Recently in a forum I read, this question was posed:
QUESTION:
Acts 10:13 states For whosover shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rev. 22:17 whosover will let him take the water of life freely
Acts 2:21 states whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be savedThe Bible states several times that it is a whosoever will salvation. How can calvinism be true without updating the definition of the word whosoever?If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved. The only two conditions are belief and confession. There is no you must be elected first. It is whosoever will May Come!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I posted a response which I felt I should share here too. This is a common objection, and perhaps some of my readers will be benefited by my brief and I think helpful response.
RESPONSE:
Good question. This is a real argument in many people’s minds. Let me try to explain.The above verses along with John 3:16 and others use the term “whosoever”. Do Calvinists have to redefine that term in order for their position to be true? Not at all. First let us notice what these verses say, and then look at what Calvinism says.
These verses say who so ever calls (Acts 10:13 and 2:21), wills (Rev. 22:17), or believes (John 3:16) will be saved/drink of water of life freely/receive everlasting life. In other words they say who ever wants to be saved may do so, or who ever believes/repents/chooses to receive salvation can. In fact Jesus said in John 6:37b “him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” So these verses are affirming that anyone who comes to Jesus, anyone who truly wants to come to Jesus will be received and thus will be saved.
Calvinists have absolutely no problem with that at all. What Calvinism addresses is the “behind the scenes” root cause in all of this. In other words, Calvinism seeks to answer this question, “why do some people want to come or want to believe and others do not?” The only reason Calvinism is interested in that question, actually, is because many passages of Scripture speak to that very issue. For instance John 6:37 (a & b) says, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” The Calvinist sees this verse as teaching that anyone who comes to Jesus was first given to Jesus by the Father. They also were first drawn by the Father (Jn. 6:44). And further they were enabled to come by the Father (Jn. 6:65).
This is why Calvinism does not at all have to squelch evangelism. In fact, historically, many of the great revivals and great evangelistic endeavors of the Church have been initiated by diehard Calvinists. Calvinists see no incongruity between “whosoever will may come” and “all who come were chosen before the foundation of the world”. Calvinists simply preach the gospel to everyone, since God’s word assures us that people will come to salvation from every people group (Rev. 5). They preach and when people respond, Calvinists see those people as evidencing the fact that they were first elect and then given a new heart by God’s Holy Spirit. Calvinists see that while all are invited to come, no one will come (or even want to come) apart from the work of God (see Rom. 3:10-12; Rom. 8:7-8; 2 Tim. 2:24-26; 2 Cor. 4:1-6; etc.). But Calvinists are greatly convinced that God is at work in the world and thus can have confidence in His Sovereign ability to give increase to the seed of the gospel in every situation where we are called to labor (1 Cor. 3:5-7). This actually gives added strength for ministry endeavors in hard areas where fruit is not quickly evident. (For instance, a Calvinist, Adoniram Judson, labored for seven years in Burma before seeing his first convert.)
So I affirm that Calvinism in no way needs to redefine “whosoever” in order for its claims to be true.
If you are interested in following the discussion (if one develops), you can see the thread here. Update: the same question was posed as the beginning of another thread which has had some discussion–you can see that here.
Good response. I still think John 6:44 is the kicker. That verse effectively takes the wind right out of the “whosoever” sails.
You guys might want to look at verse 45. Let’s look at content in context as I like to say. John 6:43-45 “Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” Verse 45 kind of sounds like Romans 10:17. Again content in context. Romans 10:13-17. “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. I would love to hear follow up thoughts. Lord bless!
Jonathan,
I agree totally. I probably hurried in my response, a bit. I should have quoted that verse in length. But John 6:37 and an allusion to v. 44 should be enough.
Thanks for stopping by!
Great post! I think I’ll link to this one… good stuff.
Bob,
I am actually translating through John (to prepare for seminary next year) and am taking it real slow (I’m still in the first chapter); however, at the same time I am reading through John for my devotions. All the times I have looked at John 3:16 I never thought to look at the Greek construction, but I think the comment made by the professor after you is helpful–“whosoever” is not English equivalence, but part of the participle of believing. So the verse should read, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that those who are believing…” Very clear and consistent with the part of John 1 I have translated.
Mathew S.
Matthew,
Good point. I was just working off the English. The Greek construction for the verses in question is as follows.
John 3:16 = everyone (pas) the believing [one](o pisteuon)
Rev. 22:17 = he (o) willing (thelon) let him take (lambaneto)
Romans 10:13 & Acts 2:21 = everyone (pas) whoever (os an) calls (epikalesetai)
So it is even more clear in Greek, that “whosoever” means the ones who do believe/call/will–any of them or all of them.
Great to find a Reformed blog. I am a refomed thinker. I think you you are right. You ever “wills” are those who are called. Its simple.
You can check out my blog if you like, Im trying to get it out there.
http://www.rich7.blogspot.com
blessings
Rich
Great to hear some positive feedback. I hope you’ll drop by often.
Thanks! And good luck with your new blog.
I think a good thing to think about here is God’s will. You talk of the Father only drawing certain people, only electing certain people. But it is God’s Will that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. (I Timothy 2:4) It is also His will that we not sin, yet we do. We can go contrary to His will. And it is His Will that not any should perish, but that all should repent (2 Peter 3:9).
There are two aspects to God’s “will;” His revealed will (theologically called “preceptive will”) and His secret will (“Decretive will”).
His preceptive will is revealed in the Scriptures and it is found in commands such as “Thou shalt not kill,” or “Come unto me all ye that labour…,” or “Repent and be converted every one of you…” This will can, and it’s often resisted. His preceptive desire is that no man dies in his sins, but that they come to repentance.
However, His decretive will is the one that He does not reveal, where He ordains whatever comes to pass. His choosing of the elect is drawn from His decretive/secret will, and that is why we cannot know who the elect are, and so that’s why we preach the gospel to everyone. His decretive desire is for His justice to be vindicated.
Louis,
Thanks for making a great point. The Anonymous comment above must have slipped through the cracks. I try to answer comments like that.
A good article along these lines (2 different senses of God’s will) is by John Piper entitled: “Are There Two Wills in God?: Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to Be Saved.”
Thanks for stopping by.
God Bless.
Interesting, I have to agree that God has not reveled to us who will be saved and therefore, I have to agree that it is important that we preach the word to all creatures, even if it takes 7 years for the first soul to come to believe. Indeed I have heard of and have met men on the mission field who have never heard a preacher but have been prepared for the Gospel before actually receiving the Word. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Once they hear the Word their faith, which was previously a diligent seeking, becomes established. The point is that before they came to faith they knew to seek. Left to the course that their peers walked in they would not have sought the truth. This seeking is therefore nothing less than the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, which leads them to the Truth. I cannot (and frankly do not want to) come up with any other explanation when I think of the persecution these folks often have had to bear for following the Lord.
Keep in mind, Joshua, that experience does not determine our theology, but Scripture’s teaching does. I don’t mean to imply you do not believe that Scripture trumps experience, but many objections to Calvinism are based more solidly in experience than in Scripture. And often when confronted with different prooftexts for Calvinism, the non-Calvinists pits a different verse against the text the Calvinist cited. Both texts must be true and found not to contradict. We can’t just explain away the clear meaning of some passages by utilizing other passages, we must try to harmonize the passages as only one over-arching interpretation can be correct.
Thanks for your input. God bless you in your walk with Him in Christ.
Bob
Interesting that you made that observation in reading what I posted. I was just thinking along the same lines while reading the Piper booklet that you linked to. What would cause someone who claims to have been saved by the Grace of God reject Calvinism? Could it be that in their sin and in the wrong direction that they were going they cannot fathom how they could be worthy to be choose? Thus in their mind they must have been the one to seek after God, and the change in their direction is what makes them worthy of Salvation. In reality it has nothing to do with their worthiness, but the Grace of God. Here in their ignorance of the Gospel they are still relying on their own works.
A while back when I actually began to read about Calvinism vs. Armenianism, I found it interesting how quickly Armenianism grew in popularity especially among the high society the rich and the powerful of the day. Armenianism is reactionary against Calvinism, which takes Salvation out of the hands of the individual completely. It seems that the high society, the rich and the powerful were accustomed to pulling themselves up as the old saying goes by their bootstraps, and they were used to the idea of getting where they are going on their own accord. Thus the idea that they were powerless in their pursuit of Salvation would be a turn off. It all comes down to human nature that was true in the beginning and is still true today. If you ever read Josephus, this is the same explanation that Nimrods gave for the construction of Babel, and if you ever listen to guys on the radio like Rush Limbaugh it won’t take long to see that the same mindset is prevalent in America. Is it any wonder that churches across America are struggling? We are so busy relying on our own strength we are forgetting that God is the one that draws men to Salvation.
Finally, you are correct; I do believe that Scripture trumps experience. Experience is subjective, and can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and is therefore not concrete enough to build faith upon. I simply wrote of those experiences as testimonies of God’s Grace working in the lives of men who came to believe.
Sorry, Josh. I wasn’t quite sure where you were going with what you had said. I do not mean to say we can never look at real life examples as testimonies of what Scripture teaches. But we just need to be careful about arguing from that basis.
I agree that it can seem to make sense that we need to “pull ourselves up” and get saved, etc. And many of these people are still believing that they are condemned and that God offers grace and they are trusting in God who offers grace to them who know they are unworthy of that grace. I believe they–most Arminians–are truly saved. But not because of their theology in regards to free will and salvation, etc. Those who truly believe have already been regenerated and elected, even if they think that regeneration resulted from their faith, and that God chose them because of foreseen faith.
I think your comments over on the Regeneration Reception and Faith post have cleared things up for me. I am glad you understand Calvinism more now, and that you seem to agree with much of it more now.
God bless you and yours richly in Christ Jesus. May He grant us both greater understanding of the riches of God’s grace in salvation causing us to love and trust and serve Him more—not just making us theological giants who can beat up on everyone else and gloat about how great we are. Let us glory in our amazing and glorious Salvation and far more wonderful Savior!
Bob Hayton