The Five Points of Calvinism

[Doulos Iesou]

You said, "Just like Lydia in Acts whose heart was opened before she could believe". Aren't you assuming that her heart had to be opened before she could believe? I don't see anything in the text that says that. I don't see any reason she couldn't have opened her own heart. It seems to me that that conclusion is drawn from a presupposition.

I see a reason for why she wouldn't have opened her own heart, it says the opposite.

"One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul." Acts 16:14 (ESV)

It says the "Lord," opened her heart, which seems quite clear to me that it wasn't her.. or at least just her. However, notice the next bolded section, as he opened her heart not to believe, but merely to pay attention to what was said by Paul. This to me is an example of prevenient grace, an influence of the Holy Spirit through the gospel to enable the ability to believe in the Gospel. That he didn't regenerate her in that instant and grant her newness of life, just by grace opened her heart to pay attention. This to me perfectly represents my view rather than the Calvinistic understanding of regeneration preceding faith.

 

[Butch5]

I see a reason for why she wouldn't have opened her own heart, it says the opposite.

"One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul." Acts 16:14 (ESV)

It says the "Lord," opened her heart, which seems quite clear to me that it wasn't her.. or at least just her. However, notice the next bolded section, as he opened her heart not to believe, but merely to pay attention to what was said by Paul. This to me is an example of prevenient grace, an influence of the Holy Spirit through the gospel to enable the ability to believe in the Gospel. That he didn't regenerate her in that instant and grant her newness of life, just by grace opened her heart to pay attention. This to me perfectly represents my view rather than the Calvinistic understanding of regeneration preceding faith.

Hi DI,

I agree the Lord opened her heart. The point I was trying to make was against the unspoken assumption in Calvinism that it wasn't possible for her to open her own heart. God did open her heart to understand. I believe that God does that when He intends to use a person for His purpose. My point was that if the Lord didn't use her and didn't open her heart that it was still possible that one day hearing the Gospel she would turn to it and believe. I don't think that the passage precludes this possibility as the Calvinist would claim.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It is true that the SBC is dealing with different flavours of theology including a theology that seeks to be more inclusive but Calvinism is only one of the issues. The modern conservative Protestant church is seeking to anchor itself in the biblical faith using historic forms of confession, which include the Reformed confessions and return to the roots of the SBC. If you look at the history of the Southern Baptist Seminary all the Profs had to agree with Calvinism (I dislike the term Calvinism because "Calvinism" is so much more than five points. The parameters of the discussion have been limited due to the Remonstrance or Arminian 5 points contra Reformed faith and doctrine) before they could teach. The SBC's historic articles contained Calvinism. This is simply unavoidable.

Calvinism is still a good label for it, as the term itself doesn't just correspond to the 5 points offered in response to the Arminian Remonstrance. Also, calling it "Reformed," makes it sound as though the Reformers were all monolithic on issues concerning soteriology which they were not, as this issue was brought up within the reformation.

Calling it "Doctrines of Grace," which it is sometimes called also has the issue of making a distinction that somehow the other understandings are not of grace.

Hence, Calvinism is the most easily recognizable and appropriate label as he was perhaps the most outspoken advocate on the issue, and I certainly think he made better arguments than Martin Luther did. Also, Luterhanism quickly became a non-Calvinistic denomination soon after Luther's death due to Melanchthon's influence which was anti-Calvinistic.

Of course no one admits that off the bat that they are ultimately responsible for their salvation or, working the Gospel like a Divine AmWay program, but it's inherent in the non-Calvinist position. What causes one to differ? Grace. The person who holds to the idea of total libertarian free will has to concede it was their choice that brought them into a relationship with God. It was due to their ability to see the offer of the Gospel that seprates them from others who do not. This runs runs contrary to Gospel principles, "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven." How is one able to even comprihend and believe if, "the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

His argument has always puzzled me from Calvinists, and is very common, and tries to make the distinction of monergism and synergism. That Arminianism is somehow us working with God to get ourselves saved, while Calvinism is all of grace.

The thing Scripture teaches us is that salvation is by grace, on account of it being by faith.

"That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all," Romans 4:16 (ESV)

In the context, Paul is arguing why the promise (which is the inheritance and now includes the idea of inheritance of the new heaven and new earth.. salvation) was dependent on faith rather than being through the Mosaic Law. We can sometimes make anachronisms of the text by placing the context within the 16th Century debate of Calvinism vs Arminianism. However, what we can establish from this text, is that Paul viewed the promise being received by faith is of grace, and obtaining it through works of the law would not be.

Also, the reason why I object to faith being seen as something innately good that must separate them from their neighbor, is because of what Jesus has taught us.

"He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 18:9-14 (ESV)

In this parable, you have a Pharisee who is thanking God for how righteous he is, that he is not like those other sinners, such as the tax collector in the back of the room. Then the tax collector is mentioned asking God for mercy, on account of him being a sinner, and not even being able to lift his eyes up in his humility. If we investigated their lives, the Pharisee would indeed appear to be the more righteous one, yet it was the tax collector who went home justified.

It does not make a person better than another to admit their sinfulness and receive grace. God is the one who achieves our salvation, we merely receive it by faith.

Also your citation of Romans 8:7 ignores the context, which isn't talking about believing, but rather that those walking by the Spirit fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law which could not be done by just the flesh alone. Also, Arminians acknowledge the activity of the Holy Spirit in bringing the Christian to faith, they just don't think regeneration precedes faith.

You are begging the question by inserting into the passages cited total libertarian free will. The passage from Romans 1 reads "to every one that believeth." You are assuming that "every one that believeth" means everyone has the ability to believe. This is the Divine AmWay program where God sets up a program for salvation and all you have to do is work it. Again, what causes one to differ? The ability to hear the Gospel or the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration? Who is Christ speaking to in John 16 and how would His listeners of understood Him? Christ is talking about general conviction and not conviction that leads to godly repentance and sorrow.

It's not that complicated.

"So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." Romans 10:17 (ESV)

It is not regeneration, it is the power of the Gospel message itself, which the Holy Spirit works through to enable faith in those who hear. Faith doesn't come by regeneration, but by hearing the message. With the example of Lydia, he didn't regenerate her, he enabled her to pay attention to what Paul was saying.

Kind of but I'd like to clarify. God uses means, or God deals with mankind often through intermediaries. (Assyrians/Babylonians to punish Israel, etc.) The preaching of the Gospel is how God chooses to call His people. To use, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" as a proof text display a misunderstanding of how God works in the world.

This understanding is shared among all Christians, not just Calvinists. The disagreement comes when Calvinists think the gospel call is irresistible to the elect, on account of them being regenerated when they hear the message, and then believe.

 

[Deborah13]

As a former Calvinist, I have had to study these passages in depth and have a quite different perspective on them now. Let me know what you think.

To make each of the manageable I will make a new post for each Scripture.

John 10:27

Let's include a little more context.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand." John 10:27-29 (ESV)

This particular text seems to imply a couple different points of the Calvinists' TULIP. Unconditional election, in that the Father gives these sheep to the son, and Perseverance of the Saints in that he says that no one can snatch them from his hand. This is one of the things that seems so natural for the Calvinist, that texts like this seem to fit in the system so easily.

However, the unspoken assumption is that "those who the Father has given to [Jesus]," are the elect believers. I think that the identity of this group is actually a lot more specific, and it refers to his close disciples.

We learn this in the high priestly prayer.

"since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him." John 17:2 (ESV)

Here again we have a reference to those, "whom you have given him," and this reference is continued. Let's now quickly analyze some observations about this group.

1) Given eternal life to them. (John 17:2)
2) Manifested your name to them. (John 17:6)
3) They have kept Jesus word. (John 17:6)
4) They know that everything given to them is from the Father. (John 17:7)
5) They have heard, received and believed that the Father has sent him. (John 17:8)
6) His prayer is for them, not the world. (John 17:9)
7) They are in the world. (John 17:11)
8) While Jesus was with them, he kept them and not one of them has been lost except the son of perdition. (John 17:12)
9) The world has hated them. (John 17:14)

Now let's make some observations about the observations we made.

Observation #1:
All of these took place in the past, in reference to Jesus' remarks.

For example:
"I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word." John 17:6 (ESV)

The bolded words "manifested," and "kept," as well as many others are references to the past. The Greek word translated "manifested," is Ἐφανέρωσά which is in the Aorist tense, which signifies an action completed in the past. While the word, "kept," is from the word τετήρηκαν which is in the perfect tense, which indicates an action performed in the past with consequences going into the future. This would indicate that these people whom the Father have given, have already during Jesus' life kept his word and will continue to.

Observation #2:
That of this group described in the past, only one of them has been lost.

This person is identified as "the son of perdition," which I will contend must be a reference to Judas Iscariot. And this was to "fulfill Scripture." See the Scripture below.

"I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ John 13:18 (ESV)

This text perfectly fits Jesus' statements in the Highly Priestly Prayer, that he chose those close disciples, or rather he chose all those the Father had given him. Yet, one of them was selected for a different purpose, to fulfill the Scripture and to bring about his own crucifixion.

Observation #3:
The final observation which I think proves my case is this verse.

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word," John 17:20 (ESV)

He transitions his prayer from being specifically for his close disciples, and now prays for all believers. If the first group, "those whom the Father has given to him," could be applied as true to all the elect, then this transition would make no sense. This makes a clear distinction, those chosen by God and given to Jesus to be his close disciples whom Scripture would be fulfilled through and also those who will believe through their word.

Conclusion:

It is easy to read oneself into the text, and make the Scripture seem to support a doctrine like Calvinism, but when we consistently analyze the text to see who it is really referring to, we can see that their interpretation doesn't fit.

Good post.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hi DI,

I agree the Lord opened her heart. The point I was trying to make was against the unspoken assumption in Calvinism that it wasn't possible for her to open her own heart. God did open her heart to understand. I believe that God does that when He intends to use a person for His purpose. My point was that if the Lord didn't use her and didn't open her heart that it was still possible that one day hearing the Gospel she would turn to it and believe. I don't think that the passage precludes this possibility as the Calvinist would claim.

Do you think a person can believe the gospel without the assistance of grace? Historical Arminianism, and I would contend Scripture, would say that all men must be drawn by the Spirit in order to believe. Semi-Pelagianism is more so the belief that a person doesn't need grace to believe.

"And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed," Acts 18:27 (ESV)

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Good post.

Thanks Deborah, hope it was helpful!

 

[Deborah13]

Let's take a look at Romans 9 now.

The context of Romans 9 is given in the first few verses.

"I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." Romans 9:1-5 (ESV)

To summarize, he brings up the anguish he has as a result of his fellow Israelities (ethnic Israel) is cut off from Christ, although they have all these blessings (patriarchs, Christ's line of descendants, adoption, glory, covenants, the law, worship and promises etc.).

His next statement then reveals what we are dealing with.

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed." Romans 9:6a (ESV)

Paul is defending God's faithfulness to his word, on account of Israel's exclusion and unbelief. His reasoning?

"For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel," Romans 9:6b (ESV)

The Calvinist will then reason that this is because it is those of the faith who are truly Israel, and therefore ethnic Israel is of no bearing with regards to the Covenant. This can be supported, as you could just go to Romans 4, where Paul talks about this. However, that is not Paul's reasoning here.

"and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 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— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”" Romans 9:7-13 (ESV)

His point here is that it was God's choice. He alludes to the the time where Isaac had two sons, and God chose one and not the other, which was not on the basis of any works performed by them. This seems like unconditional election right? It does, if we lose sight of the context. Which we must realize is about Paul's justification for God's faithfulness in light of Israel's rejection of the Messiah and exclusion from the New Covenant.

That like the time with Jacob and Esau, God has made a sovereign choice. What that choice is will be seen shortly.

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." Romans 9:14-18 (ESV)

Paul continues with raising another issue, is there injustice with God's right to sovereignly choose? Paul's answer is no. For God reserves the right to have mercy on whomever he will. That God's Covenant faithfulness and decision on who to enter into is his prerogative. There is more I could say here, but I think the rest of this chapter is explained in concluding statements. Even though this chapter should be seen as part of a unit, Romans 9-11.

"You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" Romans 9:19-21 (ESV)

Paul uses the example from Jeremiah, where Israel is the clay and God is the potter and he has a right to do with the clay as he pleases. That he could make from that same clump of clay, Israel, vessels for honorable use and vessels for dishonorable use. That he has taken Israel, and used the obedient and disobedient for his sovereign purposes.

"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" Romans 9:22 (NASB)

This is Paul's summary, which I will now summarize. That God was willing to demonstrate his wrath, but instead he chose to have patience on disobedient Israel. Why?

"And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles." Romans 9:23-24 (NASB)

That God has allowed their disobedience to continue, in order to have mercy on more and more people! Which he states so brilliantly in his final summation in Romans 11.

"For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all." Romans 11:30-32 (NASB)

That unlike the Calvinist's understanding of this text, that it isn't about God's sovereign right to ordain the salvation and reprobation of every individual, but rather a defense of his faithfulness and pointing to God's great plan for mercy to extend to all! That it isn't about limiting God's grace, but expanding it to the greatest amount possible, and that he would use things such as Israel's disobedience and the Gentiles disobedience in order to have mercy on more and more.

Paul then follows up with quoting Hosea to demonstrate that this is fulfilling God's plan all along.

"As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” Romans 9:25-26 (ESV)

This, like many other texts is about the inclusion of the Gentiles in the New Covenant, and God's present purposes for Israel in their disbelief.

Another excellent post. Thank you.

 

[Butch5]

Do you think a person can believe the gospel without the assistance of grace? Historical Arminianism, and I would contend Scripture, would say that all men must be drawn by the Spirit in order to believe. Semi-Pelagianism is more so the belief that a person doesn't need grace to believe.

"And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed," Acts 18:27 (ESV)

I don't think there is a person without grace. John said that Christ gives light to everyone coming into the world. I understand light to be a metaphor for understanding.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world1. (Joh 1:6-9 NKJ)

That's why I think the idea of Libertarian free will is a straw man argument. Regarding the drawing, I believe that too is universal as Christ said,

27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
(Joh 12:27-32 KJV)

In a nutshell I don't believe there is anyone who is not, to some degree influenced by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I don't think there is a person without grace. John said that Christ gives light to everyone coming into the world. I understand light to be a metaphor for understanding.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world1. (Joh 1:6-9 NKJ)

That's why I think the idea of Libertarian free will is a straw man argument. Regarding the drawing, I believe that too is universal as Christ said,

27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
(Joh 12:27-32 KJV)

In a nutshell I don't believe there is anyone who is not, to some degree influenced by the Holy Spirit.

How would you say this works with the gospel call itself?

For instance, the text in Romans 10:17 about hearing the word of Christ.

 

[chessman]

Observation #3:
The final observation which I think proves my case is this verse.

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word," John 17:20 (ESV)

He transitions his prayer from being specifically for his close disciples, and now prays for all believers

Are you arguing for or against Unconditional Election and Perseverance of the Saints? It seems you've laid out a pretty clear case for both here to me.

Let's say I agree with your Observations 1 thru 9 and your Observations 1 and 2 of those Observations 1-9 (which I do, basically). Basically 1-9 boils down to the "them" and "they" within John 17:2-14 being specifically Jesus' close disciples (minus Judas Iscariot). I buy that. However, when we reach your observation 3 (of 1-9) how do you handle the fact that basically Jesus asks for the same thing to happen to all believers that he just got through describing had happened (past tense) to the close disciples? Only this time, it's through their word (the close disciple's word)?

 

[Butch5]

How would you say this works with the gospel call itself?

For instance, the text in Romans 10:17 about hearing the word of Christ.

I believe those who hear the gospel will be accountable for what they do with it. Those who accept it I believe will be saved, those who reject it won't be. That leaves a group that has never heard or will never hear the gospel. I believe God will judge them according to the understanding that He has given them. I don't know how much of a case I could make for that last group, but, I do think a case could be made, even if it's a weak one.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Are you arguing for or against Unconditional Election and Perseverance of the Saints? It seems you've laid out a pretty clear case for both here to me.

Let's say I agree with your Observations 1 thru 9 and your Observations 1 and 2 of those Observations 1-9 (which I do, basically). Basically 1-9 boils down to the "them" and "they" within John 17:2-14 being specifically Jesus' close disciples (minus Judas Iscariot). I buy that. However, when we reach your observation 3 (of 1-9) how do you handle the fact that basically Jesus asks for the same thing to happen to all believers that he just got through describing had happened (past tense) to the close disciples? Only this time, it's through their word (the close disciple's word)?

I'm arguing against Unconditional Election and Perseverance of the Saints. I did this by demonstrating that the group, "whom the Father has given to the son," is a specific reference to the disciples minus Judas. This as you mentioned was demonstrated in John 17:2-14.

Let's look at the rest of the chapter.

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.” John 17:20-26 (ESV)

The underlined portion, is the section relevant to the prayer for those who would believe through their word, as in v.24 he transitions back to "those whom you have given me," which the distinction is made with "they also."

Let's make some observations about the prayer for believers.

1) They believe through their word.
2) Jesus prays that they be one, as he and the Father are one.
3) So that the world can believe that the Father has sent Jesus.

Basically, his prayer is for unity and love, that through this expression salvation will come to more and more. Nothing in this section indicates an inability to lose salvation or inability fall away, it's all about unity. Nothing about a particular protection, or reference to them not being lost.

 

[chessman]

I'm arguing against Unconditional Election and Perseverance of the Saints. I did this by demonstrating that the group, "whom the Father has given to the son," is a specific reference to the disciples minus Judas. This as you mentioned was demonstrated in John 17:2-14.

I’m just not following your argument past Observation 2. Yes, I followed it up to your Observation 2 and the conclusion. But then, it kind of weaned in clarity to me. I may just be missing your last point that the transition to all believers implies something other than what it seems to imply to me. As to me, it implies that whatever had just occurred to the close disciples, Jesus then prayed that would also occur to all believers (in verse 20). But evidently you don’t agree that is what Jesus was praying for.

So, first let me must ask you then, do you believe that the ‘close twelve minus Judas’ were unconditionally elected by God (the Father gave them to Jesus, so-to-speak) and preserved as saints by God via verses 2-14? I took your observations 1-9 to be saying as much. Is that not correct? In other words, your take is that the close 12 were Unconditionally Elected and Preserved, just not the rest of the world. Right?

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.” John 17:20-26 (ESV)
The underlined portion, is the section relevant to the prayer for those who would believe through their word, as in v.24 he transitions back to "those whom you have given me," which the distinction is made with "they also."

If what you say here is true, that Jesus transitions back to praying exclusively for the ‘close disciples’ rather than also ‘all who believe’, then I have a few of questions for you:

1. To be blunt, so what? I mean if verse 20 is a transition to a prayer on behalf of all who believe through them (which you acknowledge it is), then what difference does the rest of the prayer make, whether it's all exclusive or only partially exclusive to the close disciples? That is, in verse 20 Jesus prays, not just for the close disciples but also others. He prays for the same thing He just got through praying for the close disciples. (i.e. if they were UE and PS (and they were) then verse 20 clinches it for the rest of the believers as well.
2. I don’t buy your argument that He does transition back to an all exclusive prayer for the ‘close disciples’. Here’s why:
Verse 21 is a prayer that “they all may be one” that “they also may be in us”. So any justification for exclusivity in the remainder of the verses based on exclusivity presented in 4-12, just went out the window (so-to-speak).
Plus, He’d already prayed for the things in 21-26 (for the most part) for the ‘close disciples’. He’d already said that they had been given to Jesus (v6) and understood that all the things that you have given me are from you” (v7). They already knew that Jesus came from the Father (v8). In fact, they were already The Father’s (v9). Why pray for something they already had?

in v.24 he transitions back to "those whom you have given me," which the distinction is made with "they also."

3. It seems you are keying in on “those whom you have given me” as continuing to be the ‘close twelve’ of 4-12 in verse 24. Plus, why call it a "distinction". Taken as a whole, "those whom you gave me" and "those also", it clear He means all believers. Yet I thought you’d already agreed that the whole point of verse 20 is a prayer for not merely those only, but other (future) believers too. And Jesus’ prayer in that very verse was that “they all may be one” (the ‘close twelve’ and the others are one!). To me, I think Jesus’ knows God answers His prayer and thusly He’s justified in every way in refereeing to “those whom you have given to me” to now be all inclusive (the close twelve plus the others).

4. But most clearly, let’s underline key portions of verse 24 and observe something.

24 “Father, those whom you have given to me—I want that those also may be with me where I am, in order that they may see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.​

You are basically saying that the “those whom you have given me” is right back to a prayer for the ‘close disciples’ exclusively and not a to the broader prayer for “those who believe” that he’s already included with them in verse 20. The problem I have with that assumption is that the ‘close disciples’ had already seen His glory (Luke 9:28-32). Again, why pray for people to see something that they'd already seen?

Again, I buy your argument that 2-14 is a prayer for the ‘close twelve’ and even your point that verse 20 transitions to the broader context. I just don’t see any justification that there’s a transition back to exclusivity in verse 24 since Jesus does pray for inclusivity in verse 20. Or as I said, even what difference it makes since UE and PS has already been presented in 4-12 (at least for the close disciples) then prayed for, for other believers.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I’m just not following your argument past Observation 2. Yes, I followed it up to your Observation 2 and the conclusion. But then, it kind of weaned in clarity to me. I may just be missing your last point that the transition to all believers implies something other than what it seems to imply to me. As to me, it implies that whatever had just occurred to the close disciples, Jesus then prayed that would also occur to all believers (in verse 20). But evidently you don’t agree that is what Jesus was praying for.

So, first let me must ask you then, do you believe that the ‘close twelve minus Judas’ were unconditionally elected by God (the Father gave them to Jesus, so-to-speak) and preserved as saints by God via verses 2-14? I took your observations 1-9 to be saying as much. Is that not correct? In other words, your take is that the close 12 were Unconditionally Elected and Preserved, just not the rest of the world. Right?

That is correct, they were particularly elected as his disciples and apostles to be used as ethnic Jews who were to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul writes a bit about this issue in Romans 11, where he talks about an elect remnant chosen by grace, which was specifically in regards to Israelites according to the flesh.

If what you say here is true, that Jesus transitions back to praying exclusively for the ‘close disciples’ rather than also ‘all who believe’, then I have a few of questions for you:

1. To be blunt, so what? I mean if verse 20 is a transition to a prayer on behalf of all who believe through them (which you acknowledge it is), then what difference does the rest of the prayer make, whether it's all exclusive or only partially exclusive to the close disciples? That is, in verse 20 Jesus prays, not just for the close disciples but also others. He prays for the same thing He just got through praying for the close disciples. (i.e. if they were UE and PS (and they were) then verse 20 clinches it for the rest of the believers as well.

He didn't pray the same things about his personal disciples as he did for the ones who would believe, as I just pointed out. Therefore, when you misapply the statements made about the disciples to all believers, you get this idea that everyone is unconditionally elected and chosen, when Jesus made distinctions in who he was talking about.

If I say, "Americans are the chosen people and I haven't let a single of them down," then expand to say, "now I am speaking to the rest of the world," why would you assume that the statements made particularly about Americans to be applicable to the rest of the world? Distinctions in communication are important to note.

2. I don’t buy your argument that He does transition back to an all exclusive prayer for the ‘close disciples’. Here’s why:
Verse 21 is a prayer that “they all may be one” that “they also may be in us”. So any justification for exclusivity in the remainder of the verses based on exclusivity presented in 4-12, just went out the window (so-to-speak).

He transitions in v.24. Let me show you again.

"Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world." John 17:24 (ESV)

He mentions the group, "they also whom you have given me," which I substantiated my claims by appealing to my arguments regarding the first section. That this group is distinct from the rest of believers is central to my contention.

4. But most clearly, let’s underline key portions of verse 24 and observe something.
24 “Father, those whom you have given to me—I want that those also may be with me where I am, in order that they may see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
You are basically saying that the “those whom you have given me” is right back to a prayer for the ‘close disciples’ exclusively and not a to the broader prayer for “those who believe” that he’s already included with them in verse 20. The problem I have with that assumption is that the ‘close disciples’ had already seen His glory (Luke 9:28-32). Again, why pray for people to see something that they'd already seen?

In Luke 9:28 we see that it was only Peter, James and John that were present with Jesus at the transfiguration. It also isn't clear whether or not Jesus' state during the transfiguration is exactly the same as it will be in the presence of the Father. As it mentions a particular glory is endowed upon Jesus. So I don't think this point negates the idea that this is still referring to his disciples. The additional statements made in the past tense in v.25-26 provide further evidence that theses were Jesus' disciples in the past and not the future.

Again, I buy your argument that 2-14 is a prayer for the ‘close twelve’ and even your point that verse 20 transitions to the broader context. I just don’t see any justification that there’s a transition back to exclusivity in verse 24 since Jesus does pray for inclusivity in verse 20. Or as I said, even what difference it makes since UE and PS has already been presented in 4-12 (at least for the close disciples) then prayed for, for other believers.

Please see the above arguments for the transition back in v.24, and with regards to the influence of UE and PS, these are integral because these are often proof texts, such as John 17:9, by Calvinists. If these texts prove to teach different things, such as an Unconditional Election for just the apostles and not your average believer, then Calvinism is not supported by these Scriptures. It's not the end of the debate, as there are other texts that should be investigated, but it settles John as the debate surrounds the identity of, "those whom the Father has given to the son."

 

[Deborah13]

That is correct, they were particularly elected as his disciples and apostles to be used as ethnic Jews who were to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul writes a bit about this issue in Romans 11, where he talks about an elect remnant chosen by grace, which was specifically in regards to Israelites according to the flesh.

What is the election of grace? This is what I understand it is....it is a covenant that says one is saved by grace through faith. The covenant made with Abraham and his one seed. A covenant that we see represented in the birth of Esau and Jacob. One of works and one of grace by faith.

Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Rom 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[chessman]

That is correct, they were particularly elected as his disciples and apostles to be used as ethnic Jews who were to bring the gospel to the Gentiles.

How about your observation 1)? Were they 'particularly elected' to Eternal Life? I thought you made that observation and I agreed with it. So it was stipulated, so-to-speak. But now, based on what you said above, I'm just wondering if you still include Eternal Life in what they were elected to? I can address the rest of your post later, but if you are now back tracking on your observation 1) being part of their election, I don't see the point of addressing the rest of your reply to my further observations.

But just to quickly address one point you made to my reply:

John 17:3 (LEB) Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. ​

I wondered why you skipped this observstion in your list of 9. The observation I add is that Jesus says (not me) that Eternal Life is that they know God and Jesus whom you sent. i.e. Eternal Life=knowing God

And since Jesus did pray for this in v23 (prior to your transition back to the 'close disciples') I feel justified in my claim that He prayed for the same things (including Eternal Life) for the later believers in the world (whom you've already stipulated is more than the 'close disciples' since it's in verse 23) that he did for the elect close disciples.

John 17:23 (LEB) ... I in them, and you in me, in order that they may be completed in one, so that the world may know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me. ​

Plus, what do you think Jesus meant by praying that "they" be completed? Do you think it's possible He was adding the other believers in the world to the list of 'close disciples'? I do.

 

[Butch5]

I can't speak for anyone else, but, I have to wonder why anyone would think that the 12 were elected to salvation when one was lost. Granted salvation is the hope for outcome but hardly a guarantee.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

How about your observation 1)? Were they 'particularly elected' to Eternal Life?

Jesus was given authority to give them eternal life, so yes.

"since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him." John 17:2 (ESV)

I wondered why you skipped this observstion in your list of 9. The observation I add is that Jesus says (not me) that Eternal Life is that they know God and Jesus whom you sent. i.e. Eternal Life=knowing God

My observations were concerning the identity of the group, not the nature of eternal life.

And since Jesus did pray for this in v23 (prior to your transition back to the 'close disciples')

You say that Jesus prayed for eternal life in this verse?

"I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me." John 17:23 (ESV)

I don't really see that, he continues his prayer for unity with God and of believers, in order that the world would come to know him. Also, if they're believers then they have eternal life, as those who believe have it. If this is about eternal life, which isn't explicitly stated nor implicitly demonstrated on your part, then it still is very different from the statement about eternal life in v.2 where Jesus says that he has given the close disciples eternal life, and then later that not one of them has been lost.

This also assumes that Jesus' prayer will most definitely come true in all forms. Jesus asks for God to protect the disciples from the evil one, but just later some are deceived and almost fall away. Also, Jesus prays for the unity of the church, yet the church has been anything but unified in its existence. Certainly not a firm foundation to produce a doctrine of UE or PS.

I feel justified in my claim that He prayed for the same things (including Eternal Life) for the later believers in the world (whom you've already stipulated is more than the 'close disciples' since it's in verse 23) that he did for the elect close disciples.

John 17:23 (LEB) ... I in them, and you in me, in order that they may be completed in one, so that the world may know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me.

Plus, what do you think Jesus meant by praying that "they" be completed? Do you think it's possible He was adding the other believers in the world to the list of 'close disciples'? I do.

The verse you quoted, "where it says completed in one, not just completed. The Greek is τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν which is translated just that, verb=completed, or made perfect, preposition=in, adjective=one, or unity. It's a Jerry Maguire line, "you complete me," believers are meant to complete one another as the body of Christ.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I can't speak for anyone else, but, I have to wonder why anyone would think that the 12 were elected to salvation when one was lost. Granted salvation is the hope for outcome but hardly a guarantee.

Judas was never elected to salvation, he is the son of perdition, destined to destruction.

 

[Butch5]

Judas was never elected to salvation, he is the son of perdition, destined to destruction.

I don't know that he was never considered for salvation, however, he was one of the 12 given to Christ. The passage in question seems to be this one.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. (Joh 6:39 KJV)

Judas was one of them, per Jesus' own words.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. (Joh 17:12 KJV)