Chosen - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------

Mr. Ratliff engages in a good bit of contorting to bolster his Calvinistic false doctrine, the predestination of the Elect. He looks at the syntax, tenses, and grammar of two passages. However, he misses the forest for the trees. All of his analysis of the Greek words might be true and accurate, but he misses the context for all this. These two passages are not about our predestination. 

-------------------

Predestination and Romans chapter 8:29-30, 8:33-34

We discuss predestination regarding Romans 9:22-25 here. 

Introduction

In our pursuit of the truths of the Bible, we have too often been confronted by our own presumption. We think we know what the Bible teaches, but when we begin to consider the Bible apart from our preconceptions a new picture often emerges.

In this process we have modified our approach to Scripture in at least two ways. We want to know:

• To whom was the author writing, and how would those people understand what was written?
• who is the author talking about, himself or his readers?

We admit that the following might be controversial conclusions. But we ask the reader to examine the Scriptures for himself.

To Whom was Paul Writing?

We first note that Paul is writing to a specific group:

Ro. 1:7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

But that's not all we know. He's particularly writing to the Roman Jews:

Ro. 2:17-18 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law...

Paul was mostly writing to Jewish Christians in Rome. This understanding really helps us in that it contextualizes the various Jewish references, like circumcision (Ro. 2:28). the advantages of being a Jew (Ro. 3:1), righteousness not through the law (Ro. 3:20), Abraham "our father" (Ro. 4:1), death to the law (Ro. 7:4, Ro. 7:9), and freedom from the condemnation of the law (Ro. 8:1-3).

Paul's audience is Jewish, and we should understand how his Jewish audience would hear these words. These have a primary Jewish applicability. 

Who are the elect of God? - gotquestions.org

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------

This question and answer is not about explaining the Bible, it is to defend a particular doctrinal perspective. Calvinists/Reformists believe in something called the "doctrines of grace," a collection of five doctrines roughly represented by the acronym TULIP:

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints

Gotquestions intends to explain the U, unconditional election. We think they fail miserably.

-------------------------

We are chosen by God - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------

Ms. Prata attempts to teach about the Calvinistic doctrine of Election, that Christians are chosen and predestined to be saved. She relies on a couple of go-to verses, but these verses don't teach what Calvinists say they teach.

We will explain.

----------------------------------

What about predestination? The "firstfruits"

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

----------------

If God Is Sovereign, Why Bother to Share Your Faith? - by Timothy Z. Witmer

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------

The author is a Calvinist, so he believes in a set of peculiar doctrines known as TULIP:

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints

The underlying assumption in all these is predestination. The centerpiece of Calvinism is that God has chosen all those who will be saved and there is nothing anyone can do about it, pro or con. So the author's purpose is to explain our obligation to evangelize in light of predestination, even though evangelizing is futile and makes no difference at all. 

As a doctrine, predestination fails because Calvinists assume it applies to everyone. It doesn't. It is our belief that in the NT only the very first of the early believers were predestined (the firstfruits), but we later Christians were added when we were saved (Ephesians 1:12). 

Thankfully, the author quotes several Scriptures, a welcome departure from the Scriptureless "Bible teaching" we are accustomed to seeing. But he will use terminology based on an assumption that we know what he means. For example, the author will use the term "sovereign" and its variants 16 times but never define the word.

Lastly, we note that Calvinists are always explaining Calvinism. Over and over again. They will never explain the Bible unless they can talk about Calvinism. We think this is cultic behavior.

------------------------------

The basics - The order of salvation - The Riddleblog

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------

Kim Riddlebarger has been writing a series called "the basics." We have commented on these several times in our blog, and our complaint has been that his explanations are not basic. Sometimes the topics themselves are not basic.

The latter is the case today. The ordo salutis does not involve any aspect of Christian living, holiness, worship, or maturity of faith. We think things that are "basic" to our faith ought to come to bear on how we conduct our lives. The ordo salutis does not.

We should note that the author approaches his topics from the perspective of Calvinism, which means that the things he writes often have another meaning. For example, when he writes that we are "unable to do anything to save ourselves," he means that a person is totally depraved and cannot make a decision and be saved. God has predestined the ones He has selected to be saved, and His sovereign choice cannot be resisted.

This means that the biblical idea that "works cannot save us" actually means that a person making the decision would itself be a work. Thus salvation is only the work of God from beginning to end, and so we are predestined. 

So the Calvinist tries to explain the detailed process by which God saves a man, and from that arises the ordo salutis.

Lastly, the author never provides us with a plain list of the full ordo, so we shall:

1) election/predestination 

2) Atonement 

3) gospel call 

4) inward call 

5) regeneration, 

6) conversion (faith & repentance), 

7) justification, 

8) sanctification, and 

9) glorification. 

------------------

What Is Predestination? - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

Dr. Sproul does what all Calvinists/Reformists do, explain Calvinism. They will never explain the Bible unless they can teach their doctrines. 

In addition, Dr. Sproul writes 950 words about his doctrines, but not a single Bible verse is quoted. Not one. He doesn't even provide a Bible reference. 

Astonishing.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

-------------------------

The Basics -- Election - The Riddleblog

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

The author is supposed to supply us with the basics. But he does not do so. It's all rather esoteric regarding a doctrine that's of little practical use. It teaches us nothing about how to live a holy life, how to be a better worshiper, or how to serve more effectively.

As such, there is nothing basic about the doctrine of election. 

Beyond this, the author expends about 1000 words attempting to explain election. But Ephesians chapter one is poorly chosen. He misses the nuances of these verses, which ends up negating his premise.

And as is typical with these so-called "Bible teachers," the author barely manages to quote Scripture.

We commented on the article on his website, and a perfunctory conversation ensued. We  provide that at the end, with an additional note that the author's replies are confusing and entirely unsatisfying.

This man is not a Bible teacher.

What Is Predestination? - Core Christianity

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------------

Here's another "teaching" on the Elect, i.e., those who are supposedly chosen by God to be saved. It's a tenet of Calvinism, and it's a false and pernicious doctrine. 

We do not write this flippantly. Calvinism distorts the Gospel, distorts salvation, distorts the nature of God, and distorts the Cross. It is very nearly cultic. 

We will discover the author is misinformed at times, and even lies. He quotes snippets of Scripture to disguise what the whole verse says, he lies about obvious things contained in the Bible, and he twists the Gospel into a farce.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

--------------------------

Is Double Predestination Fair? - by Kevin DeYoung

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------

The author has appeared in our blog several times before. In these times we've analyzed him we've discovered he has a marked aversion to quoting Scripture. Today's article is no exception. Thus the author attempts to teach about his doctrines but without hardly a quote of the document from which those doctrines are derived. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

In fact, the author doesn't even teach the Bible, he teaches Calvinism. We have yet to observe him teaching the Bible apart from specific Calvinistic doctrines.

Lastly, this is nothing more than an exercise in futility. There is no benefit to knowing the things the author writes about. "Double predestination" is nonsensical.

--------------------------

What Is TULIP? - by Robert Rothwell

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

We have previously commented on this author's articles here and here. We are not surprised, therefore, that he does not quote Scripture today, because he didn't before. Well, in fairness, we must concede he quote a snippet of a verse, but it does not document any of the points he makes.

Over 1600 words, nine of which are Scripture. Really, how can a "Bible" teacher teach the Bible without quoting it? It continually mystifies us.

The biggest problem Calvinists have is their need to create complicated explanations in order to harmonize Scripture with their doctrines. Invariably this means to take verses out of context and insert themselves into them. 

This is what happens when doctrines are used to interpret Scripture.

But ultimately, our issue is the irrelevance of these doctrines. TULIP does not change any aspect of Christian living. These doctrines do not change any privilege or obligation we have. None of them speak to generosity, worship, obedience, holiness, or fellowship. A lost person still needs repentance and salvation, regardless of the truth of Calvinism.

As such, these doctrines are diversions, intellectual exercises that have no practical purpose. Aside from their repugnance, these doctrines are irrelevant.

-------------------------

Double predestination - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------------

Almost 3600 words. Only 2300 of them are actually Dr. Sproul's and not the quotes of others. He uses the word "Bible" and "biblical" a total of four times (not including quoted material). The word "scripture" is used once. 

But there is only a single Bible verse quoted: "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy." That's it, just ten words out of 3600. Truly astonishing that a supposed Bible teacher can write so many words explaining a supposed Bible doctrine without using the Bible.

This is Bad Bible Teaching. There is no other way to describe it. 

The entire article is obtuse and impenetrable, filled with theological jargon and unexplained premises. One must wade through hundreds of words that seem to be written in English to finally arrive at an explanation of the topic of the article:

In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives.

We will try to untangle this further as we go, but the basic thrust of this article is to attempt to explain the method by which God chooses the "Elect" (those He predestined to be saved) while not actively choosing the lost for hell. He will do his level best to keep God from being to blame for the sin. 

This is the doctrine Dr. Sproul will try to explain. Where in the Bible do we find this? Unknown, since he never tells us.

Our opinion is that the predestination verses are descriptive of the first century and not us. Let's look at Ephesians chapter one. Here we see Paul making the claim about being predestined: 

Ep. 1:4-5 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will —

Carefully note the use of pronouns. God chose "us," "we" were predestined. "We." "Us." Who is "we?"

Ep. 1:11-12 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, Ep. 1:12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

Oh. The ones who were predestined are those who were the first to hope in Christ. The first to hope in Christ were the earliest Jewish believers and a little later, the earliest gentile believers [Ac. 13:48]. That's not us.

So if only the earliest Christians were predestined, then what about us? Let's continue:

Ep. 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit...

Notice the switch in the pronouns? No longer "we" and "us." It's turned to "you." 

Paul began talking about how "we" (those who were first to hope in Christ, vs. 12) were predestined, but then in verse 13 he turned to his audience and told them "you also" were included, and that happened when "you" heard the word of truth.

Another example is Romans chapter 8:

Ro. 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

 A careful Bible student would ask, "who did God foreknow?" Well, we can determine this from the context, which we find a few verses earlier in the same chapter:

Ro. 8:23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Notice how profoundly self-referential this is. Paul was referring to a very specific group of people. It should be clear that Paul's statement applies very narrowly. We think the Roman church would have understood that Paul was not referring to every Christian. We should also understand this and not be quick to insert ourselves into the narrative.

Paul makes a careful distinction in referring to the "firstfruits of the Spirit." The "firstfruits" are the very first of the crop. We should understand that not every Christian received the very first part of the Holy Spirit and we cannot be pert of those whom Paul was talking about - - Paul says this happened to "we ourselves." "We ourselves." They received "the firstfruits of the Spirit." 

Contemporary Christians have not received the firstfruits of the Spirit. Indeed, we are 2000 years removed from this. We believe the firstfruits of the Spirit was the initial Pentecostal outpouring. We were not there to receive this. No, we have received the continued outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which has be going on throughout the Last Days pouring out.

Paul later tells us directly who God foreknew: 

Ro. 11:1-2 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.

Those He foreknew is the remnant of Israel. They are The Elect.

The Elect, therefore, are the very first believers (i.e., the firstfuits). The rest of us are the same as those in the Ephesian church. All of the Elect lived and died 2000 years ago. Which makes Dr. Sproul's explanation entirely moot. The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination is completely false.

------------------------

Is there Injustice on God’s Part? - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------

The author didn't write this article to teach about the Bible, he wrote it to teach about his Calvinism. He thinks it is critical to understand the Calvinistic doctrine of election, but he doesn't tell us why it is important. But in actual fact, it isn't important. Whether we are saved by His sovereign choice or if we are saved because we responded to His invitation, it doesn't make any difference at all in our lives or Christian walk. 

But the bottom line is that election is a doctrine that makes the mistake of including ourselves in the election of the first generation of Christians. We will explain this below.

---------------------------

Chosen Before the Foundation of the World - By Mike Ratliff - comments exchanged

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

------------------------

This frustrating and unenlightening conversation with Mr. Ratliff reveals a few things.

• He smokescreens behind elaborate explanations and an irrelevant story
• He appeals to his credentials
• He essentially denies that the quoted verses mean what they say, because of his superior (and secret) knowledge of the Greek

On top of all this, he makes assertions and assumptions that ultimately do not answer the questions posed to him.

--------------------------

Five Points in My Pain How God’s Sovereignty Comforts Me - by Joni Eareckson Tada

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------------

We suspect we might get accused of beating up on a helpless disabled person. We will take that risk, because it's not about Ms. Tada's disability, it's about her doctrine. She has presented her doctrine publicly in the below article, and as such has invited scrutiny.

Ms. Tada writes about her theology, a very specific kind of theology known as Calvinism. As a Calvinist Ms. Tada does what every Calvinist does: Teach Calvinism. Calvinists will never teach the Bible unless they can teach Calvinism. 

Their theology revolves around the "doctrines of grace," also known as TULIP. Ms. Tada appeals to TULIP as a comfort to her in her disability. We are happy for her, but we require Ms. Tada to explain how TULIP specifically and uniquely provides this comfort.

We believe that TULIP is irrelevant to the daily Christian walk. By virtue of our salvation, Total Depravity no longer matters. Unconditional Election no longer matters. Limited Atonement no longer matters. Irresistible Grace no longer matters. Perseverance of the Saints no longer matters.

These all reflect on our past, not our current situation. Not our future. None of them come to bear as a benefit to our holiness, generosity, worship, or evangelism.

TULIP doesn't matter.

-----------------------

Is Predestination in the Bible? - By Daniel Nealon

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------

The author is going to explain his Reformed/Calvinism. He's not going to explain the Bible. Calvinists never explain the Bible unless they can further expound on the wonders of Calvinism. This is what they do, over and over. 

Today it's Predestination, the idea that God pre-selected those whom He would save and those He would send to hell. Thus you have no choice. If God chose you, you're in. If He didn't, you're out. 

Which means nothing you do or say will change your destiny. If you're not among the elect, well, go live it up. But even if you are one of the elect (which you cannot know), you can do whatever you want. 

Predestination as believed by Calvinists is not a biblical doctrine.

In addition, the author barely manages to quote Scripture, and none of them or the Bible references he cites support his doctrine.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

------------------------

Help! I’m Struggling with the Doctrine of Predestination - by Joel R. Beeke, Paul M. Smalley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------

Astonishingly, the authors barely manage to quote Scripture. In fact, we must plow through 2/3 of this before we come to our first Scriptures, 3 partial snippets.

In addition, the authors acknowledge the many doubts and objections to predestination, but never actually addresses and explains why those doubts and objections are wrong. 

------------------

Can My Silence Cost Souls? - Interview with John Piper

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------------------

The short answer for Calvinists is no, our silence will not cost souls because God has already irrevocably chosen The Elect.

Either the Calvinists are really pushing predestination right now or maybe they never stopped focusing on it. It certainly seems to be their favorite doctrine. We aren't quite sure why, since it's completely irrelevant to Christian living. How we got to be Christians no longer matters. 

So Dr. Piper contributes to the Calvinist narrative by attempting to explain how predestination doesn't conflict with evangelism.

He fails.

This is simply Bad Bible Teaching.

-----------------------------

The Pronouns Preach: Lessons on the Glory of the Church - By Jim Eliff

 Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------

We are delighted find a Bible teacher who makes an excellent point about an often-overlooked issue in the NT. The use of pronouns is important, because it tells us to whom Paul is referring in his letters. Too often Christians insert themselves into the narrative when they simply don't belong there. 

We find it particularly interesting that he focuses on Ephesians, since this letter is the source of some misunderstood teachings for the very reason Mr. Eliff describes. Though he alludes to chapter one, he doesn't discuss it, preferring to discuss chapter two. We suspect the reason he focused on chapter two is because chapter one is one of the sources of the predestination doctrine:

Ep. 1:4-5, 11 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ... 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined...

This is where predestinationists inappropriately insert themselves. If we were to follow Mr. Eliff's advice, we would pay careful attention to determine who Paul is actually talking about. We would discover that these verses are not referring to Paul's audience. Paul applies these verses to himself and his company:

Ep. 1:12 ...in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

So the predestined ones are "we" (those who were first to hope in Christ). "We," in Mr. Eliff's terms, are those “who were born Jews but are now believers.”  

In the next verse Paul turns to his audience:

Ep. 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. 

You also were included in Christ... When did this happen? ...when you heard the word of truth... The Ephesians were not predestined. They were included when they believed, as opposed to the Jews who came to faith because of predestination.

We would suggest that those who were first to hope in Christ were the "firstfruits," that is, the earliest Jewish believers, plus the earliest gentiles (Ac. 13:48), chosen to salvation. All subsequent believers are included in Christ when they heard the word of truth. We explain this in detail here and here.

------------------