Calvinism: Herschel Hobbs & Timothy George

Today is posted the first of two essays originally published in The Alabama Baptist in 1995.  We thank that paper for their generosity in giving permission to post these essays here.  I am following the order in which the essays first appeared in the original publication  >>>

This week's essay belongs to the pen of the late Dr. Herschel Hobbs.  Next week, Dr. Timothy George.  Their assigned subject was Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention.  I trust the reader will be enriched by both of these great Baptist scholars.

The late Dr. Herschel Hobbs really needs no official introduction--especially if one has been a Southern Baptist for any length of time.  From 1949 until 1973, Dr. Hobbs was Pastor at what would then be considered, by even today's standard, a mega-Church--the historic First Baptist Church, Oklahoma City.

Dr. Hobbs was a true Baptist statesman and leader at most every level of Baptist life.  One of his greatest achievements was serving as Chair of the committee that wrote the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message.  Dr. Hobbs received his Ph.D in New Testament interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary studying under the world renowned Greek scholar, Professor A.T. Robertson. 

Today's essay, orginally published as a short editorial on June 22, 1995, is entitled "God's Sovereignty and Man's Free Will."  He went to be with the Lord only a few short months after penning this article making it among the last of his prolific writing ministry...>>>

At the close of Billy Graham’s first London Crusade, a Church of England clergyman said that Billy Graham set Christianity back a hundred years.  Hearing of this, he said, “I am disappointed.  I had hoped to set it back 2,000 years.”

From recent articles, we are told that a small group of Southern Baptist scholars seeks a revival of five-point Calvinism.  They propose to restore our theology to that of the 19th century.  Among others, they cite James P. Boyce. 

Writers note that about the turn of the century, Southern Baptists saw a shift from that extreme position to a more moderate one.  Mentioned in this regard are E. Y. Mullins and W.T. Conner.  Some of them would even claim that the Apostle Paul as holding to the Calvinistic view.  Such seems to be putting the cart before the horse by about 1,500 years.  That is the reason for this article.  At the risk of being misunderstood, I am more interested in what Jesus said and Paul wrote than what Boyce, Dagg, et al wrote.

So, like Billy Graham, we do not need to go back to the 19th or even to the 16th century.  We need to go back to the first century.

Calvin emphasized God’s sovereignty to the neglect of man’s free will, both of which are abundantly taught in the Bible.  More specifically, Calvin held that before the foundation of the world God elected certain individuals to be saved to the neglect of all others.  This is contrary to the very nature of God! 

Recognizing the place of faith, those who follow Calvin say that only the elect believe in Jesus as Savior.  As I understand it, the opposite is true.  Believers are the elect.  I agree with Frank Stagg that election is not “a rigged television show.”

While Paul refers to election elsewhere, his extended treatment of that doctrine is found in Ephesians.  Space forbids a thorough treatment of this epistle (see my New Men in Christ, Word, 1974, out of print).  But I want to point out some salient facts in Ephesians.

In essence, Paul says that God elected a plan of salvation (Eph. 1-2) and a people to propagate the plan (Eph. 3.1-6.20).  But man is free to accept or reject either or both of them.

In Ephesians 1.4, we find the words “hath chosen.”  This translates exelexato (ex, elexato).  The latter Greek word has been anglicized as elected.  The preposition ex intensifies the verb elexato.  But note that Paul says that God elected us "in Him" or in God in Christ.  "God was in Christ, reconciling the world (not a selected few) unto Himself" (2Cor. 5.19).

"In love" (v.4, KJV) more likely belongs in verse 5.  "In love having predestinated us."  Whatever God did, He did it in love (1Jn.4.8).

Unfortunately, many tend to interpret the English "predestinated" rather than the Greek word proorisas.  The basic verb is horizo [which means], among other things, to set a boundary.  From it comes "horizon," the limit or boundary of your vision from where you stand.  The prefix pro means beforehand. So, to set a boundary beforehand. I liken it to a fence around a piece of land. The fence is Christ. In 11 verses (1:3-13), Paul uses "in Christ" or its equivalent 11 times (Greek text). So whatever God did, He did it "in love" and  "in Christ."

"According to the good pleasure of his will" expresses God's sovereignty, which means that He can act in accord with His nature and purpose as redeeming love without the advice or consent of anyone outside Himself.

However, the Bible also teaches the free will of man as a person made in God's image. To violate man's free will would make him less than a person, only a puppet dangled on the string of fate. The Bible never teaches that. Man is free to choose but is responsible to God for his choices. Otherwise God Himself is responsible for man's sin, which is unthinkable!

The free will of man is seen in Ephesians 1.13: "After that ye believed" or "believing." Exercising faith is an act of the human will. To say that only those chosen by God can believe is to ignore the plain teachings of the New Testament. If this be true, then Jesus' commission to evangelize the world and the many pleas for lost people to believe in Him for salvation are meaningless.

God's election of a people to propagate His plan refers to the church (Eph. 1.22-23). In Ephesians 3.10-11, Paul wrote that there "might be known by [dia, through an intermediate agent] the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord."

First Peter 2.1-10 clearly identifies the church as God's chosen people "which in time past were not a people [a constituted nation], but are now the people of God." But like the plan any segment of God's people can accept or reject this role--but they are responsible to God for the choice made.

In 1814 the Baptists of the United States divided over the issue of evangelism and missions. The anti-missionary group (hyper-Calvinists) have dwindled almost to the vanishing point. The group committed to evangelism and missions has flourished.

Southern Baptists, the most committed, are the largest non-Catholic religious body in the nation. If we counted infants as do Roman Catholics, it is possible that the Southern Baptist Convention could well be the largest in the nation. And Southern Baptists have experienced their greatest growth since 1900!

Hyper-Calvinism offers no incentive for evangelism and missions. I recall hearing George W. Truett say,"The church that is not missionary does not deserve the ground upon which its building stands. For the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein."

God in Christ has done all that even God can do to provide redemption for a lost humanity. But each person through faith in His redeeming Son must receive it for himself. Refusal to do so means such a person is lost without hope. Those who receive it receive eternal life. Christians and Christian bodies who of their own free will refuse to become God's people to propagate His plan of salvation have saved souls but wasted lives.

If all of the Bible was lost except John 3.16, in this gospel within the gospel is the ability to save a lost humanity. And what does it say to us?  "For God so loved the world [not certain ones in it], that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever [anyone, anywhere, anytime] believeth [an act of man's free will] in him should not perish [be lost, destroyed, or go to hell], but have everlasting life." This in not hyper-Calvinism but the gospel in a nutshell.

===================================

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Keith Schooley]

Nice article, Peter. I would add to Dr. Hobbs's arguments regarding Ephesians the fact that Ephesians as a whole is largely about the unification of Jewish and Gentile believers into one people of God. The "election passages" in chapters one and two need to be interpreted in that larger context. Paul is essentially telling the Gentile believers that just as "we" (Jews) were chosen by God, so "you also" (Gentile believers) are not an afterthought or a second-class people of God. You were chosen just as we were chosen. And the election of the Jews, as even Calvin has to admit, was of the nation as a whole, in which individuals could either choose to participate or choose to reject (most did the latter).

In my opinion, the election passages of both Romans and Ephesians are precisely about this paradigm shift: from the people of God defined as an nation based on ethnicity and adherence to the Torah to the people of God defined as all who respond to the Gospel with faith in Jesus. But we forget the historical context in which these letters were written. Calvinists essentially take that paradigm shift for granted, assume an individual focus in election, and the rest of their interpretation of the passages flows logically from these two incorrect assumptions.

[peter]

Keith,

Thanks Keith. And a great follow up comment.

For me, I think about the new generation of young evangelical scholars--especially in my own SBC context--and wonder if they may be too much weighted down with "theological" interpretation of the Bible and too little raw exegesis of the text, which, of course, should be primary in our understanding of theology. I think this may be part of your point when you say "Calvinists...assume an individual focus in election, and the rest of their interpretation of the passages flows logically from these two incorrect assumptions."

I know not a few university students already deeply committed to a strict Calvinistic worldview and that, before they've even taken NT 101 or an advanced exegetical course on a book like Ephesians.

To be fair, I'm quite sure it is not a phenomenon peculiar to Calvinism alone nor should Calvinism be summarily dismissed a priori.

I guess I'm advocating. as much as is possible, that sober, contextual Biblical interpretation should precede committing one's self to "partisan" theological conclusions.

Have a great day. With that, I am...

Peter

[selahV]

Peter: why can't someone (and maybe someone has) produce a Bible that Amplifies the Greek and Hebrew meanings of words in[brackets] so people like me can read the Bible and understand the meanings without having to study Greek and Hebrew? There are so many versions out today that say what someone thinks they say, it is no wonder so many think they say something they don't say. I read with interest what people write when they quote a scripture and I go back and read that scripture in several of my husband's thirty some versions. Then I sit and pray and wonder which version best interprets the verse I'm trying to understand. Then I go to a bunch of commentaries and those are written by men with varying positions of interpretation based on their versions of whatever Bible they are reading.
I am grateful for this site. But wonder if there is a Bible that one could purchase that comes closest to the original languages. When I was taking a class at Boyce under David Garland, Interpreting Matthew, he said that the Amplified Version was the closest to the original text. Therefore I've used it ever since. Can you or Keith suggest another? selahV

[Keith Schooley]

selahV--

Actually, checking out several different translations is probably your best bet. There is, unfortunately, no one-for-one perfect translation from any language to any other; all translation is, to some extent, interpretation.

The New American Standard Bible is very good as a word-for-word translation. Some people call this a more "literal" translation, but it all depends on what you mean by "literal." Too much word-for-word can keep you from seeing the forest for the trees.

Part of the problem is that people think that learning Greek will solve all interpretation problems. Far from it! Yes, knowing Greek clarifies some things; but then you find out that some things you thought were perfectly clear are in fact ambiguous in the original. Take the Greek participle: NASB generally translates it as an English gerund (the "-ing" form of verbs). But it can have something like 27 different meanings! You have to determine by context which of these meanings it takes--the actual Greek form won't help you here.

Seriously, learning Greek basically taught me that the translators of most well-known versions did a pretty good job. What it insulated me from was bad teaching, supposedly based on the Greek text.

[volfan007]

very good article and very good points made by a giant in our sbc past...dr. hershel hobbs.

volfan007

[selahV]

thanks Keith!
volfan: I bet I have more books in my library by Herschel Hobbs than you do. Hee hee! :) selahV

[peter]

SelahV,

I think Keith's comment is very good on translations. There is no one "definitive" English translation that will solve all our interpretive puzzles, unless, of course, we all agree that the "Authorized Version" could qualify :)

I am preently using the New Living Translation as my "everyday" Bible. I love it. with that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

All,

I think Hobbs' piece is interesting in a couple of ways. First, Hobbs does not hesitate to equate five Point Calvinism historically with an anti-missionary movement.

Second, Hobbs seems to suggest that it is not necessarily sloppy scholarship, intentional slander, etc to link five point Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism like many of our Calvinist Brothers seem to continually imply.

For me, I do not believe Hobbs intentionally misrepresented a view with which he disagreed nor do I believe he misunderstood historic Calvinism. Rather, I think he simply was using "hyper-Calvinism" in a colloquial sense, not as a technical theological term describing an 18th Century deviation from mainstream Calvinism, a distinction I think our Calvinist brothers do not appreciate.

Have a grace-filled day. With that, I am...

Peter

[Timotheos]

Good Morning Peter,

I hope you are well and prospering in His grace today.

Having read years ago some of Dr. Hobbs thoughts on this subject, and having now revisited his writing here at your blog, I can only hope that those who read Dr. Hobbs will add his own name to the list of those whose exegetical theology he invites his readers to dismiss as extreme, neglectful, contrary to the nature of God, rigged and undeserving.

This would simply be taking his own sage advice, and I am quite certain the words of Jesus and Paul will fare much better in the hands of even unlearned readers than they did under the "exegetical" ministrations of Dr. Hobbs.

You have provided another enlightening post which I pray will make better "Bereans" of us all.

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

[peter]

Dear Timotheos,

I am glad you are well. I take it, my Brother, that your post indicates you do not quite agree with Dr. Hobbs' "exegesis". But I just knew this would be the "knock-out" punch for all Calvinists everywhere, Doggone it!:)

Actually, this is not my favorite piece by the old King of SS lessons. But, it stands indicative of an aged, maturing, old saint's fleeting thoughts before he met the One to whom we all stand accountible. In addition, Hobbs' view stands as representative of who SBC has been for 100+ years--at least that's my take on it anyway...

Don't miss next Monday's post, Timotheos; for I am confident you will possess fairer things still to write about our good Professor George. Dr. George's piece is very good, I might add.

Grace today. With that, I am...

Peter

[volfan007]

1 peter 3:8-11

finally, be all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous, not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing, but on the contrary, blessing, knowing that you are called to this, that you should inherit a blessing.
for he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile; let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and pursue it.

volfan007

[selahV]

volfan: would that I could memorize that passage and martial it to my aid whenever my mouth gets ahead of my heart's truest motives and my brain's unprocessed thought. God bless you my brother. SelahV
Peter: Well, that's one Bible I don't have. Guess I'll get a copy of it for my Christmas present this year. Bob always appreciates it when I do my own shopping and put his name on the tag as the giver. Saves him a lot of time. LOL. selahV

[Christopher Redman]

I find it incredibly sad that a person like Hobbs would take the position this little post attributes to him.

I think it is inexcusable for someone of his learning and position to be that ignorant. BTW, what he did in this post is more like butchering than exegesis.

Chris

[selahV]

oh for pete's sake. And the man can't even defend himself cause he's dead too. Lord help us all. I'm beginning to lose faith in humanity, Peter. selahV

[volfan007]

extreme calvinists! wow!

i have seen the extreme calvinists pick everything apart to the nth degree many, many times. you can say nothing, or write nothing that they dont pick apart like dogs eating leftover pork chops.

volfan007

[Rella]

Anything that doesn't agree with them is bad exegesis.

[Timotheos]

Rella: Would your first name be "Luke" by any chance? Just wondering ...

[Timotheos]

Peter, et al,

To be fair to Dr. Hobbs, I certainly do not consider everything in this brief article wrong or "bad," and I am hardly one to draw exegetical swords with the likes of the good Doctor. Perhaps I overstated the case to suggest even the unlearned could do better than he...perhaps.

I readily own up to certain biases in my own theological outlook and exegetical practices, and so I will always undoubtedly operate in those biases (though I might demur, Peter, from your description of me as a "confessional calvinist"). But Mr. Rella's complaint is surely unfounded and unprovable, and Mr. Volfan's comments are at least consistent with his own biases, if not often more than a little baseless.

Good exegetical practice is not the exclusive domain of the non-Calvinist, nor those guileless, blameless "biblicists." Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike are equally summoned to the commonly recognized bar of sound exegetical habits. By my own meager training, Dr. Hobbs did not acquit himself well in this instance.

And so I believe that the brief bit of exegesis displayed in this article is decidedly beneath a man of such otherwise stellar abilities and gifts. It is perplexing and disheartening, much in the same way that Dr. Caner's handling of Romans 9:11-13 was in his Sunday eve sermon back in September.

Call me a leftover pork-chop eating dog for not giving a pass on this if you will, but by that measure, men like Dr. Olson must join me in my little pork-picking frenzy. I would be happy with his company.

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

[David Kerr]

I disagree with Dr. Hobbs interpretaion of Ephesians 1. However, I do not believe calling him ignorant is helpful. I was in the library at the institution where I am currently attending seminary(SBTS)and I came across Dr. Hobbs' Doctoral dissertation. I just glanced at it but I believe he earned a Phd in New Testament. That's quite an accomplishment from someone who is "ignorant."

While I disagree with Dr. Hobbs interpretation I am certainly glad that we are discussing texts because I want to be in agreement with the Bible.

Mr. Lumpkins I read your blog quite frequently and I appreciate your attempt to present things fairly. I love the professors I have had at Southern and I believe they try to accurately present all sides of any given argument. Unfortunately, this does not seem to take place in the blogosphere all the time.

Since we are talking about New Testament texts it would be interesting to hear how a current New Testament scholar from Southern would exegete Ephesians 1. Perhaps one of them has written on it. Southern has one of the finest NT deparments in the evangelical world right now. Just a thought.

[selahV]

Hello Timotheos: I'm so glad we are discussing something you feel compelled to discuss. I'm not sure, but the et al, in your address to Peter, does it mean And SelahV? :)

You said: "To be fair to Dr. Hobbs, I certainly do not consider everything in this brief article wrong or "bad," and I am hardly one to draw exegetical swords with the likes of the good Doctor. Perhaps I overstated the case to suggest even the unlearned could do better than he...perhaps."

You know me, Timotheos, I'm a bit slow. Can you tell me what you think Dr. Hobbs said that is not "bad"? One by one. I'll reply when I see one. I went back and read Hobbs' article again, and I "think" there are some things I can actually see where you may disagree, but can you PLEASE tell me what he says that you do agree with?

P.S. RELLA: I hope you don't count me as one of "them". Because I am not a "them". I am a me and I have no idea if I agree or disagree with all of this. I just want to understand what I am suppose to be agreeing with or disagreeing with.

And I don't think anyone is a dog. The only place I find dogs in the Bible is when they licked up some guy's blood who fell from a tower, and the one who returns to his own vomit. Both of which are gross thoughts in themselves.

I for one don't want to have to go back and eat my words at some point down the road, so could you chat a bit with me, Timotheos? SelahV

[Timotheos]

SelahV,

Of course you are an "et al." :-) I will be happy to answer your question, but let me please defer til tomorrow, as my wife desires my company just now, and I cannot play until the morning comes. Sleep tight, and all that...

Timotheos

[selahV]

Timotheos: Thanks, brother. selahV

[peter]

Chris,

Surely, my Brother Chris,you were citing a bit of satire, were you not? Ignorant? Butchering?

I trust your evening well. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

David,

Thank you for stopping by. Know I am humbled you read my posts here and surely appreciate your kind words.

Though it is a hard task, I attempt to be very much aware of my own bias and, given that, go the second mile in extending a fair shake to the other side. I am not perfect but voices like yours assists me in knowing some semblance of irenic conversation is actually taking place.

God's grace to you. With that, I am...

Peter

[Luke]

"Threadjack"...For those of you at Southern, have any of you sat under Dr. Bill Cook? He was my greek and NT teacher at The Baptist College of Florida. I highly respect my brother in Christ and am just wondering how he is doing.

Luke

[Mary]

How disheartening to read threads like these accusing someone of bad exegesis and yet no one is explaining exactly why it's so bad. So many uncessary words. Can't someone simply say I don't agree with him and here's why?

[Rella]

Only Calvinist are allowed to define what is sound exegesis.

[Craig]

I think the title of the post should have been "Calvin and Hobbs".

: )

[selahV]

Rella: Why?

Craig: Why?

Mary: don't get disheartened, hon. They've only just begun. SelahV

[volfan07]

rella,

now, that's funny!

volfan007

[Timotheos]

SelahV:
I find several things in Dr. Hobbs article with which I can heartily agree:
~ It is always safer to mine one's theology from primary sources like Jesus and Paul, and to rely less upon men like Boyce, Dagg and Hobbs.
~ Calvin did emphasize God's sovereignty, though I think Dr. Hobbs mistaken in asserting that Calvin neglected man's free will. Calvin and Hobbs surely differed in their understanding of just how "free" man's will actually is. This fact undoubtedly accounts for Dr. Hobbs' unhappiness with Calvin's apparent "neglect."
~ Dr. Hobbs is correct to note that Calvin believed that only the elect believe in Jesus as Savior, a point with which I also agree.
~ Although Dr. Hobbs' citation of certain greek words is quite agreeable, the citations actually lend nothing to his argument. But I like greek citations, especially Koine greek! :-)
~ I agree with the well stated quote of Dr. Truett which Dr. Hobbs notes.
~ I agree with the first four sentences of the next to the last paragraph: "God in Christ has done all that even God can do to provide redemption for a lost humanity. But each person through faith in His redeeming Son must receive it for himself. Refusal to do so means such a person is lost without hope. Those who receive it receive eternal life..."

SelahV, I hope this is description enough to answer your question.

Mary:
Here are a few of the things about which Dr. Hobbs and I will disagree, and about which I think he has erred:
~ election - by definition! - is the exercise of the sovereign will of God in the accomplishment His purposes concerning redemption. To suggest that this is contrary to the very nature of God is contrary to the very Word which God has laid down for all to read. To imply that God elects those who first choose Him (as Hobbs says, "Believers are the elect") is, in fact, much more of a reversal of election than that which Hobbs supposes of Calvin.
~ Dr. Hobbs' assertion that God elected a plan of redemption is highly imaginative and ignores the actual wording of Scripture. God has not elected a plan, but rather people, or to use Paul's words, "just as He chose us in Him..." Paul similarly employs personal pronouns in his discussion in Romans 8, for instance, as another example which contradicts Dr. Hobbs novel interpretation.
~ election, rightly propounded and applied, decidedly does NOT make "Jesus' commission to evangelize the world and the many pleas for lost people to believe in Him for salvation" meaningless, and Dr. Hobbs' knowledge of the history of SBC missions alone (not to mention all of church history) should have checked his urge to make such a statement.

Mary, there are other observations that I could make concerning this article, but this should be sufficient to at least answer your complaint. I level no accusations against Dr. Hobbs - I do not know his motivations. But the few observations above are plain enough to make the point in my first comment. I hope you take them in the spirit I offer them - with all the due respect to a servant of God who, like myself and all of YAHWEH's servants, is accountable for the things he teaches about God and His word.

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

[selahV]

Hello Timotheos: I trust you had a good evening with your wife and tonite in the Lord's house. Thanks so much for taking the time to address these things. What is so simple for you, truly is complex to me.

You said you agreed with the following: "God in Christ has done all that even God can do to provide redemption for a lost humanity. But each person through faith in His redeeming Son must receive it for himself. Refusal to do so means such a person is lost without hope. Those who receive it receive eternal life..."

I agree wholeheartedly with these words. But there is one that sticks out to me from what I understood Calvinist doctrine to teach. The word "refusal". If one can refuse, isn't that a decisive personal choice in his becoming a child of God? "free will"? And you know, my brother, I ask this in all humility. Thanks, selahV

[Timotheos]

Good Morning SelahV,

I did have a good evening with my wife, and enjoyed a lovely meal, singing and pondering the awe of God becoming a man with my home group last night. Thanks for asking and I hope your evening was equally blessed.

That men refuse God in many ways, and suffer the consequence of that refusal, is indisputable, and virtually no believer denies such, be they Calvinist or Non. The real issue in considering man's will is not that men refuse God, but why?

From my view, when Jesus says, "And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?" His question is a damning commentary on the so-called free will of men. Why, indeed?! Jesus' weeping over Jerusalem's obstinate refusal of their Messiah ("you were not willing!") and their preference that their house be left to them desolate, reveals the incomprehensible insanity of men's hearts, as we all sadly recognize. Why would anyone, of their own "free" will, choose their own destruction? Is that a genuinely free will? No, no, a thousand times no. That is just the cry of a fallen man (and a fallen will) to be autonomous at all cost, even to its own eternal destruction. That, I would submit, is a will in desperate bondage.

If God offers everyone either the bliss of heaven or the misery of hell, why would anyone knowingly choose the latter? If the will is so free to choose either option unencumbered, how can the choice of eternal misery ever be made by any man who naturally desires his own joy and happiness, as all men do?

If a will refuses the best, most enjoyable, sweetest, most hopeful, safest, most pleasure filled, longest lasting option open to it, then that will must not be really free, for it goes against its own salvation. How much more enslaved can a will be?

This is not Calvinist doctrine, this is Bible, pure and simple. The difference between a gospel that helps able men to be saved, and one that frees men from such hell-bent destruction and darkness, is categorical and exponentially more glorious. But that is just my lowly opinion.

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

[selahV]

Timotheos: I appreciate your "lowly" opinion, albeit I would never characterize any part of you as lowly, other than your pride. You are one of the most humble intelligent men I've come across.Some men who "know" stuff, act as if they "know" stuff and the rest of us will never rise to their level of "knowing" stuff.

You, my brother, and Peter, are two men I truly value in this discussion. I am beginning to appreciate several others who seem to be able to keep their egos in check when they discuss their faith. Sometimes the grace afforded us (so that none of us can boast), gets twisted up within our minds and our knowledge of God's grace--which indeed becomes "our" grace(because as children of God and heirs with Jesus) we do own the grace and are partakers of all its benefits. Praise the Lord. But sometimes we act as if we conjure it up on our own and it is not a gift delivered in attonement of a blood-stained crucified Lord.

I am learning from your sage advice that "men contend" and that I must step back and observe from afar when they do that.

Moving right along, you offered, Brother Timotheos, that:
"if God offers everyone either the bliss of heaven or the misery of hell, why would anyone knowingly choose the latter?"

It's as hard for me to comprehend that as it is for me to understand why men fight over another man's words like they are the Savior's. But let me offer my lowly opinion.

Almost a year ago,I was on a bus (truly a literal greyhound bus) traveling 24 hours from Oklahoma City to Johnson City, Tennessee. The purpose for me buying a ticket was to go visit my critically ill father. I left on Halloween morning of all mornings. I was weary from a multitude of things. The death of my son, exhaustion from helping produce an elaborate wedding for my oldest granddaughter, anticipation of watching my 85 year-old father dying without me arriving to say a final good-bye, incredible financial burdens I can't begin to explain.

I say this not to receive any sympathy or even emphathy. I'm just trying to share the emptiness of soul, spirit, body and mind I was experiencing. I told my S.S.class before I left to pray for me...not because I needed safe travel...but because I sensed God was about to use me in some way that even I could not fathom. I know that in my weakest moments of life, in my brokenness, is when God is the most visible, strongest and closest to me. I know that when my old vessel is the emptiest is when He can fill it up with His fullness.

On that bus I met a group of people whom, in my opinion, God placed in my life (and theirs) for a specific purpose. I don't think it had a lot to do with the literal destinations we were headed to. I think it was for the destinations He, with His foreknowledge purposed us to connect with each other.

While I traveled on the bus, God allowed me to participate in His plans to share my testimony. (definition: what He had done and was doing in my life through Jesus Christ, my Lord).

I was privileged to have several Christian sisters and brothers on that bus who shared seats around me. Upon meeting them, we had multiple conversations, some of which were overheard by others. The encouragement we enjoyed was beyond words. The mini-miracles we experienced were awe-some. Before we each boarded the bus in different locations we knew nothing of each other. But God, in His perfect will, gave us all such blessings from one another. I might add we were all from different practicing faiths.

In addition to those wonderful people,I was honored to have one professing atheist, one obviously demon-possessed man, two known drunkards, one extremely beautiful foul-mouthed mother who vocally expressed her disdain for the demon-possessed man, several people who were simply lost without a map, (I speak metaphorically here), and two known prisoners recently released from prison the very day I was allowed to sit next to them and converse with them on my bus trip.

I met wounded spirits, broken lives, dregs of society, and struggling every-day folk.

I have said all that to say this, dear Timotheos. I witnessed the power of satan in his greatest deceitful, conniving ways interupt, entice, cajol and confuse conversation I had with my atheist friend.

You said: "If a will refuses the best, most enjoyable, sweetest, most hopeful, safest, most pleasure filled, longest lasting option open to it, then that will must not be really free, for it goes against its own salvation. How much more enslaved can a will be?"

I think that those people can refuse because they will not hear. What is filled up in a pot cannot receive what is outside that pot without first emptying the pot. The demon-possessed man I met,had so surrendered himself to the sin of depravity that he'd invited satan and a legion of demons to live within himself. The atheist young man was so crushed down and beaten by sexual abuse from a father and a court system that ignored his life that he could barely hear my voice--or God's. With every word the dust from which life had delivered blows, fluttered about inside his mind and clouded his thoughts with particles of hate, bitterness, and pain.

But I believe he softened in the eight hours we rode on the bus and he will at some day--unbeknownest to me--find his peace in the Lord as others walk in the path of his dusty road.

I could go on and on. And I plan to in book form some day. But I am truly overstaying my welcome in this blogsite. I trust my friend and brother, Peter doesn't mind because he has moved on to another equally engaging topic; which can easily connect with the one I discuss at the moment.

I truly believe we are "all" predestined to be elect and made in the image of God. I believe God cast his vote for us to be elected, and satan cast his vote and we break the tie.

I believe in that in making us in His image, He implanted Himself with the faith of a mustard seed which has the power to bring us to Him as we look upon the Saviour lifted up. Some of us turn away from the Light and therefore the seed of faith is left to rot within our souls.

I believe when satan was created in all his splendor, God placed him in the highest position possible for an angel. God gave him every jewel, nearly every power He, Himself, possessed.

Satan knew Who had created him. But satan chose to fill himself up with himself so that he actually believed he could rise above God. I believe sin is self. I believe in our beings is the propensity to live with the Savior or without the Savior; in obedience or in disobedience; in contentment with God and His provisions or in discontentment without God and His provisions.

Our sin is a result of enjoying the benefits of life provided by God for a season, without acknowledging the Benefactor.

Jesus said, he didn't perform many miracles because of unbelief. Had they believed with the same degree they exercised their unbelief, many more miracles would be written for us to contemplate.

God's word and His guiding providential attention to details in my life has shown me these things. But never in any moment of my life has He been able to show me anything without my complete emptying of myself. And more often than not it wasn't me who did the emptying. It was the Potter breaking the pot, then crushing it to powder, adding water in the form of His Spirit to make me pliable enough to remake me into a more beautiful pot to receive His goodness, grace and wisdom.

Now, I have no idea if any of this falls into a category of Calvin's thought, Arminius's thought, or Reformed thought. But I think I'm closer to being re-formed than de-formed even though I'm not in-formed.

I dearly love you Timotheos. I love you because I can trust you with these words I've shared. You will take them and ponder them and organize them in such a way that you can help me understand where in the "system" of theology others think I rest. I do not think I can ever conclude in which I've stumbled upon. But I do know I rest completely in the hand of God and am positionally sitting in my Savior's lap at my Father's right hand at this very moment.

May God add blessings beyond any measure you have ever experienced to you and yours. selahV

[Timotheos]

SelahV,

Whew! That's a lot to cogitate, ruminate, masticate and meditate upon! You have nicely, pictorially and poignantly portrayed the good and trustworthy providence of our Father in the common experiences of His children as they ride along on such things as Greyhound buses. Imagine!

I will not burden the inhabitants of blogolandra (particularly that crazy ridgerunner from TN :-) with a boorishly long response to your fine post. To just redress the point of your previous question in terms you use, if God casts His vote for us to be elected to salvation, and Satan casts his vote for us to be damned to Hell, and our vote breaks the tie, who in their right mind with the power of free choice, would side with the prince of darkness? That anyone would defies reason, desire, common (and uncommon) sense and conscience. And yet, many do (to use Jesus' wording).

Again, for my own part, I believe that God's purpose in election (Romans 9:11 and 11:5) outstrips by infinite degrees either Satan's malevolent will or man's recalcitrant unwillingness. Otherwise, all those creatures around the glorious Throne could not sing, with any degree of certainty, that marvelous song recorded for us in Revelation 5:9. How grateful for, and humbled by, God's purpose in election, I am.

Keep resting right where you are, SelahV. He can never, and never will, fail.

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

[selahV]

Timotheos: Oh, our TN brother won't get bored. He has his tylenol for headaches and a scroll-bar for moving right along.

I figured the one phrase you'd select to quietly and kindly note was the one in which I had an election. Darn! Shoulda left that one out. Hey, I know. Let's pretend I did leave that one out. Then what say you? I adore you Timotheos. You've just given me a whole bunch of words to look up in the dictionary and use on some other blogsite that will make me look smart. LOL. :~) selahv