Chapter Two
Unconditional Election

Double Predestination: Calvin's "Horrible Decree"

       The first and best discovery I made was that there was no "horrible decree" at all. Calvin had used this expression in connection with his belief that God in his sovereign good pleasure had predestined some people to be eternally lost for no fault of theirs. Calvin was compelled to say that because, if one thinks that God determines all that happens in the world... and not all are to be saved in the end... there is no way around it.... God wills whatever happens, so if there are to be lost people, God must have willed it. It was as logically necessary as it was morally intolerable.⁽¹⁾

       The subject under attack in the above paragraph is the doctrine of reprobation. This is the negative companion of unconditional election, the second point of Calvinism which we will discuss in this chapter. Both of these doctrines are to be found within the overall concept of absolute predestination, which is "that eternal act of God whereby He, in His sovereign good pleasure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them, chooses a certain number of men to be the recipients of special grace and eternal salvation."⁽²⁾ Calvin himself described predestination as "the eternal decree of God, by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death."⁽³⁾
       The doctrine of predestination, with its sub-doctrines of election and reprobation, cannot be properly understood apart from the biblical teachings regarding the condition of fallen man, for as Loraine Boettner rightly pointed out, it "follows by the most inescapable logic."⁽⁴⁾ If totally depraved men cannot of themselves respond favorably to the Gospel, and yet some obviously do in fact believe and are saved, then no other conclusion remains than that their salvation is the result of God's sovereign choice. Obviously, then, the election, or choosing, of some to eternal life, necessitates the reprobation, or rejection, of others to eternal death. While the first implies positive action by God, as will be shown, the latter implies negative action. In other words, God directly acts upon some men so as to save them, and does not act upon others, thereby ensuring that they will be judged and damned for their own sinfulness.⁽⁵⁾ Since He who acts or does not act is eternal, so also is the foreordination of each man's destiny eternal, thus rendering both human belief and human unbelief necessary to God's decree. It is this fine, yet very important, distinction that is invariably misunderstood by the Arminian masses, who cannot relinquish the false assumption that Calvinists believe that God is the author of sin.⁽⁶⁾
       In writing on predestination, John Calvin once stated, "The human mind, when it hears this doctrine, cannot restrain its petulance, but boils and rages as if aroused by the sound of a trumpet."⁽⁷⁾ This is no less true in our own day simply because human nature has not changed over the last five hundred years. Fallen man's stubborn refusal to view himself as spiritually dead in sin is perhaps the sole reason for the existence of the Calvinist-Arminian debate. The late John Gerstner explained that the person who rejects predestination does so because "he invariably believes... [that] man apart from election is able to believe and be saved."⁽⁸⁾ Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve, it has been an inherent flaw in man's nature to flee self-accusation. And yet, while "passing the buck" when it comes to his own sin, man is amazingly quick to take credit for what he perceives to be acts of personal righteousness. The companion doctrines of unconditional election and reprobation are so naturally abhorrent because they confront both of these fleshly impulses head-on. Not only does the preaching of these doctrines force men to admit their guilt and helpless condition before God, but it also deprives them of the satisfaction of having a partnership in the work of salvation. Predestination leans obtrusively upon the weaknesses of the flesh and hangs ominously like a dark cloud over sinful man's imagined paradise. Thus, when brought face-to-face with God's absolute sovereignty, "the flesh whimpers... and begs like Agag for a little mercy."⁽⁹⁾
       This unfortunate truth is perhaps no more clearly seen than in the writings of Clark Pinnock. Although he claimed to have been "converted" to Arminianism through a diligent study of the Scriptures, Pinnock repeatedly used such terms as "morally intolerable" and "morally loathsome" in his arguments against the doctrine of unconditional predestination,⁽¹⁰⁾ and described his acceptance of the Arminian "alternative" as an "immense relief."⁽¹¹⁾ It would seem that, rather than actually being instructed by the Bible, Pinnock was instead driven to his conclusions by his own emotions. Sadly, such is the case with most adherents to Arminianism. Jerry Walls, for example, wrote the following:

       On the face of it, it does not seem right that God should choose to damn persons who were never free either to choose good or to obey God. It does not seem right that salvation and damnation are distributed solely on the basis of God's arbitrary will, independent of anything human beings do or do not do....
       [Calvinism] requires us to believe God is right in unconditionally damning whomever he wills, even though this deeply offends our sense of justice.⁽¹²⁾

       Frank Schaeffer, son of the late Francis Schaeffer, recently stated that the God of the Reformation "emerged as a, if not the, Devil" (emphasis in original), and then went on to write: "Ironically, the 'God' that the Calvinists invented was also reduced to near impotence by theoretically being portrayed as monstrously omnipotent. The Calvinist 'God' was a great unfathomable Zeus-like computer in the sky who arbitrarily saved some while damning others — an irrational, perhaps berserk, Augustinian phenomenon no more loving or predictable than a forest fire."⁽¹³⁾
       Laurence Vance referred to predestination as "the most obscene, vulgar, pagan, godless blasphemy that could ever be uttered."⁽¹⁴⁾ These men are merely following the example of their predecessor, John Wesley, who likewise condemned predestination for supposedly representing God "as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, and more unjust."⁽¹⁵⁾ This doctrine was even the subject of some of his satirical poetry:

       God, ever merciful and just, with newborn babes did Tophet fill;
       Down into endless torments thrusts; merely to show His sovereign will.
       This is that "Horrible Decree"! This is that wisdom from beneath!
       God (O detest the Blasphemy) hath pleasure in the sinner's death.⁽¹⁶⁾

       It is evident that this doctrine evokes a very strong emotional reaction in the mind of the Arminian, who, as J.I. Packer pointed out, "even in salvation cannot bear to renounce the delusion of being master of his fate and captain of his soul."⁽¹⁷⁾ In discerning spiritual truth, the Christian, however, is never to be led by what "seemeth right" (Proverbs 14:12), or even "natural," but by the written Word of God alone. The accusation that "the Calvinist rams his doctrines of election and predestination into every conceivable Scripture text"⁽¹⁸⁾ is certainly unfounded, for the Bible clearly teaches these important doctrines.

The Logical Necessity of Absolute Predestination

       In his essay, Clark Pinnock defined predestination as "God's setting goals for people rather than forcing them to enact the preprogrammed decrees,"⁽¹⁹⁾ and "an all-inclusive set of goals and not an all-determining plan."⁽²⁰⁾ He then went on to interpret Romans 8:29 to mean that God's plan (or hope) for every man or woman is that they will be conformed to "the image of his Son," but that the decision "to go down that path" is ultimately theirs to make: "The banquet of salvation has been set for all people. God has provided plenteous redemption in the work of Christ, sufficient for the salvation of the entire race of sinners. All that remains for any individual to benefit from what was accomplished for him is to respond to the good news and enter into the new relationship with God that has been opened up for all persons."⁽²¹⁾
       Pinnock's remarks would be heartily echoed by virtually every one of his fellow Arminians. For example, popular author and speaker Dave Hunt likewise voiced his objections to the Calvinist understanding of predestination by writing, "It would be a libel upon God's character (as well as a denial of the clear teaching of many Scriptures), to say that He is able, but unwilling, to save all."⁽²²⁾ Since this objection is a common one, let us examine the logic behind it. First of all, there are only three options available to us in dealing with God's plan of redemption. Either He is unwilling, yet quite able, to save all, or He is quite willing, yet unable to save all, or He is both willing and able. The first option (the Calvinist position) is rejected by Hunt as a "libel upon God's character," and yet that is precisely the end result of the other two options. A God who is willing to save all, yet unable to do so for any reason whatsoever, as in the second option, cannot be the all-powerful God who has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. This is the position taken by the Arminian who insists that God's "desire" that all mankind be saved can be thwarted by the lack of faith on the part of the objects of His "affection." On the other hand, if the third option is true, and God is both willing and able to save all men, then, if the omnipotence of the Creator is not again to be called into question, all must surely be saved. Many Arminian writers have espoused this position while attempting to avoid the obvious heresy of Universalism which is the necessary consequence, and yet, in doing so, they must revert back to the second option when asked why all men are not ultimately saved after all. "Because they do not exercise faith in Christ," is the predictable answer — implying, of course, that God is not really able to save all men, but that He is only willing to do so.
       Far from slandering the character of God, as the critics of Calvinism claim, the doctrine that God is quite able to save all, but is nevertheless selective in the bestowal of His grace, both upholds His omnipotence and His sovereignty. Surely God's love is not denigrated in any way by this proposal, but is magnified far beyond our comprehension. When we consider the terrible depths of the depravity of the human race, and the blasphemy and hatred that the Creator has patiently endured for six thousand years, it is amazing grace indeed that He should choose to save anyone. Like Pinnock, who complained that Calvinism teaches that men are condemned "for no fault of theirs," the Arminian often fails to fully understand that God's infinite holiness is libeled every day that wicked men continue to exist and by every breath that proceeds from their nostrils. However, in His equally infinite mercy, He has graciously selected some from among this accursed mass to be recipients of His favor and to be adopted into His own eternal family.
       Hence, in the words of John Calvin, God "does not pay a debt [to man], a debt which never can be due."⁽²³⁾ It is man who is indebted to God, not vice versa, and it is therefore no injustice on His part to extend pardon to some and to withhold it from others. God's sovereign election of some men for salvation is therefore wholly merciful, while His reprobation of others to eternal damnation, though equally sovereign, is wholly righteous. If the former group receive what they did not deserve, and the latter what they did deserve, how can this be denounced as injustice? It cannot be. John Gill wrote:

       ...[O]ur doctrine represents God as merciful, yea more merciful than that which is opposite to it; since, according to our doctrine, God, of His abundant grace and mercy, has determined to give pardoning, regenerating, and persevering grace to a certain number of men, whereby they shall be infallibly saved, when He denies it to others; whereas, according to the contrary scheme, God has not absolutely chosen one single person to salvation; but His choice proceeds upon their faith, repentance, and perseverance; which also are left to the power and will of man; so that at most, the salvation of every man is precarious and uncertain, nay, I will venture to say, entirely impossible.⁽²⁴⁾

Arminians Misunderstand God's Foreknowledge

       The primary biblical text which teaches the doctrine of predestination is Romans 8:29-30: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Taken at face value, this passage alone should be sufficient to prove that God does indeed select some from the family of man upon whom to bestow His grace. The logical reverse of this is that He also rejects or passes over others, thus predestinating them to eternal damnation. Such a conclusion, however, is unacceptable to the Arminian mind which cannot bear to think that a "God of love" would ever restrict salvation to but a few. Thus, a perversion of this passage is the only alternative left to "falling prey" to the "horrible decree" of Calvinism.
       The typical Arminian response to the Apostle Paul's words in the eighth chapter of Romans is to misinterpret the word foreknow. For example, W.E. Vine defined foreknowledge by stating that God "foreknows the exercise of faith which brings salvation."⁽²⁵⁾ Henry Thiessen likewise wrote, "By election we mean that sovereign act of God in grace whereby He chose in Christ Jesus for salvation all those whom He foreknew would accept Him."⁽²⁶⁾ In other words, God supposedly looked down through the corridors of time, foresaw those who would freely exercise faith in His Son, and, on that basis, elected them to salvation. The logical problems with this interpretation are obvious. One might inquire of the Arminian which came first — the sovereign election of God or the autonomous choice of man? If the former, how can the choice really be said to have been that of man's own free will? If the latter, how can the election be said to have been the sovereign prerogative of the Creator? There are no adequate answers to these questions.⁽²⁷⁾
       However, if we apply the biblical definition of eternality to God's election of believers, as we must in light of such passages as Ephesians 1:4 and Revelation 17:8, we are driven to conclude that such an election is utterly transcendent of time and therefore is not contingent in any way upon the actions or wills of finite men. Furthermore, the belief that God's omniscience merely refers to the ability to look forward in time is a complete misunderstanding of that particular attribute. The eternal God knows all things simply because He sees them as one collective present and therefore must have ordained them, either by His causative or His permissive will.
       Moreover, the Arminian interpretation falls apart when it is taken into consideration that the Greek verb proginosko (foreknow) indicates much more than a simple precognition, as if God merely witnesses an event or an act (such as the exercise of faith) in advance. Even Arminian theologian Charles Ryrie conceded to the Calvinists' interpretation of this word when he wrote, "God related Himself to people before time in some way so that there is a causative connection which makes foreknew practically equivalent to predestine or foreordain."⁽²⁸⁾ This meaning is clearly seen in the usage of the noun prognosis (foreknowledge) in Acts 2:23, where it is equated with God's "determinate counsel" regarding the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This cannot be misconstrued to mean that the Father merely foreordained the death of His Son on the basis of His foreknowledge that it would happen, because the perpetrators of the great crime merely did "whatsoever [His] hand and [His] counsel determined before to be done" (Acts 4:28). The reference to Christ as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8) proves beyond all argument that God's foreknowledge, at least in this instance, is inseparable from His will, and must therefore be seen as causative and not derivative.
       It is apparent that the Greek verb proginosko and its root verb ginosko are directly connected to the Hebrew word yada, which frequently suggests an intimate knowledge of, or a relationship with, a "familiar friend" or a "kinsman."⁽²⁹⁾ As such, this word was used to describe the marital relationship between man and wife (Genesis 4:1).⁽³⁰⁾ This underlying meaning of personal intimacy is carried over into the New Testament, in which we find Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 8:3 that "if any man love God, the same is known of him." This same meaning is likewise found in Galatians 4:9 as well as 2 Timothy 2:19. Interestingly enough, the latter is really a quotation of Numbers 16:5, in which the Hebrew word yada is found. Thus, the Apostle, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, obviously saw the connection between ginosko, proginosko, and yada, even though Arminians refuse to see it.
       In writing on Romans 8:2-30, John Calvin stated:

       ...[W]e are all lost in Adam. Unless God Himself had by His election redeemed us from ruin, there would have been nothing but ruin to foresee.... The foreknowledge of God... which Paul mentions here, is not a mere knowing beforehand, as some ignorant people imagine in their stupid way. It is rather the act of adoption, by which God has always distinguished His children from those who are reprobate.... It follows that God's knowing the elect rests upon His own good pleasure, because He foreknew nothing outside of Himself which led Him to will the adoption of sons. He marked some for election according to His own good pleasure.⁽³¹⁾

Election and God's Sovereign Will

       Another verse that can be cited in support of absolute predestination is Ephesians 1:4-5, which reads: "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." There is, in this verse, no mention whatsoever of God's foreknowledge, much less of it as the basis of election. Rather, Paul clearly stated that God's adoption of sinners as His children is solely "according to the good pleasure of his will." John Gill wrote, "...[T]his text proves that this eternal election of particular persons to salvation is absolute, unconditional, and irrespective of faith, holiness, good works, and perserverance, as the moving causes of conditions of it...."⁽³²⁾
       Another passage with the same meaning is Romans 9:10-24. Paul not only explicitly denied here that "the purpose of God according to election" (verse 11) depends upon "him that willeth, nor of him that runneth" (verse 16) but went on to write:

       Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.... Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (verses 18, 21-24).

       Calvin referred to Romans 9:6-29 as "that memorable passage from Paul which alone ought easily to compose [settle] all controversy among sober and compliant children of God."⁽³³⁾ Indeed, these verses so clearly define election and reprobation in terms of unconditionality that it is understandable why so few Arminians are willing to comment on them.⁽³⁴⁾
       The Arminian insistence that election is contingent upon God's foresight of faith also directly contradicts such passages as 1 Peter 1:2, which clearly teaches that believers were foreknown and chosen for, not because of, obedience to Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:10 likewise states that Christians were saved to do good works, not because of them.⁽³⁵⁾ Certainly, the exercise of faith in Christ is itself a "good work" (John 6:28-29), and since Scripture declares, as we have already seen, that "it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8), it would be erroneous to assert that God did not sovereignly choose those whom He was pleased to save:

       Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruth and that your fruit should remain....
       If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you (John 15:16a, 18-19).

         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 (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

The Logical Absurdity of "Corporate Election"

       Another argument used to support the Arminian rejection of God's sovereign election of certain men for salvation is the doctrine of corporate election, or eternal ecclesiastical election. Adherents to this doctrine claim that God has "elected" a corporate body of people to salvation (the Church), but inclusion in that group is left open to each individual's own choice. Consequently, all of mankind has been "elected" to salvation in Christ, but only those who actually place their faith in Him have fulfilled their election.
       This view was held by German theologian Karl Barth, who was accused by many of his contemporaries of teaching a form of universalism. Barth interpreted such passages as 2 Corinthians 5:19, which speaks of the reconciliation of "the world" in Christ, to mean that the Savior's death obliterated the barrier of sin which separated every man from God, and that all are now equal recipients of God's grace and love. Most Lutheran theologians today would heartily agree with Barth in asserting that "in Christ Jesus, God has declared the entire world of sinners forgiven."⁽³⁶⁾ Thus, modern Lutheranism, which is at best "four-point Calvinism," categorically denies the biblical teaching of a particular redemption, which will be discussed in the next chapter.
       For those Arminians who have come to the realization that God's foreknowledge cannot be interpreted biblically in terms of mere foresight, the idea of a corporate election offers yet another opportunity to escape the "horrible decree" of predestination. However, corporate election is just as indefensible from a scriptural, as well as a logical, standpoint.
       At best, the concept of corporate election is a half-truth. It is obvious that God predestined the Church, or the Body of Christ, to be seated in heavenly places and to partake of His eternal blessing as His own chosen people. Indeed, no Calvinist would ever attempt to deny such a proposal. However, the logic of Pinnock and others who hold to this view is shown to be hopelessly flawed when they conclude that "in this way, election, far from arbitrarily excluding anybody, encompasses them all potentially."⁽³⁷⁾ What, we might ask in response, is the Church but the gathering together of real individuals? The Body of Christ is certainly not some amorphous entity made up of "potential" members whom God in His divine ignorance hoped some day would enter therein by an act of their own free will, but a vibrant organism made up of actual believers and servants of Christ.
       In attempting to avoid the obvious problem of the Arminian definition of foreknowledge as it relates to individuals, the proponents of corporate election are nevertheless faced with the very same problem. As we have already seen, foreknowledge in the biblical sense of the word clearly implies personal intimacy. Since the Bible declares that God foreknew His Church, how can it possibly be asserted that He did not really know those who would ultimately be included in that body?⁽³⁸⁾ Clearly, His foreknowledge and election was of individuals (Acts 13:48; Revelation 13:8), and therefore corporate election is not only biblically disproved, but is also shown to be a logical absurdity.

Does Calvinism Really Discourage Evangelism?

       The Arminian charge against Calvinism at this point is that the system does not encourage, and even discourages, evangelism. John Wesley, referred to by Charles Spurgeon as the "prince of Arminians,"⁽³⁹⁾ spoke for all anti-Calvinists when he wrote:

       Call it therefore by whatever name you please, Election, Preterition, Predestination, or Reprobation, it comes in the end to the same thing. The sense of all is plainly this: By virtue of an eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, one part of mankind are infallibly saved and the rest infallibly damned; it being impossible that any of the former should be damned, or that any of the latter should be saved. But if this be so, then is all preaching in vain.⁽⁴⁰⁾

       However, when taking into consideration that the means of evangelism is as essential to God's decree as the end of the salvation of the elect, this objection is shown to be very weak. Preaching the Gospel is just as much a duty of the obedient Christian as is living a holy life. Believers are commanded by Scripture to share their faith with others, for it is through the message of the cross that men are saved: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?... So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:13-14, 17).
       The same Christ who instructed His followers to "go... into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15), also said in John 14:21, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." The truly regenerate heart will be compelled to evangelize others because it is driven to obey its Master: "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Corinthians 9:16-17). Actually, it is Arminian theology that does injustice to biblical evangelism by insisting that God needs the cooperation of fallen men in order to save them. The Calvinist minister, on the other hand, while understanding that only the elect will be saved, and this solely by God's sovereign power and grace, nevertheless does not know who these individuals are, and therefore preaches the Gospel message to everyone without discrimination.⁽⁴¹⁾ In the presentation of the Gospel, he is aware that, while it is erroneous to declare that Christ died for all, it is nevertheless true that each and every man is guilty before God for his sins and will be eternally damned for them if he does not come to Christ seeking forgiveness. Thus, while it is true that all men need to, and in fact, have a duty to repent, it is not true, in light of the fallen condition of the human heart, that all men are desirous and therefore capable of repentance.
       Not only does the Arminian once again misunderstand Calvinism here, he also shows himself to be ignorant of much of Church history. If indeed Calvinism discourages evangelism, as is claimed, then one might justifiably ask how it is that nearly all of the greatest evangelists since the Protestant Reformation have been either five-point Calvinists, or extremely inconsistent Arminians. As we have seen, Charles Spurgeon, whose devotional writings are widely read by Calvinists and Arminians alike, and whose preaching resulted, by God's grace, in thousands of converts, referred to Calvinism as "the gospel, and nothing else," and viewed his own ministry as a "daily labour to revive the old doctrines of Gill, Owen, Calvin, Augustine, and Christ" (emphasis in original).⁽⁴²⁾ Jonathan Edwards was also a staunch Calvinist, as were renowned Puritan preachers John Owen, perhaps the greatest expositors of the doctrine of Limited Atonement, and John Bunyan, whose Pilgrim's Progress is still received as a classic work without equal by, not only Arminians, but the secular world as well. Even such men as John and Charles Wesley, though Arminian in ideology, proved to be Calvinists in practice, not only many times in their evangelism, but in the composition of some of the most beloved hymns of the Church.
       The following comments of Spurgeon are conclusive:

       The greatest missionaries that have ever lived have believed in God's choice of them; and instead of this doctrine leading to inaction, it has ever been an irresistible motive power, and it will be so again. It was the secret energy of the Reformation. It is because free grace has been put into the background that we have seen so little done in many places. It is in God's hand the great force which can stir the church of God to its utmost depth. It may not work superficial revivals, but for deep work it is invaluable. Side by side with the blood of Christ, it is the world's hope.⁽⁴³⁾

Endnotes

1. Pinnock, "From Augustine to Arminius," page 19.

2. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, page 114.

3. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter XXI, Section 5.

4. Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, page 95.

5. Perhaps John Gill was correct in suggesting that the term rejection be substituted for reprobation due to the "wrong and frightful ideas" associated with the latter (A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity [Paris, Arkansas: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1987], page 192).

6. See Appendix One.

7. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter XXIII, Section 1.

8. John Gerstner, A Predestinarian Primer (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), page 12.

9. Tozer, Pursuit of God, page 101.

10. Pinnock, "From Augustine to Arminius," page 19.

11. Pinnock, ibid., page 21.

12. Jerry L. Walls, essay: "Divine Commands, Predestination, and Moral Intuition," Grace of God/Will of Man, pages 262-263, 265.

13. Frank Schaeffer, Dancing Alone (Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1994), pages 70, 87.

14. Vance, Other Side of Calvinism, page 159.

15. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979), Volume VII, page 382.

16. Wesley, quoted by Alan P. Sell, The Great Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982), page 72.

17. J.I. Packer, "Introductory Essay," in John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), page 9.

18. Vance, Other Side of Calvinism, page 104.

19. Pinnock, "From Augustine to Arminius," page 20.

20. Pinnock, ibid., page 21.

21. Pinnock, ibid., page 19.

22. Dave Hunt, What Ever Happened to Heaven? (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 1990), page 276.

23. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter XXI, Section 1.

24. John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1971), page 151.

25. Vine, Expository Dictionary, page 459.

26. Theissen, Introductory Lectures, page 344.

27. R.P. Francisco Suarez offered the following as a possible answer to this question:

       The efficacy of this call consists in this, that God, in His infinite wisdom foreseeing what each cause or will shall do in every event and occasion, if placed in it, also knows when and to which vocation each will shall give assent if it [the call] is given. Therefore, when He wills to convert a man He wills also to call him at that time and in that way in which He knows he will consent, and such a vocation is called efficacious because, although of itself it does not have an infallible effect, yet inasmuch as it is subject to such divine knowledge it shall infallibly have it (De Concursu et Auxilio Dei [Ludovicum Vives, 1856-1878; Carolo Berton, editor], III:14:9).

       Thus, God's election of believers is not seen as effective in and of itself, but only because He infallibly knows what circumstances will effectively influence each man to respond favorably to His calling. Though this explanation (known as congruism) attempts to deny the Calvinist understanding of election in one way, it actually affirms it in another. Whether the election itself is viewed as efficacious, or the circumstances into which God places men so as to efficaciously influence them towards conversion, the end result is that men are efficaciously converted by God's sovereign will.

28. Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1986), page 313.

29. James Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible (McLean, Virginia: MacDonald Publishing Company, n.d.), page 46.

30. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek in the Third Century B.C., the resulting Septuagint specifically used ginosko to translate the Hebrew yada when personal relationships were in view. The Septuagint was widely used by the Jews in the time of Christ, and was therefore the primary source of the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament.

31. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993), pages 317-318.

32. Gill, Cause of God, page 85.

33. John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (Cambridge, England: James Clarke and Company, Ltd., 1961), 5:3.

34. John Wesley, however, felt compelled to respond to Calvin's usage of Romans 9:6-29 in support of unconditional predestination by writing, "Whatever that scripture proves, it never can prove this doctrine [predestination]; whatever its true meaning be, this cannot be its true meaning.... But this I know, better it were to say it had no sense at all, than to say it had such a sense as this.... No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works; that is, whatever it prove beside, no scripture can prove predestination" (Works of Wesley, Volume VII, page 383). Wesley was so confirmed in his rejection of unconditional predestination that he preferred to view certain passages of Scripture as nonsensical rather than admit that they clearly taught the doctrine. As is the case with most Arminians, Wesley's emotions became the hermeneutical rule for his interpretation of the Bible and his understanding of God Himself, thus proving true Calvin's observation: "Like water gushing forth from a large a copious spring, immense crowds of gods have issued from the human mind, every man giving himself full license, and devising some peculiar form of divinity, to meet his own views" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter V, Section 12).

35. It is ironic that Calvinists are often accused of succombing to legalism when it is actually the Arminian who is guilty of teaching such a false system of salvation. Spurgeon wrote:

       Do you not see at once that this is legality [legalism] — that this is hanging our salvation upon our work — that this is making our eternal life to depend on something we do? Nay, the doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works, after all; for he always thinks faith is a work of the creature, and a condition of his acceptance. It is as false to say that man is saved by faith as a work, as that he is saved by the deeds of the Law. We are saved by faith as the gift of God, and as the first token of His eternal favour to us; but it is not faith as our work that saves, otherwise we are saved by works, and not by grace at all (quoted by Murray, Forgotten Spurgeon, pages 80-81).

       Calvin likewise wrote, "Unless these points are put beyond controversy, though we may ever and anon repeat like parrots that we are justified by faith, we shall never hold the true doctrine of justification. It is not a whit better to be secretly seduced from the alone foundation of salvation than to be openly driven from it" (quoted by Murray, ibid., page 76).

36. Don Matzat, Christ Esteem (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1990), page 88.

37. Pinnock, "From Augustine to Arminius," page 19.

38. Pinnock stated, "...[T]he idea of corporate election would have had the further advantage of not requiring absolute divine omniscience...." (ibid., page 20). It is difficult to understand how Pinnock could possibly see the rank denial of an essential attribute of God as an "advantage," but at least he rightly viewed such a conclusion as a necessity of his premise.

39. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Volume I, page 173.

40. Wesley, quoted by Sell, Great Debate, page 73.

41. Of this notion, William MacDonald wrote, "It is ultimately a faithless question, arising out of false presuppositions about God, to ask, 'Am I elect?'" (essay: "The Biblical Doctrine of Election," Grace of God/Will of Man, page 225; emphasis in original). MacDonald's complaint is unwarranted, for this is simply not a question that will ever be asked by the reprobate who has no regard for either God or his own soul. This question would also not be asked by the believer who truly understands God grace, for without divine intervention, he, like the reprobate, would not even give it a second thought.

42. Spurgeon, quoted by Murray, Forgotten Spurgeon, page 58.

43. Spurgeon, quoted by Murray, ibid., page 113.