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. Do you not believe that God could do this? Therefore, man was not involved nor even created and yet at the same time, God was not willing that any should perish. And even though God predestinated them to damnation, it was never that He was willing to predestinate them to perish but merely men who were very willing to perish. To God be the Glory.

  9. The un – elect and the elect both continue to sin the bible teaches when judgement comes those sinners called to Christ will be covered by his blood and god will not judge those for their sins , so belief in the total atonement of Christ's intercession is the way not to be judged ,it doesn't mean the elect become sinless  . When you are called the propensity to sin dies down in you and you want to follow the teachings of the bible ,you start to bear fruit , what I mean is ..you have experience  more love for the world and people , you don't get angry about things that you once did , your a better son a better dad and so on …. this is called regeneration which happens after your calling ( election ) you never achieve a sinless state ever !  trust me on that ,but you strive for it out of respect for god and his mercy . You don't know why because logic and common sense teaches us based on what we know in the world today and shows us God  cant be true. so you can see it is not a conscious decision to believe in something you  once didn't .  On the other side of the coin it is a beautiful fact that those who don't believe the word of god and his message and callings don't really care what it says !  as they feel it is fiction ! they view believers as deluded and fair enough why not ?  the word has not been made clear to them as absolute truth, no man can decide this on his own . True non believers are not afraid of a fictional judgement . So its a perfect marriage of believers and non believers . God in his infinite grace can show mercy where he pleases or not at all .

  10. READ VS 19-20
    there is no argument against this doctrine, only a rebuke. its solid, its mysterious and hard to take but its true amd its Gods word.

    Romans chapt 9
    What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

    “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
        and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

    16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g]18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

    19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h]21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

  11. If man has been predestined to perish wherefore is God's legal right to punish? Wherefore is sin? For if a man has been predestined to fulfill God's plan and he does so because he has no choice, then therefore whatever sins he does is because God predestined him to do, where is his sin?

    God therefore becomes the author of sin. So man was created to be what God predestined him to be, he has fulfilled God's plan, then he has obeyed God's will. Where then is man's sin?

    How can God proclaim a righteous wrath against those who do not obey His commands if He has predestined them not to obey His commands? How can God proclaim to be just when He creates a person to disobey Him, and then punishes that person for doing what he was predestined to do?

    So why would God predestine a person to love Him which is in essence God loving Himself through that person because that person has no choice? This doctrine of Calvin takes accountability and blame out of man's hands and throws it right into God's lap.

    If man creates a weapon and uses it to fulfill his plan to kill someone; who is guilty? the man who created the weapon or the weapon itself? In Genesis God says, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil" Does this mean we don't know how to choose between good and evil?

  12. There is a world of difference between true Biblical predestination versus Calvinism's perversion of it. Calvinism's version of "unconditional election" or "predestination" is in essence the same with Islam's belief in fatalism. Calvinism's "unconditional election" did come from the Bible, but was originated by Augustine ("St. Augustine") who is also the father of Roman Catholicism. Augustine's perverse concept was heavily embraced and further refined by John Calvin who admired and idolized Augustine.

    Augustine states, "That owing to one man all pass into condemnation who are born of Adam unless they are born again in Christ, even as He has appointed them to be regenerated, before they die in the body, whom He PREDESTINATED TO EVERLASTING LIFE, as the most merciful bestower of grace; while to those whom He HAS PREDESTINATED TO ETERNAL DEATH, He is also the most righteous awarder of punishment not only on account of the sins which they add in the indulgence of their own will, but also because of their original sin, even if, as in the case of infants, they add nothing thereto. Now this is my definite view on that question, so that the hidden things of God may keep their secret, without impairing my own faith." – Augustine, City of God, On the Soul and its Origin, Book 4, Chapter 16.

    John Calvin repeats the same false teaching in his "institutes of the christian religion":

    1) ….."salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it." – John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion – Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5.

    2) "We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, ETERNAL LIFE IS FORE-ORDAINED FOR SOME, ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR OTHERS." – John Calvin – Institutes of the Christian Religion – Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5.

    3) …"we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into SALVATION, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to DESTRUCTION…he has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation." – John Calvin – Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 7.

  13. Christians are not predestinated for eternal life as Calvinism falsely teaches. Saved people are predestinated for 3 things AFTER salvation which are future events:

    1) They are predestinated to be CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF CHRIST – Romans 8:29-30, 1 Corinthians 15:49 – And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Philippians 3:21 – Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. All saved people will be like Christ. We shall be like Him – 1 John 3:2. This is a future aspect at the Rapture.

    2) They are predestinated to have an INHERITANCE in heaven – Ephesians 1:11, John 14:2-4. Again, this is a future aspect.

    3) They are predestinated to have GLORIFIED ETERNAL BODIES OF FLESH AND BONE, the REDEMPTION OF OUR PHYSICAL BODIES just like Jesus resurrected body described in Luke 24:39, Ephesians 1:4-5, Romans 8:23, Christ's newly resurrected glorified body is the prototype of what is to come for all saved Christians at the RAPTURE – 1 Corinthians 15:51-54, 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17.

    Calvinism has hijacked the words, "chose", "chosen", "elect", "election" and "predestinate" and perverted the true definition. The true definition is NOT "chose", "chosen", "elect", "election" or "predestined" for salvation.

  14. Jacob and Esau was before Jesus' death and resurrection, thus grace was given to all and those who choose Jesus will be (not might be) saved. Paul said thur FAITH in Jesus, we are saved, not works. Fruit of this choice is fully disclosed so all could see, hear, and experience the love relationship among us.

  15. John 3:16New King James Version (NKJV)
    16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.**

    **However, if you are pondering this, don’t bother. Most are held in bondage by God and will not be able to understand or make a choice. If you weren’t sovereignly regenerated this will make no sense to you so you must be predetermined for eternal torment in hell.

  16. The  BIBLE says that HEAVEN rejoices to see that 1 sinner has repented and turned to GOD. Yet calvanism  says God Chooses to withhold his Grace too some   children and Condemms them to hell before they are Born an Jesus  rejoices In This.  Complete non-sense.

  17. 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13. What about that verse is unclear? So many false prophets like this one out there. Be wise people. Be wise.

  18. To Matt slick John MacArthure and all you hyper Calvinist including James White. Why do you use propitiation as expiation?
    Propitiation means to remove the wrath by the offering it does not mean forgiveness or expiation.
    The offering is Jesus and he is the one who is propitiates God the father’ wrath. The father is completely appeased and satisfied or propitiated with what Jesus did by his sacrifice and declares he judges no man in John 5:22.
    All authority and judgement has been given to Jesus who is coming back in wrath and to judge the world that’s called the day of the lambs wrath Rev 6:16.
    He expiate the sins of the sheep but he made the payment of propitiation to satisfy God the father’s wrath not for our sins only but the sins of the whole world. 1john 2:2 .
    Because the payment of propitiation declared in 2 Cor 5:19 by imputation the gospel is global.
    The world is invited to the father by Christ who will forgive anyone who comes to him. Clearly it can only be the elect.
    This time try to listen

    https://youtu.be/VaarhkI5LXo

  19. Calvinists often rail against Catholicism's later doctrines e.g, the immaculate conception; but Unconditional Election wasn't known to Christendom until the Belgic Confessions (1561). To be consistent, shouldn't Calvinists reconsider their position on the "U" in TULIP or admit that doctrines can change over time?

  20. Reformed theology is its doctrine ! " Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known me, stupid ". Luke 16 and I say to you:9…
    For then, to Adam He said, " Because you have heeded the voice of your wife and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, " you shall not eat of it ": I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. NOR will I destroy every living thing as I have done."…
    Elect!
    If you treat me like this # 11:15, please kill me here and now .
    If I have found favor in Your sight – and do not let me see My Wretchedness in Romans, for who will deliver me from this body of death ???

  21. I think this addresses this pretty persuasively I humbly submit. I think there is a bit of both going on….as so much that we as mere creatures can’t quite fathom. As God sits outside of space and time he is really creating everything as we speak….in a thought experiment this could perhaps answer this seeming foreknowledge paradox.

    http://lhim.org/blog/2014/04/11/a-free-will-perspective-on-romans-9-and-predestination/

  22. i have not found one place in scripture where someone is " elect " to salvation , only a task or purpose . if im missing something please provide it for me, thank you

  23. Is this totally mentally fucked, or what? Islam and Christianity are not religions. They are irreversible mental illnesses. I listened from the 8 minute to the 16 minute mark. What a load of consummate bullshit. Pernicious, arrogant bullshit. Now that this man is back in his expanded state once again, he realizes how incredibly stupid he was on earth and how he wasted an entire incarnation strutting his ego about. Christianity in particular only engenders arrogant pricks. This video explains the why and the how.

  24. Basically the Father grants a pardon to whom He wills … Those who refuse to accept this Biblical truth reject the Supreme sovereignty of God ..

  25. I split from Sproul on this issue.
    Calvin was either misunderstood in his definition of predestination, or we wrongly understand his definition, or he was wrong.

  26. If God elected on any other basis than the good pleasure of His will then His choice is determined by people. Either God is primary, ie, the first cause, in salvation, or man is primary. The Bible clearly teaches that God is the Author, the primary cause, not man.

  27. The Reformed views on the TULIP is 100% biblical either you get it or you don't it there interwoven in scripture as a thread from Gen-Rev.

  28. When I came to the reformed faith, from a lifetime of Arminianism, God became to me so much greater, holier, and revered. When God is not completely in control and sovereign over everything – everything, including salvation – then He’s greatly diminished, wringing His hands over the decisions of man.

  29. What about Genesis 25:22-23 Where it speaks of two nations.

    Genesis 25:22-23
    The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her,

    “Two nations are in your womb,
        and two peoples from within you  shall be divided;
    the one shall be stronger than the other,
        the older shall serve the younger.”

  30. I don't want to say which side I lean towards on this topic because I want this comment to be read without undermining, but I want every person here to know that it's ok to be in ignorance on this issue. This is not something worth dividing over. You are not adopted into the body of Christ by simply subscribing to Calvinism or Arminianism. It's by true repentance and genuine faith in Jesus Christ.
    John 13:35
    By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

  31. Lots of false equivalency in here.

    God has always worked with man and has always been pleased to save the humble.

    Election is corporate and reading yourself into Romans 9 is eisegesis. Reading yourself into John 6 and John 17 is narcissistic.

    Jacob and Esau represent nations.

  32. No the scripture said he knew Esau in the womb and hated his character. Conditional election is more correct.

  33. I think a lot of times we try to express using human language what our spirit understands about God. God's word is not contradictory, however, the human mind cannot fully comprehend the ways of God. Therefore, it seems to our minds that God's word contradicts itself. For example, when God told King Hezekiah that he would surely die and not recover it seemed the end. Yet, King Hezekiah prayed to the Lord and received additional 15 years. I think it's important to understand that we cannot explain all the ways of God. The same Jesus who said no man can come to me unless my Father in Heaven draws him to me is also the same Jesus who said whosoever come, let him come. So, as believers we need to learn how to hear from God in our spirit man and once our spirit man understands God's truth then it will no longer looks contradictory. Romans chapter 9 was not part of the Bible that I frequently went to when I was a baby Christ follower. After walking with the Lord over 20 years I now have no fear of Romans chapter nine because God has revealed it to me and my spirit man gets it even though my brain cannot explain it. Thank you Father.

  34. I would like to know more about this. I've never heard of it before but it makes complete sense to me. When God called me, it was very similar to how Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus. I had no intention of changing or living my life for God and within a split second my life was 100% different. I always wondered why God did that for me because i've never heard of that happening to anyone else, it always seems to me that people struggle really hard on their way to coming to Christ and it was effortless for me… now it makes sense! I am honoured that he chose me. It's so crazy.

  35. I hope R C is in heaven. A lot of head knowledge, but I just never saw God’s Holy Spirit in him. If unconditional election is true then the elect would/ will have no problem quoting the verse in scripture that shows they are called and they are the elect.

  36. If Unconditional Election is true, then there was absolutely no reason for God to give human beings a freewill or to make human beings free moral agents! In other words, we are nothing more than robots when it comes to God. Those who are the elect, have been programmed to respond to Him. And those who are not the elect, have not received the necessary programming.

  37. This is not interpretation of the Holy Spirit through scripture. What he interprets is scripture through a system that is called Calvinism after some man

  38. Jesus loves you all and is coming soon! ❤️ if you haven’t repented and turned from sin and accepted Jesus as Savior believing He died and rose again for you, today is perfect and scripture says that today is the day of salvation!!

  39. Anyone who suggests that God is capricious obviously does not know God, and is very close to blasphemy 😥

  40. The Institutes are an extensive read. The majority of professing Christians won't ever read it yet swear by it. And since there is so much material in Calvin's writings do reformists like Sproul disagree with anything Calvin wrote or should we just go ahead and canonize Calvin's literature?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *