Sermon of the Week: “The Flood” by Voddie Baucham

We’ve seen Veggie Tales versions of the great flood, talking about the love of God on Noah and his family, everyone having a fun time with the animals and the water. The Scripture is very clear – the flood came upon the Earth (the whole planet) because the Lord (Creator, Judge, and sustainer of ALL things) judged mankind for his sin.

Far from being a nice, fun story for children, the tale of Noah’s ark is a sober reminder of the consequences of sin – no less so than Sodom and Gomorrah. What awaits all whose name is not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life is foreshadowed by the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood that destroyed all life on the surface of the Earth, save eight persons and animals on the ark.

But for those who are loved and saved by the grace of God, we have this promise which cannot be broken: “There is, therefore, no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1) Do not sweep away the lesson of God’s wrath on sinners (not their sin – their persons) because it is so difficult for our human souls to accept. Do not lose heart because God is righteous and His judgment is sure – as are His promises to His chosen ones. Rejoice if your name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life and worship God because of His mercy on the redeemed and for His judgment on the wicked, as do the angels in Heaven.

Listen here to The Flood.

65 thoughts on “Sermon of the Week: “The Flood” by Voddie Baucham

  1. So God judged folks an nations in this age, while delivering His own THROUGH the judgement, not from the judgement. hmmm… Didn’t He do that in Exodus too? And and and isn’t that what He promises to do at the end of this age as well?!?!


  2. There are consequences for sin in this world and at the judgment seat at the end of the age. Temporal consequences do not exempt anyone or nation from final judgment.


  3. A “Calvinist” is nothing more than a label attached to people who agree with John Calvin’s summary of his views on God reconciling rebel sinners to Himself.

    What that “label” generally describes is a person to holds to the historic Christrian doctrines contained in the Bible as it relates to the sovereignty of God in all things – especially the salvation of sinners.

    Another term which can be used interchangeably with it is the “doctrines of grace.”

    Those doctrines are as follows:
    1) The Total Depravity of man.
    2) God’s Unconditional Election of His people.
    3) Christ’s atonement for His own people.
    4) The irresistible calling and/or drawing by the Holy Spirit of His people to Himself through Christ.
    5) The continued, lifelong, perseverance in the Christian faith until death or Christ’s return.



  4. At the heart of this being an issue that will never be resolved is that we want a God with limited power and we realize the implications.


  5. Sorry for the type. I always misspell it. Anyway was just curious since I saw the “Limited Atonement” banner on the post.


  6. wordsofaforeigner,

    Not sure you’re seeking a definition of “Limited Atonement,” but if you are, it simply means we “Calvinists” believe our Lord Jesus Christ’s death on the Cross provides atonement for, and is effecacious exclusively for His people. There are MANY passages in the Bible which either directly say this, or infer it.

    Yes, we also believe in predestination, in that God, before the foundation of the world, and by His mercy, elected certain people to be recipients of His grace, while bypassing others as they perish in their sins.

    Hope I’m not insulting your intelligence; just trying to help.



  7. Thank you Todd, but I’m very well aware of the TULIP. I wasn’t asking if this blog was geared towards Calvinist because I didn’t know what it meant, nor was I referring to limited atonement because I didn’t know what that means either. So, to some degree you did insult my intelligence by assuming. But it’s neither here nor there. Take care

    Thank you, again, I’m very well aware of what a calvanist believes. Again, I simply asked because of the limited atonement photo, that’s all.


  8. Hi Manfred,

    Does the ark really support the Calvinist notion that Jesus died only for the elect? Does God love all human beings or only his elect? Does God love the sinner but hate the sin or does he not only hate the sin but the sinner also? If God hates the sinner why does Jesus command us to love our enemies if God hates his?

    John Arthur


  9. John – The Bible teaches that God is angry with sinners all day and is storing up His wrath to be poured out on the unregenerate for eternity. No love for sinners who are not elect. Sin is not thrown into hell – sinners are. Christians are told to love our enemies because we do not know who the elect are, unto God saves them. We live in time, the elect were chosen before time.

    Christ gave His life for the church (see Ephesian 5:22-27) and not for all mankind.


  10. Hi Manfred,

    Thanks for your interesting response. I certainly believe that Christ gave his life for his church (i.e. his elect) but how do you relate this to John 3:16-21? Does not the cosmos mean the world? Can the Greek preposition “hina” used in 3:16 translated “in order that” suggest purpose? Or, do you interpret it as “so that” suggesting consequence? if the first interpretation, would this not suggest an unlimited atonement? Or do you think that the cosmos means the world of the elect?

    What do you make of i John 2:1-2? Christ is a propitiation for our sins ( the elect’s sins) but not for ours only but the whole world?

    Did Calvin hold that Christ died for all (unlimited atonement) as A.H Strong maintained in his Systematic Theology or did Calvin believe that Christ died only for the elect? In other words, was Calvin a four pointer or a a five pointer?

    John Arthur
    Hi Manfred,

    My apologies. verse 16 uses “hoste” (translated “so that”), but verse 17 uses hina.. so the NRSV translates verse 17 as follows. “Indeed, God did not send his Son ito the world to condemn the world, but in order that (hina) the world might be saved through him.”

    John Arthur


  11. ‘A “Calvinist” is nothing more than a label attached to people who agree with John Calvin’s summary of his views on God reconciling rebel sinners to Himself.’

    I always thought it was a form of carnal christianity since paul himself warned the saints against using the names of men to divide. Sad that so many otherwise Godly brethren still fall for this today. Behold the power of unhealthy religous traditions. Why not keep the teachings on Gods grace but dump the label. -Jim


  12. Jim, Labels are VERY helpful – they provide a short-hand, credible method for summarizing certain theological and doctrinal views. I agree with the 5 point TULIP construct known as Calvinism, but I refrain from calling myself a Calvinist – some people have a larger view of Calvinism, embracing some of Calvin’s teaching that is far afield from the doctrine of justification. Many who claim “No creed but Christ!” and so forth are declaring their own label – but one that provides NO insight to what the fella believes (aside from the desire to not be pinned down).


  13. Concerning 1 John 2:2, the key to understanding this verse is to define propitiation. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was the propitiation, or satisfaction, of sin. In other words, His atoning work satisfied God’s anger at sin as the Father poured out His wrath on His own Son; His wrath was spent on Christ. This means there is no more wrath to be poured out, for Christ bore it all. So, if Christ died for all, then those who are in unbelief will not face wrath, if you believe Christ died for all. The proper interpretation is that Christ died for sinners from all walks of life, every part of the globe, not for every sinner ever born, but for those God would call.


  14. foreigner – that site has lots of hair-on-fire condemnation for many people, mostly based on disputable matters. They are a King James Only group, which is a red flag. King James is a good English language Bible but NOT the Autograph and nobody be of such a mind set. But some of their rebuke of John Calvin’s teaching is accurate and points out why I do not call myself a Calvinist, even though I fully subscribe to the doctrine known as Calvinism. There are quite a few teachings of Calvin that any Baptist would disagree with.


  15. “Just so you guys know, I’m not any longer a ‘Calvinist.’ I’m a 5-point ‘Baconist.’”

    The hollywood actor?



  16. fleebabylon,

    Was just referring to the other topic “BACON….the new TULIP….” currently under discussion on another thread here. Wouldn’t it be a 6th degree Baconist anyway???



  17. Hi Manfred,

    If the bible teaches that God hates the non elect and is angry with them all day long, what kind of God is that portraying? If this is what Calvinism (or the “doctrines of grace”) teaches then perhaps I had better give up returning to Calvinism. Since, Calvinism is the logical outcome of an inerrant bible, perhaps I need to give this up also.

    I cannot see how believing in an angy God whose justice is retributive rather than restorative is good for one’s mental and emotional health. I was hoping to work towards a compassionate Calvinism but I think this might be impossible. I hope that I am wrong.

    If the atonement is limited, does’t that mean that the non elect have no hope? If God hates them, then how can we say that God is love?
    Hi Manfred,

    I have been doing some more thinking and certainly think that the bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts. However, I think that God is love and that he so loved the COSMOS that he gave his One and Only Son to die for our sins that whosever trusts in , adheres to and relies on him will have eternal life. That is, I interpret the bible in the way a 4 point Calvinist would.

    I don’t think that I can reconcile all of the bible, so I would rather leave passages in tension rather than rationalise them in a consistent system. God’s supreme and final revelation is in Jesus and the NT is the definitive God-breathed testimony to the apostolic witness.

    I did appreciate your comments but find it difficult to figure out God as hating people rather than just their sin. Sure some will be sent to Gehenna at the final judgment, but we do reap the consequences of what we have sown. A lifetime of rejection of God’s love in Jesus has eternal consequences.
    John Arthur


  18. John Arthur,

    Thanks for your continued participation in these conversations. Have you watched the video Todd inserted above? Regarding the Lord’s anger with sinners, have ye read the Bible? Psalm 7:11 tells us, “God judges the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.” Many place in Scripture tell of how those who die in their sins will be judged for their deeds, and unless their names are found in the Lamb’s Book of Life (which was written before the foundation of the world), they will be thrown into Hell, where the torment for sins in flesh and the continued sin in the spirit will continue for eternity.

    God’s anger with sinners is not malicious or unjust – none of us warrant God’s mercy or grace. All are deserving of Hell. But God, Who is gracious, predestinated some to eternal life – to the praise and glory of His name. All reject God. We are, by nature, children of wrath. Only if the Lord gives one ears to hear (according that His purpose of election would be fulfilled) will one want the Christ. This is why no man can boast except in the Lord.

    It is an error to say man goes to hell for rejecting the gospel. Man goes to Hell because that is his default destination and he would rather have Hell (as he understands it) than God. Man inherits Heaven because God gives him a new heart that desires the Lord.

    BTW – there is no such thing as a four point Calvinist 🙂 If one point fails, the whole construct fails. The TULIP stands – it is an accurate portrayal of how the Bible reveals the doctrine of salvation.


  19. Hi Manfred,

    I havn’t got round to listening to the video Tod mentions but I plan to. You say “BTW – there is no such thing as a four point Calvinist 🙂 If one point fails, the whole construct falls …”

    Four point Calvinism is called Amyraldian Calvinism. Modern representaives of this version of Calvinism are represented by this sample of systematic theologies.
    (1) the early 20thC work of Baptst Evangelical A.H. Strong.
    (2) the modern Baptist Evangelical, Millard Erickson’s “Christian Theology”.
    (3) the Dispensational Calvinist, Lewis Sperry Chafer’s 8 vol “Systematic Theology”,

    These theologians did not take the view that if limited atonement falls the wjole of Calvinism falls, but you may be correct on this. My point is this. Isn’t it better to take what seems to be the plain meaning of the bible as its intended meaning and not try to force it into a system?

    If you take the view that God is love, then God appears to love the whole cosmos. If God hates sinners, then he has hated everyone of us, so how can you say that he loves elect sinners? Does the bible say that he only hates some sinners? I personally don’t want to go down the track that God hates people. He hates sin, yes.

    If God hates the wicked all day long, did Jesus hate the woman caught in the act of adultery? I see jesus’ great love for sinners and outcasts in the gospels. If Jesus is the express image of the invisible God, should we not interpret the whole bible from this vantage point? I don/t see Jesus just showing compassion, mercy and kindness towards only the elect in the gospels.

    John Arthur


  20. John,
    The Bible tells us the names of the elect are set in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of the world. God has set His saving love on the elect from before He created any of us. God is not a one dimensional being nor a modalist being Who can only exhibit one characteristic at a time. Nor is His love one dimensional – He loves all people in a general way, giving air and food and life. He loves His elect in a salvific way, insuring we are brought to new life in Christ by the work of His Spirit.

    So we see one type of love for everyone – that does not mean God loves everyone in the same way. Biblical love that results in a person being saved is poured out only on the elect – whom God alone knows. We see evidence of His work after it has been started and throughout the life of those raised from the dead, but we cannot know who are elect until we see evidence of the in-time saving act of God.

    Since God knows His elect and those who are left in their sin from eternity past, He can love each according to which group they belong. It is not up to us to determine who the Lord will save.


  21. John Arthur I totally agree with your apprehensions. Personally, I see truth in both Calvanism and Armenianism, I don’t follow either court, I stay in the middle. I think there’s good preachers/teachers on both ends. The one thing I don’t like is when intolerance comes from one side or the other. I read a forum where just about all the comments where from Calvanists and they were really putting down the fact that Paul Washer supported Leonard Ravenhill’s biography (Washer was very influenced by Ravenhill -who many thought to believe was pure Armenian, but I think he was more in the middle). Anyway, there was such intolerance from the calvanist folks commenting the forum simply because Ravenhill didn’t preach to their liking, when in fact Ravenhill VERY MUCH preached the gospel. AND I’ve seen the other side of the court, where Armenians totally butchered Calvanists too. Division to THAT degree in the Body of Christ is ridiculous! I personally don’t agree with going by one man’s interpretation of the bible, not saying Calvin or Wesley or Luther or any of the former Saints were Godly and didn’t preach Truth, but I personally go by what the Holy Spirit teaches me when I read the scriptures and by what convictions He gives me. I personally came out of the whole “prophetic” signs and wonders movement, and all I saw was a perversion of Truth twisting and I had to get out. Then I saw the other side of the spectrum with the Phariases looking at EVERY fault possible and belittling everyone who operates in the movement of the Holy Spirit. Since I have been out of church -I occasional attend a Baptist church for worship but not often- I have found more depth in my walk by just diving in the scriptures and not listening to “men’s” interpretations and allowing the Lord Jesus to work His spirit in teaching me and helping me walk in the spirit. If you think something is not right in a specific “doctrine”, like Calvinism or the other, take it to God, cause I’ll tell ya, we ALL got opinions and something to say, people you know and people commenting this thread, but only God The Father has the Truth, go to Him in prayer and He’ll reveal it you. God bless you!

    *sorry for any typos or misspelled words, on my phone and it blurs after commenting this site for some reason*



  22. Hi Words of a Foreigner,

    Thanks for your kind thoughts. God is higher than all systems of theology and his ways are higher than ours. I think that we are meant to accept one another in love and let Jesus be our guide. As the old chorous says:
    “Let the beauty of Jesus be seen in me,
    All his wondrous compassion and purity,
    O Thou Spirit Divine, all my nature refine,
    Till the beauty of Jesus be seen in me”.
    How will the world know that we belong to Jesus? By the love we show each other and towards them. May our lives reflect God’s fair beauty. This is more important than the various divisions within Evangelical Christianity, including the division between Calvinism and Arminianism.

    John Arthur


  23. “I read a forum where just about all the comments where from Calvanists and they were really putting down the fact that Paul Washer supported Leonard Ravenhill’s biography “

    Thats because many calvinists are nothing but dead students of theology, just as much false converts as those in any other camp. They have the spirit of religion but not the Holy Spirit. A man like Ravenhill is an offense to them and their dead religion.

    Now a man who’s heart is full of Christ AND who’s head is full of good theology (the doctrines of grace are good theology, however offensive to our flesh they may be), I would be happy to spend my day with such a man. There are no errors with the doctrines of grace as properly taught in scirpture – its just what many zealous religous men do with these doctrines that is disturbing.



  24. Jim, doctrine of grace by biblical view? Or Calvin doctrine of grace as far as God plays bingo with people and creates some to hate and some to love -hence no free will? Just curious on your definition of doctrine of grace.


  25. woaf-

    Doctrines of grace as in we all justly deserve damnation for sinning against God, yet some are freely pardoned though they are just as guilty as others. Anyone who is damned is by their own doing, anyone who is saved is by Gods doing. The damned have no one to blame but themselves, the redeemed have no one to thank but God for His mercy. Shall a man sin against his conscience, the testimony of God in nature, and whatever knowledge he has of Christ and all the while refusing to repent claim God is unjust in having elected others but not himself? There is no injustice with God, only in the schemes of wicked men. Its not that those who are “un”elect CANT repent like I CANT jump over a house. Its that they cant repent like a greedy man cant give all his money to the poor. The CANT is a WONT and such men are justly condemned. Shall we then curse God that He choses to break through this barrier and changed the hearts of some such men but not others? heaven forbid. Of course man is not a passive creature in any of this. God uses means to accomplish His ends.

    In Christ -Jim


  26. Jim, I’ll agree to disagree. The God I worship said in His word He’d like all to not perish and all to come to repentance, if He MADE the wicked accept Him, if that was the case, then we’d ALL be following Him. Grace? By definition of God’s grace of Him sending His Son to die? Yes. And of course there are many more examples of grace I see plainly in the bible as well. But the doctrine of “irresistible grace”, no, I’m sorry I just don’t see it and I don’t agree with it. Again I’ll agree to disagree with you. God bless you and take care.


  27. Words of a foreigner,

    I have a couple of questions for you, would you say God is sovereign?

    If man has free will, then why doesn’t everyone choose to be saved? Why would anybody reject a life of eternal joy and life never ending as opposed to eternal wrath?

    I also would like to ask you what do you do with Ephesians 2:1 and 5, “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins” ” even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)” as well as Ephesians 2:8-9 ” For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

    I am not trying to pick a fight with you, I am hoping we can have a discussion that will be edifying for the both of us.

    In Christ,


  28. Lyn, can see you’d like to perpetuate this and by all means your motives seem pure and I’ve no doubt that they are. But I am not going to change your mind anymore that you are mine. Ephesians is NOT saying that only a few receive grace. Yes I agree salvation is a gift, is by grace, I never refuted that. I firmly believe God gives everyone an opportunity to come to Him and receive salvation, but the works of regeneration and sanctification are ONLY done by the Holy Spirit, not us, BUT I believe Christ died for all so that all would be saved. Now you ask why wouldn’t anyone want the gift of salvation. I don’t know everyone’s hearts to make that guess, but what I DO see is man is naturally evil and very full of pride, so my guess is lack of humility and lack of acceptance that they need a Savior. That’s my take on it. I’m not gonna go back and forth with this, I respect your view and I hope you can respect mine. Going on a debate or discussion isn’t edifying if either party is already set in their ways. I’ve got things to do and I can’t be on here all day debating, I simply asked Jim a sincere question cause I was curious not cause I wanted a full blown discussion. God bless you and take care. Blessings.


  29. words of a foreinger: I’m not about to attempt to pull you on one side of the fence or the other. No doubt there have been extremes, and unnecessary division among true brethren in Christ over misunderstanding of what each other believes regarding what the Scriptures say. And there is also no doubt that it is getting very, very hard to find a brick and mortar church which manages to stay faithful to the Word of God in all it’s doctrinal statement and understanding. But from what you’ve said about rarely going to church except to worship God causes me concern for you. It sounds like it’s just you and God, and you’re okay with that. I’m sure you agree that the Scriptures make it clear Christ has made all His followers members of His body, and has gifted each one for the benefit of each member of the whole body. To voluntarily isolate ourselves from a body of fellow believers, to neglect or reject His organization for His people is (besides defying God’s plan) to say to others members of the body, “I have no need of you” (1 Cor.12:21), is it not? As I’m sure you’re aware, a body part cannot exist somehow only connected to the head. I encourage you to study this a bit deeper in God’s Word.


  30. Words of a foreigner,

    I do not believe we are that far apart on what we believe. I agree, salvation is a gift, given by God. I believe regeneration is only possible as a supernatural work of God. I also agree that man does not consider salvation because he is wicked and vile. I believe no one has free will to choose God unless God has regenerated them first.

    As for Christ dying for all, I do encourage you to consider 1 John 2:2, “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” I commented on this earlier, the key to unlock who Christ died for is found in this verse. He was the propitiation, or satisfaction, for sin. God poured out His wrath on His Son for the sins of those who believe. This means there is no more wrath to pour out, for it has been spent on Christ. If Christ died for all, that would mean those who are in unbelief have had their sins paid for, so they will not face wrath, if you believe Christ died for all. This cannot be, we know from other passages that wrath will be unleashed and judgment will fall on unbelieving sinners. So the verse must be understood as meaning Christ died for sinners from every part of the globe, all walks of life and all kinds of background, not for every sinner ever born. I think the biggest problem most have is thinking we deserve to be saved, as Art Azurdia said, it isn’t that God saves some, it’s that He saves any.

    I once detested the doctrines of grace, then as I dug deeper into God’s word and laid aside my stubbornness, the Spirit of God opened my eyes to this wonderful truth and I was filled with such gratitude for God’s amazing, undeserving grace!!

    Bless you,


  31. I would chime in with these observations about “darkness” and God’s Eternal nature, “love”.

    In the Hebrew the word darkness used in Genesis one means the “fruit” of something.

    The mystery is here. I cannot nor have I read anyone else explain why God allowed His creature to produce this fruit.

    The just/righteous shall live by His Faith.

    The point being made, for me, is simple. God, who is Love, does not allow darkness to “dwell” with light and because of His nature, which is Love, separated the light from the darkness. See Genesis 1:4.

    Why He allowed Eve to be molested is as I said above, a mystery that I nor others have been able to explain. I have my own belief about that.

    Here’s a couple of examples of the fruit of darkness and light, both “fruits” of something that produces it.

    A parent sees their child start to cross a street. Because the child cannot see what is coming and the parent can, a car, the parent goes to the child and saves them from being hit by the car. That’s what any loving parent would do!

    A parent sees their child start to cross a street. Because the child cannot see what is coming and the parent can, a car, the parent does nothing and the child steps into the pathway of the car and is killed. That’s what any unloving parent would do!

    One other observation I would make. It is about the word propitiation in relation to the meaning of expiation.

    As one scholar explained it, propitiation is what God can do and did do through Christ to lift the curse from mankind.

    Expiation is what man does believing it will lift the curse from mankind.

    An example of propitiation is John 3:16.

    An example of expiation is found studying history about human sacrifices which is what many human religions have practiced, human sacrifices to appease their god/s. Usually it is a virgin girl who loses their life for the greater good, the lifting of the curse off them.

    History establishes both blood sacrifices were practiced. God practiced it one time. Man has practiced it many times to no avail.

    The one, propitiation, is the blood sacrifice God did to atone for His people’s sins, John 3:16.

    The other one, expiation, is the blood sacrifice man has done again and again to atone for his people’s sins to no avail.


  32. RS I never said I wasn’t in fellowship, I just said I rarely go to church. And I am aware they we “are not to forsake the gathering of the saints”, but even a bible study can be considered church. When I say worship, like to sing to Him, even though I do in my private devotional with Him, I like the church worship too. Isolating, to me, falls under the category of not having anything to do with anyone, that’s not the case for me. If you must know, I’ve just really had a hard time finding a good church. I miss the church I was attending in ways, but I don’t miss the prophetic type teaching or the drawn out loooonng chorus that the charismatics sings -it always gave me a headache. I use to attend a church with short good worship music a few years back, but having visited recently, the preacher has resorted to watered down gospel preaching. A biblically sound church is hard to find, NOT a perfect church mind you cause there is no such thing, but a sound one. But anyway, thank you for the concern, but isolating myself I am not, but leery I am, and my time with God is not a bad thing. Through His word and fellowship He has given me better insight on things, than when I was in the church in awe of what the preacher said, now I’m in awe of what God says. Sometimes He pulls us out of situations and out of fellowship with certain people to get our attention back on Him, and quite frankly, for what He’s done for me, I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’m blessed He loves me enough to show me the Truth and for His spirit to teach me and guide me. I trust He will put me in a church, but for now I am in fellowship with a small group of older folk’s who have been in the faith longer than I (I’m 36 and they’re all well into their 60’s and I’ve known them all for several years). God bless you and take care.


  33. words of a foreinger:
    Thank you for your courteous response. I am glad you are seeking fellowship, and studying God’s Word. i misunderstood, and I ask your forgiveness for falsely assuming you were isolating yourself, when that is not the case.


  34. Hi all,

    I agree with Words of a Foreigner on Jesus dying for all. However, I understand that most folks on this site believe that Christ died only for the elect. I read the website that Words of a Foreigner referred to. King James only they may be, but they seem to provide good scriptural arguments for their views. They have several articles critiqueing Calvinism.

    Could we not say the following:

    (1) Christ’s death was of infinite worth before God the Father that it is sufficient to atone for the sins of the world but it is only efficient for the elect. The value of the offering does not depend on the number of people Christ died for but on the value of the offering. It was God’s precious gift of the theanthropic person, Jesus Christ, who alone has been able to love God with his whole being and others as himself. Only he could fulfill the just requirements of God’s moral law and so die in our room and place.

    2) No human being (other than Jesus) has the ability to please God and only he could merit eternal life for us. No one can atone for their own sins. We are totally unable to atone for our sins or please God by our own efforts.We cannot make ourselves whole. Only Jesus can do this for us and in us.

    (3) God desires all human beings to be saved (made whole) and come to a knowledge of the truth. We need to distinguish between God’s decretive will and his preceptive will.

    (4) God is sovereign over all creation and we are responsible for what we do. God’s sovereignty is a meticulous sovereignty yet God is not the author of sin nor does he do violence to our human freedom. We need to distinguish between liberty (which all have) and ability (which none but those whom God chooses have)

    (5) The free offer of the gospel is available for all and is intended to be proclaimed to all. God does not mock us when he calls us to repent. God call’s us and we either freely respond or we freely reject the gospel offer. Thos who freely respond in genuine faith and repentance are his elect chosen from before the foundation of the world.We need to distingush between God’s common grace given to all, and effectual grace only given to the elect.

    The God who elects the body of Christ, in Jesus, from before the foundation of the world is a personal, relational and social being whose love is unconditional, others-centred, self-giving and community forming agape and his love sent Jesus (who went willingly) to the cross of suffering and shame. It is his compassion, healing mercy and loving-kindness alone that can heal all our wounds and hurts and it is this love for us, supremely dispalyed at Calvary, and only this love for us ,that can make us whole.

    John Arthur


  35. RS, no worries 🙂 no need for forgiveness since there was no offence. 🙂 God bless you.

    I’m gonna leave this thread, it’s just not giving me anything fruitful, I am not upset or frustrated -don’t get me wrong- but I dont see a need to continue in this forum. I stand with what I stated to John Arthur that I stay in the middle, I see error in both, this is another excellent resource I found I harbor no bad feelings towards anyone. God bless 🙂


    John Arthur look for me on Facebook if you have an account ( I’m posting some tongue and cheek videos on the subject that you may find comical as well, not ugly videos, but just silly videos. Blessings


  36. WOAF, I respect your decision to leave this thread and pray for the Lord’s blessings to be upon you.

    John Arthur— if man has free will to choose or reject, then salvation becomes something man has the final say so in, according to your belief. Grace plays no part because according to you, it isn’t grace that saves, it’s man’s ability to choose. That would nullify Ephesians 2:8-9. God gets no glory in saving a sinner because the sinner has the ability to choose or reject the Gospel.
    If man is wicked and sinful, as the Bible clearly teaches; even our thoughts are sinful {Matthew 15:19}, how is it the will of man escapes the corruption of sin and is able to make spiritual decisions? Is the human will a separate entity from the mind? Or doesn’t the mind cause the will to act one way or another? If so {the mind causes the will to respond}, what do you do with Jeremiah 17:9, and what does the free will theology do with Ephesians 2:1, 5? These are verses that must be addressed by you because they confront head-on your belief on free will.
    If not {the will acts on its own accord} what does the will base its ability to respond on?


  37. John Arthur,

    having read your thoughtful proposition and suggest: “Could we not say the following:”, I have to say no I could not.

    I would highlight some Scriptural concepts that seems to me act as a battering ram against your 5 point proposition.

    Consider several things from these Scriptures from Romans, Ephesians and Psalms. From Romans we see this phrase: God’s purpose of election. From Ephesians we see these phrases: to unite all things in Him, manifesting the manifold wisdom of God and the eternal purpose. And in Psalms we see mentioned some activities are the “honor of the Godly”.

    Rom 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
    Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls–
    Rom 9:12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”


    Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
    Eph 1:8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
    Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
    Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.


    Eph 3:8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
    Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
    Eph 3:10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
    Eph 3:11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
    Eph 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.


    Psa 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their throats and two-edged swords in their hands,
    Psa 149:7 to execute vengeance on the nations and punishments on the peoples,
    Psa 149:8 to bind their kings with chains and their nobles with fetters of iron,
    Psa 149:9 to execute on them the judgment written! This is honor for all his godly ones. Praise the LORD!

    It is for those reasons expressed in those Scriptures I humbly have to decline embracing all five points of your proposition.


  38. Hi Unworthy 1,

    You have sorely misinterpreted what I said in proposition (5). So let me explain further what I meant. I distinguished between liberty and ability. Nowhere did I claim that any human being has ability to please God or to save himself. Only Jesus can make us whole.

    We are not forced to come to Christ. We come willingly being made willing by his grace. We have no ability in our own strength to respond to the good news save that which God gives us. Those who refuse the gospel do so freely. They are not forced to reject the free offer.

    “God hath endured the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.” (article IX, I of the Westminster Confession).

    Hi Michael,

    I said that those who freely respond to the gospel in genuine faith and repentance are his elect. Note, I did not say that they are his elect because they freely responded. You have simply read this into my proposition (5).. I believe that all who freely respond to the gospel genuinely and are effectually called were chosen by God from before the foundation of the world, not because he saw any merits in them or any foreseen faith but solely by his grace and eternal purpose.

    I am a four point Calvinist .

    John Arthur


  39. John Arthur,

    You still have not answered the question, if man refuses, what is his refusal based on, where does it come from? Where does liberty and ability originate?

    Let me point out some confusion in your comment from July 3 at 7:05 pm, you say ‘We need to distinguish between liberty (which all have) and ability (which none but those whom God chooses have)’ then you state ‘God call’s us and we either freely respond or we freely reject the gospel offer. Those who freely respond in genuine faith and repentance are his elect chosen from before the foundation of the world.We need to distingush between God’s common grace given to all, and effectual grace only given to the elect.’

    The confusion comes from you stating sinners can freely respond or freely reject. You claim sinners freely respond by effectual grace given only to the elect, which I would agree with. However, you state those who reject do so freely, so you seem to be sending a mixed message. You claim we all have ‘liberty’, which is another way of saying free will imho, then you claim not all have the ‘ability’. I have already asked you to tell us where liberty and ability originate and await your response.
    So where does this free rejection of the Gospel come from? If you truly believe in total depravity, you would know that sinners who do not respond to the Gospel are indifferent to it because of their dead state, which is why I keep asking those who hold to free will theology what they do with Ephesians 2:1, 5, 8-9. If sinners are unresponsive, then it isn’t as though they can freely reject, they do not respond because they cannot respond; if sinners respond freely, then isn’t that because God has regenerated them? This is why Paul Washer could fellowship with Tozer and Ravenhill, because these men understood the doctrine of regeneration.

    You didn’t watch the video by Jim McClarty on John 3:16 did you? You also do not understand 1 John 2:2 and Christ being the ‘propitiation’ for sin which I’ve already posted in a previous comment and your claim Christ died for every sinner. I ask you this, did Christ die for the sin of unbelief?


  40. Hi Unworthy 1,

    Notice what I did NOT say. I did not say that we come to Christ freely BECAUSE of our free will. You ASSUMED that I said this. I said we come freely, being made willing by his grace as the Westminster Confession puts it.

    It is God who regenerates and this is his act alone. Logically, regeneration preceeds the act of faith (a gift from God) and repentance (which God alone enables) but chronologically regeneration and faith occur at the same time. Jesus did not mock the people of Galilee when he announced the good news of and from God saying the kingdom of God has drawn near : repent and trust in the good news.

    The commands in Mark 1 are in the present imperative and suggest ongoing action is required. We need to keep on putting our confidence and trust in the good news,It is the Holy Spirit who enables us and keeps us, putting God’s stamp of ownership on us until the day of redemption ( the last day).

    “Ho everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money. come buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” Chapter 55 of Isaiah is an invitation to Israel to abundant life. It calls on people to seek Yahweh while he may be found. Although people have no ability to respond they can reject the offer. They are not robots or automatons. The point is that those who are not elected in Jesus from before the foundation of the world WILL NOT COME. They refuse to have this man Jesus to reign over them.

    Your other points i will answer later as I have other duties to perform.

    Thanks for your response to my previous postings.

    John Arthur


  41. John Arthur read some of the “CANONS of the Council of Orange(529 AD)” and then tell us where free will is taught in the word of God?? It’s not there.

    CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

    CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

    CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers”

    CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

    CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).

    CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).


  42. Hi Linda,

    You have misunderstood everything that I have written on this topic. Did you actually read what I said?

    Please note :

    (1) I do not hold to libertarian or contra-causal human freedom, but to compatiblist human freedom. I believe in meticuluous Divine sovereignty, not general sovereignty.

    (2) There is a natural liberty which all have. This is NOT the ability to choose God in one’s own strength. We come freely to Jesus, being ‘made’ (not forced) willing by God’s grace.

    (3) I did NOT say that faith precedes regeneration.

    (4) I did not say that humans are able to convert themselves or prepare themselves for conversion.When we were non Christians, we were dead in sin and not able, by our own strength to convert ourselves. It is God who frees us from bodage to sin and self and by his grace alone enables us to do that which is spiritually good.

    What I said was that those who respond positively to the gospel offer do so freely.He whom the Son has set free is free indeed. We now have ability as well as our natural liberty. Before our conversion, we had a natural liberty but no ability to will any SPIRITUAL good. Those who refuse the gospel offer have a natural liberty but no ability to do any spiritual good (though of course they may do much natural good, but this is not done for the glory of God).

    I am beginning to wonder, by the responses I am getting on this blog, whether a compassionate Calvinism is ever possible. Some respondents are so set of the 5 points of Calvinism and so dogmatic that they read things into what some other respondents say. They attribute to them things they did not say.

    If a compassionate Calvinism is impossible, then I think that Arminianism or even Open Theism is a better option because they emphasise God’s love for all human beings. So if 4 point Calvinism leads one to Arminianism, then I think that I will go down this path. I simply do not want a hard hearted theology.

    John Arthur


    Hi Linda,

    I apologize for the last sentence. You seem to be a person of good will, but please try to understand my position. I am trying to work towards a compassionate Calvinism. This could include the 5 points but, at this stage, I am a 4 point Calvinist, At this stage, I do not see how a compassionate Calvinism is possible when we do not believe that Jesus died for all.. You, and others on this blog, may think otherwise and I respect that.

    Hi Words of a Foreigner,
    Thanks for your kind invitation. I am not on facebook but I will look in on your blog.

    John Arthur


  43. John,
    I understand what you did and did not say, you seem evasive when asked how sinners freely reject the gospel. You stated sinners freely accept the good news by faith through grace and freely reject almost all in one breath, and you leave us hanging as to how sinners freely reject the gospel; what is it that enables them to reject? I know you have other things to tend to, I am merely trying to cut to the chase on this matter. I will check back later concerning this as well as the matter of McClarty’s video,1 John 2:2 and the question I asked you concerning if Christ died for the sin of unbelief.

    Have a blessed day


  44. John Arthur,,, first and foremost you are important to me and a very precious man as a human being.. Yes sometimes I do get a bit caught up in the argument I’m passionate about more than being passionate and loving towards people as I should because I want people to KNOW the truth and be set FREE from LIES and false arguments that are not biblical… I apologize about that I haven’t been more loving or kind towards you… Sometimes I have to just not respond to people because my motives are not right and go before the Lord in prayer.

    No I haven’t read all your statements and I came in the tail end of your argument on this subject. I apologize for that as well.

    I just thought I could post some canons of orange and I recon I messed up…

    I will bow out of this and let it be between you and lyn.

    the premise is we are DEAD and once we have defined what dead means, then any argument that goes like this ” that we have free will” or that we as you have stated have the “natural ability” and also the argument that God “forces” people against their will… My problem with any of these views is how can a dead man be forced—he’s dead.. God forces dead men against their will? I didn’t know dead men had a will. Natural ability? what ability does a dead man have? none.. Free will? I didn’t know dead men had (any will) since they are DEAD…

    Okay I’ve made my statement based on Scripture that we are “dead in our transgressions and sins” and that no one seeks God, no one understands and there is no one righteous”–… IF anyone DOES seek God it is GOD drawing that person by his GRACE and MERCY.. NOTHING else….

    John Arthur I have no animosity against you whatsoever. I come to you in love and compassion…You simply don’t have to worry that you’ve offended me. I’m a very thick skinned duck who lets things roll off me like water off a ducks back…

    I am just concerned with some of your arguments. I pray that the Lord will be gracious in our future convos that we would come to a complete understanding of the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ In ways we’ve never known HIM before and that his JOY would be our delighting in HIM==


  45. If I may add something to this conversation, I’d like to direct those who struggle with the doctrine known as “limited atonement” to two sermons that I feel are a must to listen to before coming to any died-in-the-wool conclusions.

    They are The Atonement: Real or Potential by John MacArthur, and Grace Secured: Limited Atonement by Brian Borgman. (Both links take you to a previous DefCon page where you can download these messages for free.)

    In my opinion one would be very hard pressed to come away from these two messages not believing in (or at least conceding the high probability and plausibility of) God’s specific particular redemption for His sheep, those elect saints chosen (by His mercy and grace alone) from before the foundation of the world.

    I also want to give you this quote from John Owen:

    The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

    1. All the sins of all men.
    2. All the sins of some men, or
    3. Some of the sins of all men.

    In which case it may be said:

    1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
    2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
    3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

    You answer, “Because of unbelief.”

    I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!

    I hope the preceding information (especially the sermons) help.

    – Pilgrim


  46. Hi All,

    I am pulling out of this discussion. You have convinced me that Calvinism is not really a compassionate theology and I am abandoning it completely. I am going back to Anabaptism but from within an evangelical framework. I am committed to a compassionate peace theology and cannot find anyway forward with Calvinism.

    I think you all convinced me that Calvinism is an integrated whole and that all of TULIP is essential to the system. Break one link and it all falls to the ground. So thanks for engaging me, but I cannot see how I can be a Calvinist and hold to a compassionate theology, For me, God loves all human beings and Christ died for all. He died for every sin, including the sin of unbelief.

    Many thanks for the discussion.

    John Arthur


  47. Quote
    “For me, God loves all human beings and Christ died for all. He died for every sin, including the sin of unbelief.”
    end quote

    Perhaps my experience mirrors that of a lot of other folks in that I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point of accepting Limited Atonement, I now look back and wonder how I ever missed it in the first place . For mine , the pivotal argument of Sovereign Grace is that of Limited Atonement, and for me it came down to the question of , if Christ died for every man , woman and child , then every man , woman and child will have been reconciled to God, because if we read Romans 5:10-11 in light of universal atonement , then there is no judgement necessary at the coming of Christ.

    Romans 5:10-11
    For if , when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son
    , much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life .11 . And not only so , but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ , by who we have now received the atonement.

    For if, when we were enemies , we were reconciled to God ……….., wow ! , if this is universal atonement in action , why are so few displaying fruits of the Spirit?The truth is that its not universal , but limited atonement in view , in that Christ came to save his people from their sins.

    Matthew 1:21
    And she shall bring forth a son , and thou shalt call his Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

    I don’t know whether you’ll read this or not John , but I came to the point of realisation that my arms were too short to box with God, whether you believe that Calvinism is compassionate or not , the issue is to get on side with the truth.


  48. John,
    It is unfortunate that in your opinion Calvinists are not compassionate. I have such compassion for the truth since God revealed the doctrines of grace to me, and I have grown in awe of my God with deep gratitude that I never had before. Having passion and zeal for God’s truth does not mean I am cold-hearted or unfeeling, I am zealous for truth so others may be filled with the gratitude that having a right understanding of salvation brings. I do not even consider myself a Calvinist because what I believe God taught me from His word. I have actually never read anything from John Calvin, so in actuality I am a ‘Paulinist’, because what I believe the Apostle Paul taught in his epistles.

    I would like to comment on your stating Christ died for the sin of unbelief, if that’s so, then Hitler is in heaven, atheists are in heaven, all who reject the Gospel go to heaven. I strongly encourage you to reconsider your statement and to seek truth to this in God’s word; also I recommend the sermons Pilgrim kindly suggested. It is so unfortunate that you choose to close your ears to the doctrines of grace, and that you refuse to watch Jim McClarty’s video on John 3:16; he goes into the Greek and rightly expounds that verse. You would have been blessed with tremendous truth, but you reject God’s blessing concerning this truth, for now anyway. I understand, I once rejected the doctrines of grace because I was sure free will was biblical, as well as thinking salvation required nothing more than an invitation, or decision. I have been so blessed by God as He slowly brought me to truth {it took several years for this to happen}; He didn’t overwhelm me, instead He graciously showed me how I was saved and how Christ made atonement for His people, dying for His elect. I will leave you with one of my favorite verses {besides Ephesians 2:8-9} from 2 Thessalonians 2:13, “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.” I lift up my voice and praise this God who died for me, who chose me from before the foundation of the world, who opened my depraved mind and broke me over my sins, and gifted me, a worthless wretch, with eternal life.

    May He be as gracious to you as He has been to me



  49. Hi Lyn,

    My final reply. I am deeply concerned that you have misrepesented what I have said at almost every turn. There has not been one apology on your part.

    I did NOT say that Calvinists lack compassion. I said “You have convinced me that Calvinism is not a compassionate theology”. This is not the same as saying that Calvinists lack compassion. Many people are better than their theologies.

    I also said that “I cannot see how I can be a Calvinist and hold to a compasionate theology”. I did not say that others could not see this.

    So stop bearing false witness against me.

    John Arthur


  50. John, You stated calvinism is not a compassionate theology, so if one holds to the doctrines of grace, wouldn’t it stand to reason they are as the theology they hold to?

    As for my bearing false witness, this is why I responded in the manner in which I did: your commentary has led to great misunderstanding because it isn’t as crystal clear as you may think.
    If Calvinism, or as I prefer to call it, the Pauline theology lacks compassion, how can it be that one who holds to Paul’s teachings wouldn’t be considered the same? Can one be passionate about ‘theology’ and not be passionate about lost sinners?

    Also, what is it about Calvinism that causes you to state it is not a compassionate theology? I find it hard to understand what you believe; you state – “Christ’s death was of infinite worth before God the Father that it is sufficient to atone for the sins of the world but it is only efficient for the elect. Thos who freely respond in genuine faith and repentance are his elect chosen from before the foundation of the world.We need to distingush between God’s common grace given to all, and effectual grace only given to the elect.” It appears you believe in the doctrine of election, but after that, you never clearly state what you believe, although you reject limited atonement.

    When I pointed you to 1 John 2:2, you ignored the verse. You also ignored the video by Jim McClarty on John 3:16; honestly, your problem isn’t with Calvinists, you are not willing to dig deeper into the doctrines of grace, so you make accusations against Calvinism that isn’t true. To truly understand the doctrines of grace has caused me to come to deeper reverence for God and has produced a deep heart-felt gratitude for what God has done. Understanding my own wretchedness, my inability to come to Christ apart from grace, God gifting me with faith, repentance, and salvation, Christ dying for His people, imputing His righteousness to His own, being sanctified for the rest of my earthly life…what amazing, bewildering, wonderful truths all this is. And I had not one thing to do with any of it, nor am I worth saving. God saved me, all by His doing, all for His glory. This is why I am deeply grateful, because I truly understand my inability and the fact that I played NO PART in the salvation given to me as a gift by my Eternal Majesty!


  51. Lyn we know the argument is flawed based on “guilt by association”.. Calvinism =lack of compassion.. They have not done a proper exegesis and systematic study of Scripture and thus it’s usually based on their opinions and emotions rather than what God has actually done.. To them WE are making God out to be a monster…

    as the argument goes for those who don’t hold to the view that God’s word actually teaches “limited atonement” it seems God is made out to not love everyone and that he is unfair to not give all the same free will choice.

    all throughout Scripture God is specific, Christ died for a particular people and ALL their sins. All throughout the Bible it is evident that Jesus died for a specific, particular, chosen people according to God

    ~“And what does it mean at Calvary? Does this only mean that God attempted to save people and it’s not complete? Does this mean that God is not Almighty? If Jesus did not die for a particular and specific people then doesn’t that mean it’s all uncertain and just a theory and a hope?
    I believe Scripture teaches Calvary means that God actually, completely, totally, eternally saved and perfected His people whom the Father had chosen and gave to his Son when Jesus said “It is Finished” and when did God say Jesus was slain? In God’s mind Jesus was “slain before the foundation of the world”-
    John 15:12-Jesus laid down his life for his friends. He laid down his life for those he chose.-16.

    biblical proofs to God’s limited atonement: from Jim Mclardy

    John 17:6-10
    “I am not praying for the world”
    ~Can you imagine Jesus saying THIS- hours before he died on the cross that he wouldn’t PRAY for all the people he “died” for if it were universal?”
    ~“No it’s only if we understand the specificity of the atonement that he was dying for a particular people only THEN is it okay for him to say –“I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me”
    John 10:11-15 and John 10:26 10—15 “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep..Jesus says to the Pharisees “you are not my sheep”.
    ~“Is there any way to conclude logically that Jesus intended to go to the cross for the Pharisees? No and he specifically said “I lay down my life for my sheep” not the Pharisees who were NOT his sheep”

    Rev 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

    “The lambs book of life already referred to in the book of Revelation says that it was written before the foundation of the world-(Rev.17:8).

    ~“Well, if the book of life was written before the foundation of the world, then who did the determining? God did— all by himself. God did his own choosing, the electing, He wrote down their names and these are the ones he’s saving and these that I did not write in the book of life are the ones that I’m not saving and they’re going into the lake of fire. Now can you believe knowing all this that God the Father would then send his Son to die and pay the sin penalty and bear the wrath on behalf of all those HE already knew were NOT in the Lamb’s book of life? NO. That’s to charge God with foolishness. That’s to say that he actively attempted to do something he fully knew he wasn’t going to do. Makes no sense at all.”

    Acts 20:27-28—
    Ephesians 5– The Church is the BODY not the world. Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”

    ALL credit goes to Jim Mclardy for these partial quotes and notes

    I know of some people who are staunch arminians and I just love their wisdom and have learned MUCH from them.. People such as Dave Hunt–I’ve taken copious amounts of notes from him defending the truth from false doctrines…I don’t believe we should break fellowship with people who hold a different view, but pray that we would all come to understand what Scripture actually teaches and in our love for the truth and one another IN Christ.


  52. John Arthur,

    perchance you come back in here and read this I have this to say about what you wrote back to me.

    You wrote in reply to my citation of verses from Romans, Psalms and Ephesians this:

    “I said that those who freely respond to the gospel in genuine faith and repentance are his elect. Note, I did not say that they are his elect because they freely responded. You have simply read this into my proposition (5).. I believe that all who freely respond to the gospel genuinely and are effectually called were chosen by God from before the foundation of the world, not because he saw any merits in them or any foreseen faith but solely by his grace and eternal purpose.”

    Ok, please point to where I “read this into my proposition (5)”?

    What I did was cite several verses. Nowhere in my response was I questioning whether or not you were a 4 point or 5 point Calvinist.

    What you have demonstrated, it seems to me, is that the Holy Spirit must have touched you when you read those Scriptures and then from that (His voice) deduced something I was addressing when it most likely was Him??

    I do hope you will respond to this inquiry?



    you touched on limited atonement so if it is ok, I would like to touch on it, too along with the matter of “who” Jesus died for?

    Jesus died for “all” mankind.

    He also died for Satan and all his angels!


    Did I get your attention?

    So, I would like to follow up with this with you if you have the time?


Tell us what you think:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.