Innovative Dental @idspringfield

It's true that no verse says "God predestined Judas to hell" in those words. It's also true that God didn't make Judas wicked: "he himself tempts no one" (James 1:13), and Judas "turned aside" by his own act (Acts 1:25). Everyone in this debate agrees on that, James White included. But look at what the Bible does say about Judas, and when it says it. "Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him" (John 6:64). "Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil" (6:70). Chosen for the Twelve, knowingly, as a devil. "Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born" (Matthew 26:24). Said before the betrayal, with no condition attached. "Not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled" (John 17:12). His being lost fulfilled Scripture. "Son of destruction" is the same title given the man of lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:3). "The Scripture had to be fulfilled... concerning Judas" (Acts 1:16), and he "turned aside to go to his own place" (1:25). Now the one that settles it. Oloyede's reply argues that Judas could have repented after the betrayal and been received. If that had been possible, it would have been better for Judas to be born. Jesus said the opposite, in advance, unconditionally. Oloyede quotes Luke 22:22 and never quotes the second half of the same saying in Matthew 26:24. That clause is the whole question, and his long reply leaves it out. So the sentence isn't in the Bible. The substance is: foreknown from the beginning, chosen as a devil, pronounced better unborn, lost "that the Scripture might be fulfilled." That's more than Scripture says about the destiny of any other named man. One last thing, since the word "predetermine" is doing the work in your post. Nobody in this debate believes God predestines men to evil. Trent condemned that, and so does the Reformed confession, which says God ordains the lost to wrath "for their sin" (Westminster 3.7). God left Judas in his sin, foretold his end, and judged him for what he did. So the answer to your question is yes, for his sin, and never to his sin. If you think one of the verses above says less than that, say which one.

No Romans 9:19 needed. Here's the answer from other texts. Blame follows what we want, not whether we could want the opposite. Joseph's brothers "hated him and could not speak peacefully to him" (Genesis 37:4). Could not, because they hated him, and they were guilty. "It is impossible for God to lie" (Hebrews 6:18), and he is praised for it. Praise and blame follow what a person loves. That's the basis of judgment Jesus gives in John 3: "this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and the people loved the darkness rather than the light" (3:19). The verdict is what they loved. And on the objector: I've granted your reading of him for the sake of argument. Even then, Paul's answer to "who can resist his will?" was not "you can resist." The easiest answer for your view is the one Paul didn't give.

Paul tells you what the vessels are. "Vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles" (Romans 9:23-24). "Us." Called persons, and Gentiles, who had no national election to join. Three verses later: "only a remnant of them will be saved" (9:27). Nations don't get saved. People do. The line was drawn inside the nation from the start: "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" (9:6). Ishmael and Esau were Abraham's seed too. The mercy lands on singular objects: "he has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills" (9:18). The objector is one man: "who are you, O man" (9:20). And Paul's own summary removes the one thing a corporate reading needs, the person's will as the hinge: "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (9:16). Then he names the remnant in chapter 11: "I have kept for myself seven thousand men... a remnant, chosen by grace... the elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened" (11:4-7). Elect and rest, inside Israel, by grace, "not on the basis of works." If membership were decided by each person's faith, that's where Paul would have said so. He said grace. Yes, the chapter is about Israel. It's about which Israelites are saved, and why, and Paul's answer is "him who calls" (9:11).

@Jondaphemp No one is saying that man does not have free will. We freely choose what we want and that desire is to not seek God. When our we are reborn by the spirit, we desire the things of God that we did not before.

Take these in order. The sacrificial system. Who was excluded? Every nation on earth. The Day of Atonement was "for the people of Israel" (Lev 16:34), not for Egypt or Moab, and a foreigner had to join the covenant to be covered (Exod 12:48). Even inside Israel, the high-handed sinner had no sacrifice: "that person shall be utterly cut off" (Num 15:30-31). The type you appealed to is a sacrifice for a people, not for the world. And Hebrews says the type could "never take away sins" (10:11), while the antitype "has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" (10:14). Christ's offering accomplishes for its objects what Israel's could only picture. John 12:32. "Men" is supplied by translators; the Greek is "all." Greeks had just come asking for Jesus (12:20-21), John already glossed the point as gathering "the children of God who are scattered abroad" (11:52), and the same chapter says of the crowd, "they could not believe" (12:39). Drawing in John's other use ends in resurrection: "draw him. And I will raise him up" (6:44). Every individual drawn that way is every individual raised. 1 John 2:2. Same letter, same phrase: "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (5:19). That "whole world" excludes believers, so "whole world" in John is not a head count. And propitiation is wrath satisfied, not wrath made optional. Read 2:2 as every person and no one is under wrath. John says otherwise: "the wrath of God remains on him" (John 3:36). Isaiah 53:6. "All we like sheep have gone astray... the iniquity of us all." The "us" is the "we" who are speaking, the confessing people of the chapter, "my people" of verse 8. And read to verse 11: "by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities." The ones whose iniquities he bears are the ones he makes righteous. Same group. If he bore everyone's, everyone is accounted righteous, and you don't believe that either. For the record, my posts don't rest on limited atonement; Dort says the death of Christ is sufficient for the whole world. They rest on John 6:44. But since you raised it, your four texts say more than you want them to.

The word appears six times, so let's look at each. Romans 8:29-30: "those whom he foreknew he also predestined... and those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified." Predestined comes before called and before justified. Justification is by faith. So the predestined are predestined to be called and to come to justifying faith, in Paul's order, with "those whom" as the object. That is individuals predetermined to become believers, and it's the first verse on your list. Ephesians 1:4-5: "he chose us in him before the foundation of the world... he predestined us for adoption." Adoption is received by faith (Gal 3:26). To be predestined for adoption is to be predestined to become a son, before the foundation of the world, before any believing. Then 1:13 folds in the Gentile readers: "in him you also, when you heard... and believed." The "you" who believed are inside the "us" who were predestined. Acts 4:28: Herod and Pilate did "whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." The word covers what particular men did. So much for "never individuals." And the doctrine was never a word study. Scripture says the same thing with other verbs: "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). "God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved... through belief in the truth" (2 Thess 2:13). "Granted to you... to believe" (Phil 1:29). "Chosen by grace... the elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened" (Rom 11:5-7). "All that the Father gives me will come to me" (John 6:37). Counting one word and ignoring the rest isn't exegesis. It's a search bar.

No careful Calvinist argues "Esau is in hell, therefore predestination." The doctrine doesn't need Esau's address, and Paul never gives it. What Paul gives is the basis of God's choice: "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad... not because of works but because of him who calls" (Rom 9:11). That sentence is the argument, whether the reference is to two men or two lines: God's choosing rests on the caller, not on anything in the chosen. And Paul isn't talking about historical roles. He opens the chapter grieving over people "accursed and cut off from Christ" (9:3), says "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" (9:6), ends with "only a remnant will be saved" (9:27) and "us whom he has called... also from the Gentiles" (9:24). Salvation, start to finish. Then he draws the conclusion himself: "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (9:16). You don't have to know where Esau is to read that sentence. If you want the New Testament's own verdict on Esau the man, it's Hebrews 12:16-17, "unholy," and "found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears." But the argument never needed it.

@CherylSchatz I find this one more true to scripture.

The gospel offer isn't "Christ died for you." It's "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Rom 10:13), and that promise is true for every person alive, because Christ's one sacrifice is of infinite worth, "sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world" in Dort's own words. The box isn't empty. It's Christ. The only reason anyone stays out is that he won't come: "you refuse to come to me that you may have life" (John 5:40). And test the claim against history: nobody has ever come to Christ in faith and found no Savior. Not once. "Whoever comes to me I will never cast out" (John 6:37). An offer is genuine when its terms are true, not when everyone accepts it. Jesus invited people he knew would refuse and called it a real invitation: "Come to the wedding feast... but they paid no attention... many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:4-5, 14). Your view has the same shape. God offers salvation to people he knows will never take it, and creates them anyway. If that's a genuine offer on your view, it's a genuine offer on mine. And for the record, my posts don't rest on limited atonement. They rest on John 6:44. That's the argument to answer.

You underlined "for all men" once. It's in the verse twice. Read both halves with the same force, because Paul wrote them as a parallel and the Greek has no verb in either half: "to all men unto condemnation... to all men unto justification of life." The ESV's "led to" and "leads to" are supplied, and supplied the same way both times. So: is Adam's condemnation actual for every individual, or merely available? Actual. Then Christ's justification in the same sentence is actual for everyone it reaches, and if that's every individual, every individual is justified. You're not a universalist. So you've already limited "all men" in the second half. Paul limits it for you one verse earlier, "those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life" (5:17), and one verse later, "by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous" (5:19). All in Adam are condemned. All in Christ are justified. That's what the verse says. Romans 5:2, access by faith: amen. Every Calvinist confesses it. The question is where the faith comes from, and Paul answers: "it has been granted to you... to believe in him" (Phil 1:29). Neither verse says one word about the extent of the atonement. And the doctrine you're describing says more than you've quoted. Dort: Christ's death is "abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." The grace isn't small. It's sovereign. "It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom 9:16).

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” Acts 16:31. That is Paul’s answer, and it is mine. I explicitly said we must personally believe in Christ. Putting “I DO” in capitals adds emotional force, but it does not address the biblical distinction. The question is not whether we must believe. The question is whether our believing means we caused our own new birth. A command establishes our responsibility. It does not, by itself, establish our ability to fulfill it apart from God’s work. You do not even have to leave Acts 16 to see the distinction. Speaking of Lydia, Luke writes: “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.” Acts 16:14. Lydia personally responded, but Luke gives the Lord credit for opening her heart. Her response and God’s work are not competing explanations. Jesus makes our dependence on God explicit: “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” John 6:65. Saying that someone must come does not cancel what Jesus says about how coming becomes possible. Paul likewise says that believing in Christ has been granted to believers, alongside suffering for His sake. Philippians 1:29. The believer genuinely believes, yet Paul describes that believing as something graciously granted. John affirms that people receive Christ and believe in His name, then attributes their birth to God, not human will. John 1:12–13. He affirms personal faith without making the believer the author of his own new birth. And in Ephesians 2, Paul describes us as dead in our trespasses and credits God with making us alive with Christ. He then describes salvation as by grace through faith, not our own achievement or grounds for boasting. Ephesians 2:1–9. Those passages are why I give God the credit while still calling people to believe. So yes, ask what the sinner must do. But also ask what God must do. “Who believes?” and “Who opens the heart?” are different questions. Acts 16 answers both. You have repeated the first without addressing the second.

@1984_nate Slandering people instead of engaging the argument is a bad look for anyone.

Let me clarify, because we agree that Ephesians 1:13 describes hearing, believing, and being sealed. The question is whether sealing describes every aspect of the Spirit’s work. Verse 14 presents the Spirit as the guarantee of our inheritance. It does not define regeneration or say that faith occurs before God renews the heart. Within this same letter, Paul describes God choosing us in Christ before creation and predestining us according to His will. He then describes God making us alive with Christ while we were dead in sins, and salvation by grace through faith. Our response belongs within that account of God’s saving work. (Ephesians 1:4–11⁠; 2:1–9⁠) By regeneration, I mean the Spirit giving new spiritual life. Ezekiel describes God replacing the heart of stone and giving His Spirit. Jesus describes new birth by the Spirit. In John 6, the Father draws people to the Son, all whom He gives the Son will come, and the Spirit gives life. (Ezekiel 36:26–27⁠; John 3:3–8⁠; John 6:37, 44–45, 63⁠) I understand these passages together to mean that God renews the heart so that we willingly believe. That is the causal priority I mean by regeneration preceding faith; I’m not proposing a period of life without faith. We can affirm faith before sealing while still asking what brings about faith. Ephesians 1:13 states the former without settling the latter by itself.

I’ve followed your posts, and I’d like to see us engage the actual doctrine directly from Scripture. Historic Calvinism explicitly denies that God is the author of sin. If you believe its teaching on divine decree contradicts that denial, make that argument. That is different from presenting divine authorship of evil as something Calvinism teaches. Acts 2:23 places Christ’s crucifixion within God’s definite plan while holding the people who carried it out guilty. That is the distinction we need to discuss: God’s holy purpose and man’s sinful intentions in the same event. I’m willing to examine that carefully with you. Let’s address the actual position and the passages supporting it.

I agree that the Father draws through teaching. The question is whether that teaching ensures reception. John 6:45 says, “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (ESV). Merely being exposed to Jesus’ teaching is therefore distinguishable from actually hearing and learning from the Father. (John 6:45⁠) Isaiah 54:13 promises that “All your children” will be taught by the Lord. In context, this concerns the restored city and God’s covenant of peace. That promise is not automatically a statement about every human being. (Isaiah 54⁠) John 6:37 also promises that everyone the Father gives the Son will come. Your explanation emphasizes preserving those who come, but this verse also promises their coming. Verse 64 records Jesus’ knowledge of unbelief. It does not say the Father’s grant is conditioned on a person’s prior reception. Verse 65 makes the grant necessary for coming. (John 6:37–65⁠) I understand these passages, together with the Spirit’s life-giving work in verse 63, as God working through His Word to bring people willingly to Christ. That involves the same gospel and the Father’s effective teaching. The refusals in John 5:40 and Matthew 23:37 are real, and Calvinists affirm them. They do not, by themselves, settle whether overcoming that unwillingness requires God’s effective grace. (John 5:37–47⁠; Matthew 23:37–39⁠) I’m not claiming this chapter supplies a detailed timeline of regeneration. Calling the grant “teaching received” still leaves the disputed question: does the Father’s grace ensure that reception, or enable a response it does not ensure? Verses 37–45 are why I understand His work to be effective.

Brother, I agree that spiritually dead people are physically alive and that we must call them to repent and believe. The question is what enables their saving response. First, consider the context. Paul addresses his readers as God’s beloved children (Ephesians 5:1), and verse 8 says: “at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.” He is urging Christians to live consistently with their new identity. Verse 14’s awakening language appears within that exhortation. It may also echo a conversion summons, but we should not simply assume Paul is describing his readers as unregenerate. Ephesians 5:1–15 Second, a command identifies what someone should do; it does not, by itself, explain how they become able to do it. Calling sinners to awaken does not establish that they can bring themselves to spiritual life—or settle whether enabling grace can finally be resisted. Earlier in this same letter, Paul describes spiritually dead people as actively following sinful desires. He then attributes their being made alive with Christ to God’s mercy (Ephesians 2:1–5). Spiritual death means something deeper than being unable to hear spoken words or understand the content of an argument. Ephesians 2:1–5 The Reformed position is that God works through the gospel, renewing hearts so that people willingly believe. Lydia illustrates that relationship: Paul speaks, she listens, and the Lord opens her heart to attend to the message (Acts 16:14). Acts 16:14 So I gladly affirm the command to awaken. The existence of the command does not establish that the response occurs without God’s renewing work. Ephesians 5:14 is consistent with sovereign grace, even though it does not independently settle every question about regeneration and faith.

Brother, I agree completely with Galatians 3:22: the promise is received through faith in Christ. Nothing in sovereign grace requires rewriting that verse. But “drawn against their will” misrepresents the position you’re criticizing. The Reformed teaching is that God changes the heart so that the person willingly comes. The Westminster Confession explicitly says people “come most freely, being made willing by his grace” (10.1). That establishes what the doctrine actually claims; Scripture must determine whether it is true. Westminster Confession Here is the biblical case I’d ask you to engage: • Total depravity: Sin affects our understanding and desires so deeply that we cannot come to Christ without the Father’s work. Jesus teaches that inability in John 6:44. This does not mean people lack wills or never make choices. • Unconditional election: God’s choice rests on his gracious purpose rather than our deserving it. Romans 9:11–16 grounds election in God’s calling and mercy; Ephesians 1:4–5 places his choosing before creation. • Definite atonement: The “L” concerns Christ’s purpose in dying to secure his people’s redemption. Jesus connects laying down his life for his sheep with gathering them and giving them eternal life (John 10:11–16, 27–29). That is the argument to examine—not merely whether some people are enabled to respond. John 10 • Effectual calling: Jesus says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me” (John 6:37, ESV). That promises an actual coming. Acts 16:14 provides a personal example: the Lord opens Lydia’s heart to attend to Paul’s message. She responds, and Luke credits the Lord’s work. • Perseverance: Christ promises to preserve those the Father gives him and raise them on the last day (John 6:39). His sheep hear and follow him, and he keeps them (John 10:27–29). Their continuing faith matters. Regarding Galatians 3:22, the surrounding argument contrasts the law’s inability to give life with receiving God’s promise through faith. We affirm that wholeheartedly. But identifying faith as the means of receiving the promise does not settle what brings a sinner to believe. Galatians 3:21–26 Regeneration and justification are distinct. Saying God renews the heart so that we believe does not mean we are justified without faith. God’s grace bringing about faith and our receiving Christ through faith fit together. You may disagree with that reading, but please engage that claim: God graciously brings people to trust Christ willingly. That is the position we’re defending, and these are the passages we need to examine together.

Thanks, John. That helps me understand where you’re coming from, brother. Is there a particular argument or passage from Allen or Staples that you find most persuasive? I’d be glad to consider it carefully. The passage I’d most like us to work through is Romans 8:29–30. Paul connects those whom God foreknew and predestined with those he called, justified, and glorified. In context, that provides assurance to people facing suffering and leads into his confidence that nothing can separate them from God’s love in Christ. I understand this as God’s purpose securing the salvation of particular people within his chosen people. How does your understanding of corporate election explain that connection, especially that everyone called in verse 30 is also justified? I’m open to having my interpretation corrected from Scripture. I appreciate being able to examine it together with kindness.