http://ichthys.com/ 
Predestination, Free Will and False Teaching II
Question #1:   
Hi Bob, it’s been a while since we have spoken. I hope you are doing well. I have a question I am hoping you can help me with. For some reason more and more people I come across are into “Calvinism” and more and more are turning to it. It’s something I never had any thought to 5 years ago but now seems to be everywhere. Anyhow, about 3 years ago I did dozens of hours of research into it, determined I didn’t think it was correct and moved on with my life. On a separate note, your teachings on it helped me to with the whole predestination/foreknowledge side of it so thank you. It’s still very complicated for me and I still don’t full understand it but I’m much better with it now. So to my question, which has to do with perseverance/total depravity, I’m reading James 1 which seems to directly contradict the perseverance of the saints and possibly total depravity however, I cannot remember anyone every using it in the apologetics for this subject so I fear I’m wrong. The way I’m understanding James 1, 2-15 is this. 

1. He’s speaking to believers (saved individuals) in verse 2 when he uses “brothers” or “brother and sisters”

2. Verse 15 seems to suggest that these believers can then desire which leads to sin which leads to death (unsaved.) Is this what death means in this context? I can’t for the life of me think of what else it would mean. I’ve always understood the verses calvinists use to justify perseverance to mean that we as believers have the ability*** to stay away from enough sin to lose our salvation rather than their interpretation that it is physically impossible for us to do so. Although, I’m open to the possibility that I’m wrong on that as well and maybe we can lose our salvation purely on apostasy. 

3. Verse 12. This verse seems clear that believes who persevere under trial will receive the crown of life(be saved.) Probably just about all Christians agree to that. I know assumptions are generally not good, but is this to be understood as the opposite that believers who to not persevere under trials will not receive the crown of life? I definitely don’t want to go down the road of adding scripture. I’m just curious how you handle this verse and others like it where the opposite could*** be true. 

Where am I right and/or wrong regarding this chapter of James? Does it mean at all what I think it means? As always I thank you for the work you do and any help would be greatly appreciated. Have a blessed day. 
Response #1:
Good to hear from you.

On "death" in James 1:15, this works on all three levels: 1) sin leads to loss of fellowship (requiring confession; cf. Eph.5:14: "Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." NKJV); 2) the sin unto death (so in that case, actual physical death through ultimate divine discipline for those whose conduct is egregious and unrepentant); 3) apostasy, the death of faith. In terms of the last one here, sin is part of the process so James is not incorrect to emphasize it, but it is loss of faith – ceasing to believe in Jesus Christ – which constitutes the "death". More on all this at the link. So I don't think this passage supports hyper-Calvinism's "once saved / always saved" as you rightly intuit; rather, it contradicts it because James presents this as a hazard for believers – but how could there be a hazard if the elect never fall?

In terms of the crown of life, that is the penultimate level of eternal rewards. Not all believers will receive this. James says not "persevere [in faith]" – something that all who receive salvation and who don't fall away must do – but "persevere under trial" . . . something that many believers are not mature enough to do yet (and so are not asked to do: cf. 1Cor.10:13). We are talking about no ordinary testing to gain that reward but the type that would cause a less mature believer to fall away (e.g., Lk.8:13).

There are plenty of verses which disprove "once saved / always saved" – which I hasten to point out is hyper-Calvinistic (and not necessarily completely to be thrown at the feet of Calvin himself). Here's a link which list some of those passages which clearly refute the idea that we don't need to hold fast to the Lord in faith in order not to fall away: in Hebrews chapter 3.
And here are some other links which relate:
Predestination, Free Will and False Teaching I
Predestination and the Plan of God

The Plan of God

Predestination, Calling and Election

The False Doctrine of Absolute Eternal Security

The False Doctrine of Absolute E.S. II

The False Doctrine of Absolute E.S. III 
Hyper-Calvinism
Calvinism, Catholicism and Ichthys
Calvinism, Covenants and Catholicism.
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2:
Bob, you mentioned here that “once saved, always saved” is hyper-Calvinism and not to be thrown completely at the feet of Calvin. Couple of questions.

1. Are you using “once saved, always saved” interchangeably with Calvin’s perseverance of the saints or are there significant differences between the two I should be aware of? 

2. By not completely being thrown at the feet of Calvin are you saying that this had origins before Calvin or after? Who else had a hand in this?

The sermon today at the church we are trying out went into this somewhat. The pastor definitely believes that it’s impossible for lose your salvation. I’m trying to figure out how to navigate this. Of the churches we have tried since moving here, we really like this one. The pastor preaches verse by verse, everyone has been very welcoming, and my wife has found a great community with other women. Do you have any advice on this? Is this in itself a red flag to stay away? If not are there any other red flags around this topic I should be aware of? My initial thought is this. While I would never call this topic unimportant(it’s about salvation after all,) I do feel it’s a secondary issue in that I can disagree with them while still seeing that they are Godly people. I don’t expect to agree with them on everything after all. I am concerned though because I’ve had personal experiences with people who believe in what this church believes who would say I cannot be saved if I don’t agree with them. That would be a red flag for me as I can’t attend a church where they see me as not saved or not a Godly man because I disagree with them on this topic. Any of your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. I’m definitely praying for wisdom. Is there anything you would like my wife and I to pray for you?
Response #2:
Re: Calvin and hyper-Calvinism, I'm reluctant to sum up the person himself since I've not read everything Calvin wrote (it is a lot); also, the way he and other men of letters thought about these things and expressed them in the 16th century and in the heat of the reformation where the MAIN issue was trying to combat Roman Catholicism without getting killed, if possible, is different from today. Finally, the movement developed beyond Calvin and distilled his teaching; then later it became more or less adamant about the TULIP distillation (depending on the group). So rather than get into some sort of historical debate, I would rather say something like "our salvation is absolutely secure . . . just as long as we hold fast to our belief in Jesus Christ". Our Savior Himself told us that some seeds sprout quickly but shrivel in the heat of persecution and die (Lk.8:13). There is no doubt that apostasy is real. Only believers are saved but some who once believed do end up later abandoning their faith completely (Jn.3:18). Since this will be a major issue in the Tribulation, the worst thing a believer can think is "It doesn't matter if I take the beast's mark; I might lose some reward but OSAS!"

As to red flags, the purpose of assembly is to learn and share the truth. If you're growing where you're going all is well; if you're being pressured to divest yourself of the truth you already believe, that would seem to me problematic. We all have to make our own decisions about such things.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3:
Hey Bob, how does our free will faith fit with Ephesians 1:4-5? I wasn’t able to find anything on your site explicitly talking about these verses in this context. This seams to be a go-to verse for Unconditional Election. How can I explain these verses to someone who thinks this is proof of our lack of free will faith. Not just how can I use other verses but how can I specifically use the wording in these verses? 

On another note, have you noticed when searching google now that it will not only give you search results but it will also give you an AI Overview? For instance when I search your ichthys website for a single verse, google will spit out a summary of what it thinks the verse means based only on your writings on your website. Curious if you’ve tried that and if you think the answer it supplies is in any way accurate or not. If you haven’t tried it, it may be a fun experiment for you???
Response #3:
Interesting about the AI overview.  I've learned to take those with a large grain of salt.  Even when they're 90% accurate that faulty 10% can be deadly (e.g., you don't want your mechanic being 90% right about repairing your aircraft engine).
Election is absolute as is predestination. The problem with Calvinists is that they cannot seem to comprehend that grace AND faith are both part of that picture (Eph.2:8-9), and that God is more intelligent than they give Him credit for being: His foreknowledge is infinite and it was impossible for Him NOT to know just who would exercise the image of God in faith and who would refuse to do so. So throughout the New Testament, not just here, things are always put this way:
. . . just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will . . .
Ephesians 1:4-5 NKJV
Note that Paul is speaking to believers about believers throughout this long introduction (i.e., Eph.1:3-14), so by definition these things do not apply to unbelievers. We find these same sentiments in greater detail in Romans 9-11 where, for example, Paul uses the example of Jacob and Esau to demonstrate to his Jewish audience that they are not saved on the basis of their parentage (the two had the same father but Esau was always an unbeliever), even though of course for unbelieving Jews, "Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers" (Rom.11:28 NKJV).
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
Romans 9:14 NKJV
God does NOT arbitrarily pick "winners and losers". He elects those who will choose to believe.
Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
Romans 11:22-23 NKJV
Any doubts about this issue in Ephesians which a careful reader of this long and complicated introduction might have are dispelled at the end:
In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
Ephesians 1:11-14 NKJV
So all these blessings only come to those who trust the Lord, those who respond to the gospel, those who believe.

In terms of explaining to those who are set in their incorrect beliefs, as mentioned many times before, that is an apologetic question which is not my forte. One would hope that believers would respond to the obvious truth. If they're not willing, I'm not particularly concerned with rhetorical strategies to bend them. I leave that to the Holy Spirit . . . if they are willing to listen to Him.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #4:
It's been a minute since we last spoke. How have you been? Happy belated Thanksgiving and Merry Christmas to you as well! Also, congratulations on completing Hebrews chapter 10. 

[omitted]

Regarding another subject, the 70,000 men that died after David took the Census mentioned in 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1- is it correct to say that the 70,000 men who died were guilty of some type of sin(s)? If not, why should they die for the sin of one man (that being David)? I took a look at the link where you discuss this and that still isn't clear to me. https://ichthys.com/mail-census.htm I don't see any sins committed by the people mentioned in the passage. You mention the "sins of the nation" but what would those be in relation to the census and the plague that followed? 

Onto something else, I understand that the Lord never allows us to be tested beyond the specific level our faith can handle but how do we explain the fact that the Lord will be allowing believers whose faith will not be ready for the great trials and tribulations to come during the tribulation to face such a harrowing time when the Lord doesn't allow our faith to be tested beyond what it is able (the parable of the wise and foolish virgins and the sower make mention of those who fall away because their faith wasn't strong enough to handle what came their way)? Obviously, they didn't get ready so that their spiritual shortcomings are a result of their own failures. Therefore, would the simple answer to this "seeming contradiction" (it isn't, of course) be that God never allows maturing believers to face tests their faith can't handle but that he allows spiritually unprepared believers to face them because they chose to face them that way themselves? The answer to this seems simple but it has me confused. 

One last thing. I Understand Romans 9 and the surrounding context has nothing to do with God arbitrarily choosing individuals for salvation (the context involves God choosing obedient believers to be the nation that would act as His witnesses to the world- the nation of Israel- Jacob I loved and Esau I hated). Overall, I understand and could explain on my own most of what this chapter is saying. I want to write a large topical study on Romans 9 and the subject of free will in the distant future (currently teaching through the book of James and then have another idea to give a special treatment on the false doctrines of postmillennialism and pretribulationism). However, in case I'm missing something, could you give me your own explanation of Romans 9:19-24 (how it doesn't eliminate free will)? 

That brings me to another question related to the above and that is, what is Arminianism to you? I've researched it and can't get a clear answer (it seems like it can mean different things to different people). Also, what is the difference between "traditional Calvinism" and "hyper Calvinism?" And what do we mean by "hyper Arminianism?" About seven years ago, someone told me that I am an Arminian because I hold to the belief that salvation can be lost. But I don't consider myself an Armenian either. I'm a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and don't need any labels! But how do we explain to people that we aren't (the guy who told me this was very adamant)? 

I appreciate your time. 

If I could have your prayers for my health (currently recovering from a fever) and for work, that we would get more people because we are shorthanded and the workload has been greatly exhausting because of that (lots of overtime people are always being called in every week). Our specific work location is also about to see new management beginning in January and construction projects (projected to start in the Spring assuming the reports we've heard are true). Still trying to move up and advance into a more skilled and better paying position (that may take a while, though). 

In His grace and power, 
Response #4:
On the plague being a result of the "sins of the nation", why else would the Lord have allowed this to happen? Nothing happens by accident and we know that our God is just. 
Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”
2nd Samuel 24:1 NIV
And that surely applied to the people stricken. Were they more guilty than others (cf. Lk.13:4-5)? Only the Lord knows, but we do know that He is perfect and so is His plan, so it seems to me that we have to conclude that this was righteous in every way and in no way accidental or arbitrary. The census was a result of the Lord's anger that incited it, not the other way around.

On the question of "not testing beyond ability", this principle takes it for granted that the believer in question is on the right track, doing the right things, and determined to persevere no matter what. It doesn't apply to those who are inviting divine discipline upon themselves through their bad behavior. The whole point of discipline is to be unbearable . . . until the Christian in question returns to category number one. For believers who are determined to persevere, even if they foolishly went into the Tribulation woefully unprepared, the Lord will provide and will also "make a way through so that they can bear up under it" (1Cor.10:13), and you men who are preparing to teach the Word may have a large role in that. But for those who are "fair weather Christians", turning way on account of trials they are unwilling to bear is the standard cause of apostasy.
"Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away."
Luke 8:13 NIV
In terms of "allowing", we have the image of God, free will. The Lord delivers us from a LOT of things – and I'm guessing from a whole lot more than we have any idea in His great mercy and patience and longsuffering. But, ultimately, we make the decision to be lukewarm or not. If bad things happen to a nation or to the world as a whole, we cannot expect to face no consequences for not being prepared.
“This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says to you, Baruch: You said, ‘Woe to me! The LORD has added sorrow to my pain; I am worn out with groaning and find no rest.’ But the LORD has told me to say to you, ‘This is what the LORD says: I will overthrow what I have built and uproot what I have planted, throughout the earth. Should you then seek great things for yourself? Do not seek them. For I will bring disaster on all people, declares the LORD, but wherever you go I will let you escape with your life.’ ”
Jeremiah 45:2-5 NIV
Similarly, the Lord will help all believers willing to persevere through the testing of the Tribulation one way or another . . . unless they prove to be unwilling to pay the price.
(37) For yet a little while, "how short, how short [the wait]" (Is.26:20), and "He who is coming shall come, nor will He delay." (38) "Then my one [made] righteous by his faith will live because of his faith, but if he shrinks back, My heart takes no pleasure in him (Hab.2:3-4)." (39) Now we are not possessed of cowardly apostasy which leads to destruction, but we have faith which leads to [eternal] life.
Hebrews 10:37-39
On Romans 9:19-24, yes, God makes all the pots (Zech.12:1). How could that not be the case? Nothing in the plan is accidental and nothing could happen at all unless it had been decreed by God. What, however, is the basis for the decree? The arbitrary will of God? No, it's not arbitrary (hyper-Calvinism). God made all of us pots (spirits) what we wanted to be, knowing in His perfect foreknowledge what we would choose, given a choice, in every possible circumstance, then put is in the right place to make all those choices. Didn't He have the right to do so? Yes He did! 

On Arminianism, one would have ask the man himself or those who formulated and expanded that philosophy after him. To me it means denying foreordination while hyper-Calvinism denies free will – but as explained in the paragraph above (and see BB 4B for much more detail), the two work hand in glove in fact. There could be no free will without the plan of God; and the foreordained plan of God incorporates free will. How could we choose unless God gave us that ability? And how could God not know what we would choose?

In terms of "hyper", I use that to distinguish contemporary theories from what the eponymous men themselves may have believed/written. I don't have the time (or the interest) to analyze everything Calvin himself wrote (e.g.), but I know enough to know that TULIP is an oversimplification. Just try reading Calvin's "Institutes" and you'll see what I mean (n.b., probably not the best use of your time).

I'll be praying for your health and your job.

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:
Hey Dr. Luginbill, (hope I'm not bombarding you with too many questions)

One final small question to end this section (possibly related to the above since it involves God's forgiveness, compassion, and mercy on a people who were forgiven after giving up their pagan ways). What does Jonah 4:11 mean when it says "there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left?" 

Thanks for the answers to all the other questions (I most appreciate them and understood). Just a few details I wanted to clear up. When you mention "foreordination", are you using that as a synonym for predestination? My understanding of predestination was that it was God's way of "hitting the start button" so to speak to allow human history to run its course (since free will decisions cannot be made unless given the time and chance to be exercised- predestination enables free will by allowing it to become a reality). Is foreordination God saying "it shall be so" (deciding to go ahead and take action) and predestination taking the action itself (hitting the start button, so to speak)? Or do you see them as both synonymous? 

Ultimately, don't all Calvinsits reject free will in that they believe God chooses some for salvation arbitrarily? Although different in some ways, I always thought Calvin didn't believe in free will before or after salvation, so they were all wrong in some ways (even if we agree with some of the points of TULIP). Of course I'm aware they all adhere to the perseverance of the Saints doctrine (the Calvinists version of OSAS which entails the believer having no free will to away after getting saved). 

I read an article years ago that said, "Four point Calvinists are good; Five point Calvinists are bad" or something like that (I'm slightly paraphrasing). Are you aware of any differences between the two (not that this is important)? I think I do (based on what I've read and heard) but don't want to misjudge in case I'm wrong. I know we don't need to concern ourselves with false teaching but I only ask in case I end up helping someone with that type of background. 

In Christ, 
Response #5:
Re: Jonah 4:1, I think the Lord is making the point that the Assyrians were not blessed as the Israelites were in having the Law and much prophecy from God to inform them about right and wrong and all other important divine matters, so that begrudging them this merciful intervention which was a matter of eternal life or death was wrong thinking on Jonah's part.

These word (foreordain / predestine) are both Latinate words which traditional theology has packed with often incorrect connotations. If we are taking about "knowing ahead of time" that is Greek progignosko; if we are talking about "planning out ahead of time" that is Greek prohorizo. I use foreordain and predestine as synonyms of the latter. I would have to ask what passages you have in mind if you are finding a difference between the two in English translations.

On Calvin, again, I would distinguish between him and TULIP, simply because the latter is a later simplification of a very large body of work. Re: "don't all Calvinsits reject free will", while they would probably say no I do think that is the effect of their theology. In any case, it's wrong as can be shown from virtually any page of the Bible. What's the point in telling people to do this or not do that if they don't have the free will to respond?

Keeping you in my prayers, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:
Hey Dr. Luginbill, 

Sorry for the late response, I've been meaning to get back to you sooner but I've been so tired from work. 

No passages in particular, just confused over the words. Just to clear up some confusion; you see foreknowledge as knowing ahead of time, correct? I see your interpretations for the other two (foreordain and predestine), but would it still be correct to say that predestination is God decreeing human history to take place (hitting the start button to allow it to run its course)? Isn't that all wrapped up in the process as well? 

Final couple questions here. I heard a fellow brother in Christ say that he believes there is a difference between unbelief and disbelief. Do you agree with this and does Scripture make such a distinction? 

Finally, I think I remember you saying in a Saturday posting a few months back that the "scholarly approach" to teaching doesn't work or isn't that effective or something like that (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't remember the question and, therefore, the context for the response but I think I agree with that statement? Although I think I have an idea of what you meant, what is the "scholarly approach" to you and why don't you think it's effective? 

[omitted]

Your brother in Christ, 
Response #6:
I'm praying for your work. I hope you'll get a little time off over Christmas. But I guess that is one of their busiest seasons too.

Yes, foreordain and predestine are synonyms and they both refer to the plan of God, the "divine decrees", that is. Foreknowledge is just what is sounds like and was necessary in order to foreordain or predestine everything . . . because it had to be fully "known" what everyone would choose before it was decreed that they do so.

In English, possibly there is a difference, but the Bible speaks of believers and those who do not believe (whatever English term one wants to put on it):
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 3:18 NKJV
This quibbling over terms is the kind of thing that gives theology a (justly deserved) bad name, namely, arguing about definitions in a way that is divorced from scripture, creating constructs which aren't actually present in the Bible and then back-imposing them on the Bible as if it had to conform to English terms and theological systems we invent.
If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
1st Timothy 6:3-5 NIV
So if we as teachers are sure about what scripture says, we don't really need to concern ourselves with societal misapplications of the truth. We can restrict ourselves to straightening out those who come to us for help . . . as long as they are genuinely interested in being helped and not just looking for an argument.

Re: "scholarly approach", I don't remember using that phrase. I will say that throwing around technical grammatical terms like "aorist" and "optative" and going into detail about the exegesis of a verse to no particular purpose is not, in my opinion, doing your listeners any good. This is at the opposite end of the spectrum from giving a motivational sermon on being a good dad (where you throw in a few tangentially related Bible passages). Every man should want to be a good dad; every Bible teacher should know the basics of the languages and other resources; neither one of these things is "teaching" in a way that will result in spiritual growth.

On the other matters, I think it's admirable that conflict has been avoided. Money is a very dangerous thing. People are "funny" about money. It is, as the Bible says, "the root of all types of evil/badness", and one of those bad things is that it has a tendency to ruin relationships wherever it is involved. Giving is a two sided proposition, and we'd all be better off if we didn't need to be given to or be in a position to give to others ("neither a borrower nor a lender be"), but that is not how life works. As I've probably shared with you, even minimal giving/receiving in my own life has been the cause of misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and broken relationships. I'm not second guessing anything I did personally, but I do note that money is sort of like nitroglycerin in such situations. It only needs a little shake to blow up. 

As far as the other one goes, I'm still personally mystified. About the only thing I can say is that certain people need a "clean break" to be able to move on with their lives. Two people who are married may end up staying good friends after a divorce, but in other situations, one or the other might actually need a "mega-blow up" in order to get closure and move on. That is the only thing I can see in this other situation. It's regrettable, but I don't bear any grudge myself, and I'm sure that is the same with you. I also do not hold it against anyone who did or has maintained fellowship. My emails on that subject sometime latter were merely warnings against false doctrine and attempts to maliciously undermine other good fellowships and also the truth. That is where I draw the line.

How is your health doing? Getting overly tired when it's out of whack is not so good. I do hope you can get some rest. They do give you sick time, don't they? I would be careful not to let things get to the point where you get REALLY ill and then have to stay away longer than would have otherwise been the case.

Keeping you in my prayers, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #7:
Thank you for the response and for your prayers Dr. Luginbill. As far as my health is concerned, it, by itself, is fine. No more fever or anything like that (I think the quick weather change was to blame for that). 

The heavy work load (especially so since we are more understaffed than ever) does make me more tired, yes, but I also realize I just need to get more sleep each day (I can only work on ministry stuff on my two days off), to eat more (not eating enough before and during work so that my strength is zapped), to consistently eat healthier, and to drink more water (I've gotten better at that lately). A lot of people think taking pills and constantly going to the doctor is going to solve their health issues (one of the big problems with Western medicine and how we approach and practice healthcare here in the States) when there is a lot of preventative care/maintenance they could/should be doing that would prevent a lot of the problems they have to begin with (exercise also helps). Lifestyle is key. 

A friend of mine did also say that our bodies tend to go with the seasons so that we will naturally need and want more sleep during the Winter. I can confirm! 

Merry Christmas to you again Dr. Luginbill! 

In Christ, 
Response #7:
I'm happy to hear that you are feeling better. Prayers continuing for the job situation to improve.

Yes, it's very wise to recognize what one's health needs and limitations are. There is, as with many things, a "sweet spot" between "dogging it" and over doing it. If we need more sleep, food, whatever to avoid getting sick, that should be a no-brainer. Some things are inflexible – like the hours we have to be at work. So adjusting other things as necessary is just good common sense.

In the Roman world, a day had twelve daylight hours regardless of the season and nighttime was likewise twelve hours long: the length of the hours varied according to the time of year. So the night hours were longer in winter and shorter in summer, the daylight hours the reverse. That is why a sun dial works. Today we are slaves to the mechanical (now digital) clock which doesn't care about the real rhythms of the world and the body meant to live in it. Something to keep in mind if we have a tendency to be too hard on ourselves on this score.

Thanks, and merry Christmas to you and yours as well, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #8:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

Hope you are doing well!

I'm trying to wrap my mind around Calvinism (with not much success). It was sparked after listening to a discussion by two of my acquaintances. I've went through most of the links on Ichthys related to Calvinism and also perused some articles online by Calvinists (since I didn't understand their position much past a certain point). I'm considering writing something on my site addressing free-will vs predestination. I understand how they go hand in hand and that the Bible does teach both concepts. The way Calvinists explain salvation does not make sense to me and it kinda sounds like they contradict themselves.

I have two questions:

1) I know I'm missing something, but why does God desire willing worshippers? Why wouldn't He be just as good to us if God made us (and the angels) happy in our task of serving Him forever, with no chance of messing it all up? I know we would not be "us" if we did not get to choose who "us" is, yet there are things we don't choose about us, like certain parts of our personality - so why not just make us (not automatically or robotically) entirely obedient? Why is giving His creatures free will so important to God? Does the Image of God apply only to our possession of free will, or are there other aspects of God's character we get?

2) Why does Jesus say the disciples didn't choose Him in John 15:16?
__
16 You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. -John 15:16
__

Is Jesus talking about instances like when He called Peter and Andrew from their fishing? Why did they go (did they know Jesus or did God prompt them to go?)

__
18 As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 19 “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” 20 At once they left their nets and followed him. - Matthew 4:18-20
__

Here's what comes to mind when I think of Calvinism (I could be totally wrong). Is our free-will choice to choose to trust Jesus intrinsically different that our free-will choice to daily follow Him? Certainly, the choice to accept Jesus or not is the MOST important choice we can ever make. However, if God forced one decision on us, how would He not force the rest of our decisions on us? (Unless the initial choosing is somehow different). Otherwise, would not God be the sole director of who gains the most eternal rewards, who grows the most spiritually, who serves Him the most, and who loves Him the most? Why would we not be entirely perfect after salvation - why wouldn't God make the elect act in perfect harmony with His Will? If God's grace is irresistible, how much more after we're saved and so we would never sin? I might be missing something in their thought process here, I just can't make sense of it. I can't reconcile the character of God that I see in the Bible with the character of God that Calvinism (or hyper-Calvinism) gives me. Of course, people go too far the other way and say God will save everyone (which is sadly not true, yet is that a fault of God? Of course not!)

In His justice, God sent Jesus to die for us all.
In His mercy, God sent Jesus to die for us all.

On the one hand, it doesn't seem to matter much, since if you believe in Jesus, you are saved - and Calvinists seem to have faith (some of them anyways). On the other hand, this issue seems of huge importance, since if you deny free-will, you've denied a huge part of the structure of history, the universe, and God's design, and also a huge motivation for living a Christian life.

Hope your week is starting off well!

Respectfully,
Response #8:
I don't pretend to understand or to be able to explain other people's systems of theology. For one thing, there are probably as many Calvinisms as there are Calvinists. I can only hope to explain what the Bible actually says – and only to those who are interested in knowing.

1) Asking God, "why?" is a common thing. Whenever we are tempted to do that, the first thing to remember is who God is: the perfect loving God. God is love (1Jn.4:8; 4:16). So whatever He does, is doing, has done, has emanated from that perfect love for us. In other words, it's always for our own good, whether we can understand or appreciate that in the here and now or not (Rom.8:28). Once we've taken that firm and steady stance, it may be possible to gain insight. I love cats and dogs, but I wouldn't want to be one. They have spirits just as we do. They have personalities just like we do. But aside from the obvious physical differences, the main difference between us and them is the possession of the image of God on our parts. This is a massive difference that makes us who and what we are, with the free will and necessity to make important moral and ethical choices and decisions which our pets never face. We are so much more than dogs and cats. Jesus Christ, who is God in His deity, became a human being just as we are with a genuine human body and human spirit – only without sin. We are blessed to be like Him in these critical respects possessing like Him who is God in His deity the image of God as He has too in His humanity. We could not be "like Him" without that free will image of God (1Jn.3:2); we have the opportunity to live in eternity with Him . . . if we choose to follow Him (rather than using that free will gift like the devil and those who follow him do to oppose Him). 
(11) For both the One who sanctifies and those who are sanctified belong to One [Father], and for this reason [Christ] is not ashamed to call them His brothers, (12) as He says: "I will proclaim Your name to My brothers. In the midst of the assembly I shall praise you" (Ps.22:22). (13) and elsewhere, "I [too] shall put My confidence in Him, [the Father]" (Is.8:17). and elsewhere, "Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me" (Is.8:18). (14) Therefore since "these children" (i.e., believers given to Christ by the Father: v.13) are flesh and blood, [Christ] took on the same [flesh and blood] in a very similar fashion (i.e., not identical only in that He was virgin born and so without sin), in order that through His death He might put an end to the one possessing the power of death, that is, the devil.
Hebrews 2:11-14 
It's a blessing to able to choose to respond to the Lord. Without that choice, Jesus' incarnation and sacrifice would be unnecessary, and there would be no point in creation at all. One might as well ask, "why did God create anything?" We know that He created everything for our benefit out of love for us, but if there were no choice, there would be no us, no union with Christ, no point to anything whatsoever.

2) Our Lord chose His disciples, including Judas, for the purpose of assisting in His ministry (during the three and a half years), fulfilling prophecy (in Judas' case), and building His Church (after the coming of the Spirit). All believers are "chosen", elected, but that choice is not independent of our our choice (in terms of salvation) and choices (in terms of our lives after being saved). The Will of God and our free will are perfectly intermeshed in the perfect and all-comprehensive plan of God. We are saved if we respond aright; we are rewarded eternally in proportion to how we respond thereafter.

In terms of before and after, not only do we get to choose whether we want to be with the Lord forever, we also get to demonstrate just how much (or little) we esteem Him through our actions in this life. And we are rewarded a little or a lot based upon our record in this life by the perfect Judge who takes everything perfectly into account. Yes, this too has all been entered into the plan of God which encompasses everything – but just because it is planned does not mean that the choices in each and every case are not genuine. They are. And they couldn't be made unless it was all decreed in the first place – because this life, time and space and the venue to exercise free will, have all come from God for these very purposes.

So re: "I can't reconcile the character of God that I see in the Bible with the character of God that Calvinism (or hyper-Calvinism) gives me." Good observation. Neither can I. That is why I don't waste a lot of time worrying about flawed theologies.

Re: not making any difference, I think you've done a good job answering this question yourself: "you've denied a huge part of the structure of history, the universe, and God's design, and also a huge motivation for living a Christian life". Very true! All false doctrine, all lies, are inimical to the truth, and to the extent that believers are misinformed or otherwise have accepting things they ought to know in the Spirit are not true for whatever reason (tradition, laziness, arrogance), to that extent walking close to the Lord and fulfilling His first best purposes for our lives becomes problematic. Mind you, knowing and accepting the truth gives us a great advantage . . . but we still have to "walk the walk" and do what we know is right to do. This was never easy and never will be this side of the resurrection. But it's better to know than not to know.
The wise have eyes in their heads, while the fool walks in the darkness;
Ecclesiastes 2:14a NIV
No doubt many of the Calvinist traditions have led decent Christian lives and may well have good rewards ahead, but this will be in spite of laboring under a Procrustean system of spiritual legalism that, as you note, makes self-motivation harder.

I survived Monday. I've been battling something (Covid?) for going on two weeks now. Still have a sore throat. Prayers appreciated!

Hope you are well! Keeping you in my daily prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #9:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

Thank you for your help, I appreciate this.

I didn't think I asked God "why?" very often, but I guess I do. You are completely right - God is love and good. We are who we are and that must be important and right, so "why?" is unnecessary. When you said, "We are blessed to be like Jesus in His humanity" - wow, that is true!

And you're right, it's pointless to try to comprehend erroneous theologies. I guess I tend to get caught up in that sort of thing - I'll try to avoid it going forward. I do enjoy a good conversation with someone though....what should I do for "mental stimulation"? I guess I'm just slightly bored - work is good, but it's hardly challenging. I don't get to exercise my artistic tendencies like I did at the florist shop. I enjoy stories and movies, but it's hard to find much that's decent and even the decent things are shallow (which I dislike). Christian writers are mostly shallow too, and I can't engage in much deep correct theological conversation with my friends.

I'm sorry you've felt unwell for so long! I feel bad you were replying to my email while you were sick, it wasn't important. I hope you can get some good rest. I am praying for you!

Respectfully,
Response #9:
No worries! It's my pleasure.

I don't have any problem with believers discussing these things with other believers. Who knows? You might get someone interested in the truth. But unless it's your particular "calling" for a ministry, then I wouldn't worry about consuming a lot of time and energy delving deeply into the details of other people's theological systems. Analogously, if a believer is not being called to an apologetics or evangelism ministry trying to reach, say, Muslims, then there's no need for said individual to try the master the Quran (e.g.).

In terms of artistic talents, I'm sure the Lord will lead you to a good outlet.

In terms of fiction, I find "Christian fiction" impossible to partake of. If one is reading a spy novel, e.g., it's taken for granted that "it's just a story" and that nothing in there is going to be spiritually edifying. "Christ-fic", however, masquerades as spiritual but inevitably contains falsehoods which, since they are set in an entertaining medium, can lead the immature astray. For believers who know something of the truth, these aspects merely make such books/movies unwatchable – along the lines of Laodicean church services being unbearable (without Dramamine).

Thanks for the concern and prayers! I'm not 100% but I'm bumping through. Haven't missed any teaching and expecting to get through tomorrow as well.

Keeping you in my daily prayers as well.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #10:
Hi Mr. Luginbill, 

On theological systems, I see what you are saying on that. I tend to desire deep conversation and I think sometimes it goes sideways on me cause I get caught up in things (even when other people won't change their minds).

I don't think I've ever thought of "Christian fiction" in quite that way - although I certainly do not disagree. So on the one hand, secular spy novels are almost better - except that they usually contain even more worldly content. Of course, I know that the less "entertainment" the better anyways so there is that. It's hard to desire spiritually edifying teaching and conversation and not even get them at church. I kinda feel like I'm hitting my mind against a wall. That doesn't seem to be a good place to be at either! I don't know, I think I'm going through some "growing pains" life wise and spiritually. I guess it will all go into place sometime!

I don't have many in my circle to talk to that understands God but I don't want to burden you. I'm just eager for some good Christian fellowship. 

Is home churching "wrong" if you don't have a man gifted as a pastor/teacher? We used to home church and I miss it in some ways. The men led it and we usually went through a chapter a week in whatever book of the Bible we had chosen. I know that gave me a good knowledge of Scripture. We did have troubles too - when you're that close to everyone, any rift is painful. If you're not getting any growth in organized church, would it hurt to try it at home? Of course, if people say whatever then you have the potential for problematic doctrine just like in "church". 

Hope you're feeling better now! 

Respectfully,
Response #10:
There's nothing wrong with "deep conversation". I'm just not adept at (or much interested in) apologetic work or spending a lot of time analyzing systems and/or religions which are not going to provide solutions since we know who is "the WAY" (Jn.14:6)..

It's no burden to me for you to write me any time, my friend. In terms of fellowship, I could put you in touch with the forum, if interested.

Re: fiction, I think you have all the "moving parts" correctly understood. What we do with that personally is a matter of individual application. We're no better for having read a novel, spiritually anyway, and we are probably no worse off – and if we are feeling worse off, then it might be best to avoid that particular genre/author and find something better to do with our free time.

On home church vs. brick and mortar church, it's not the venue that matters, it's the content. With the exception of some fellowships that are basing their content on this ministry, I don't know of many other home churches where things are much better than in brick and mortar places. It is true that a "home" doesn't have a building to support – and that is a main concern of the concrete venues. But usually "home" places are seeking to expand, just like the already established ones, so they usually suffer from the same maladies. In my town, the biggest evangelical mega-church around started from a "home church", e.g. It's the same "stuff" big or small. And that's the problem. We would all like to have a place to go where there are Christians as enthusiastic as we are about really learning the truth and growing closer to Jesus Christ through that truth. But there is a reason why this and other like-minded ministries are on the internet: in the era of Laodicea lukewarmness is the order of the day, so finding a cluster of "red hot" believers is very, very rare. So, no surprise, if you enter a church very big or very small, only the unimportant things are different. The really important thing is usually the same (sadly): no particular interest in doing what the Lord REALLY wants us to do.

Keeping you in my daily prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11:
Hi Mr. Luginbill, 

This all makes sense. 

That's interesting about the mega church, I didn't know that. I guess I'll just put the church thing to rest and not worry about it. Thank you for the prayers! 

Respectfully, 
Response #11:
My pleasure!
Question #12:
[omitted]

What is the point of praying if the outcome had already been predetermined? 

[omitted]

Doc, if you can find the time, would you please help me answer this questions? 

In Jesus, our loving precious Lord, 
Response #12:
From heaven the LORD looks down and sees all mankind;
from his dwelling place he watches all who live on earth—
he who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do.
No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength.
A horse is a vain hope for deliverance; despite all its great strength it cannot save.
But the eyes of the LORD are on those who fear him, on those whose hope is in his unfailing love, to deliver them from death and keep them alive in famine.
Psalm 33:13-19 NIV
Here we see the Lord "forming the heart" and being aware of everything we do (think and say), and yet His eyes are said to be on those who "fear Him", and who "hope" in Him. In other words, yes, it is impossible for the God of the universe who created time and space and ordained all of history in an instant NOT to know all. But foreordination does not remove free will. The divine decrees are what make free will choice possible. After all, how could we even exist, let alone think and speak and decide and act unless the Lord had given us the image of God, bodies, and a place and time to do so? 

Calvinism, especially the later, "hyper" variety, is over focused on the decree part of the truth; Arminianism and similar constructs look at free will exclusively. The answer, as with many truths of scripture is not in theology but in the Bible. Both things are true. God decreed what we do; we choose what we do. How can they both be true? They are, even if it boggles the mind. God in His decree knew ahead of time WHAT we would choose – but that does NOT mean that we did not legitimately and actually choose it. So if we allow these sorts of philosophical distractions to keep us from praying, then we did not actually pray – and God knew that when He decreed the decree. In short the plan of God is awesome because God is awesome in every way. The more we learn about Him through listening to and believing the truth, the more worthy of reverence and awe and respect we understand Him to be. We start to recognize that we don't need to figure out everything that is happening under the sun. What we need is to draw closer and closer to Him and lean on Him more and more. 
"Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
Mark 10:15 NIV
A small child holding his parent's hand doesn't really know where they are going or why, but he/she trusts that mom/dad is trustworthy, and intuitively understands that pulling left or right of dragging the feet or running out ahead is wrong and a mistake – and will be disciplined if acting otherwise. Same with us. We learn to trust Him more and more, and to do what He tells us to do, even when and if we don't quite or fully understand. As we grow, if we do so in humility, we do begin to understand more. And prayer becomes more effective.
Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
1st John 5:14 NKJV
The main thing we need to understand is that faith is the basis for everything. That is how we were saved, trusting Him to save us when we believed; that is how we grow, trusting that the truth He is giving us is true, believing it and acting on it. But if we doubt, if we demand proof, if we lose ourselves in speculation and sophisticated argumentation, we'll never grow.  What we need is . . . 
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
Proverbs 9:10 NIV
. . . versus . . . 
Professing to be wise, they became fools.
Romans 1:22 NKJV
Happy to have you email me back about this, my friend. 

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #13:
Someone responded this to me when I tried to e plain how the Hebrews 10 passage (you know, the infamous "if we sin willfully after coming to knowledge of the truth" one that's been a pain to interpret for 2,000 years) isn't about "sin too much and you're not longer saved", and they responded with this as part of their response:

"I’m curious tho what your belief is. Do you think if we believe Jesus died for us we can just go murder and rape people and still be saved? Can we fully reject the law he’s set out for us but still believe he died for us and make it to heaven?" 

I get we don't believe this either but...have I been approaching my preaching of the Gospel wrong? One of my key points is "Saying there's a point where one is no longer saved, or can't prove they're saved if they sin too much is ultimately arbitrary, as what that point is will always be a person from person perception."

I really did have good intentions with that...do you just mean certain sins mean someone likely doesn't believe in God or Christ at all deep down? Not as Lord and whatnot?
Response #13:
Those who are not interested in the truth often want to reduce things to extremes and say it's one or the other, as in, "either Calvinism or Arminianism is correct", when, in fact, there is predestination and there is free will – and the latter could not exist without the former. 

Rather than trying to see how the Bible explains that coexistence, people more interested in controversy than with the truth fight with each other instead of seeking the Lord (1Tim.6:3-5; Tit.3:9). 

Similarly here, yes we are supposed to live sinlessly and yes it is impossible to do so completely. We are not condemned for our personal sins since Christ died for them but we are condemned if we don't believe in Christ or if we abandon our faith in Him. A life of sin is one of the quickest ways to alienate ourselves from the Lord to the point where we don't want anything to do with Him any longer (since we can't "look Him in the face" being unwilling to repent) and thus lose faith. 

So what about an ax-murdering Christian? If such a thing existed, the Lord would take said individual out of this life via the sin unto death probably before they got around to actually doing the deed (i.e., more likely said individual would be hit by a bus on the way to buy the axe).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #14:
Hello doctor,
I have a problem and I want some help. I am struggling with 'predestination' doctrine and it makes me see god as unfair and unloving god and I can't accept it, in my heart I believe that god offers salvation for everyone and has warned everyone and told everyone to repent otherwise nothing makes sense; but my problem is that I can't stop thinking about that doctrine .. I can't keep it out of my head .. it really bothers me and hinders my faith and relationship with god.
I don't know what to do at this point I need some help I also struggle and fear when I read verses in bible that talks about predestination like Matthew 24:24; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and a lot more. Can you help me understand these verses correctly and what god meant by 'predetermined' and 'predestined' and how can I ignore this idea in my head and have faith and love god again?,

Thank you in advance
Response #14:
There are a lot of unsettling false doctrines out there in cyberspace these days, and distortion and/or hyper-interpretation of some Calvinist teachings is part of that. 

I can assure you that God is not only just and fair in the way He comports Himself to all human beings, but He is actually righteousness itself.
To declare that the LORD is upright;
He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.
Psalm 92:15 NKJV
Jesus Christ died for the sins of everyone (see the link), and God the Father wants everyone to be saved (1Tim.2:4). Since it is God's will for all to be saved, and since He paid a price beyond imagining for that to be able to happen, how could anyone NOT be saved . . . unless through their own free will they absolutely decide they do not want to be subordinate to Him?

That is the long and short of it. Yes, there is only one perfect plan, but God is "smart enough" (for want of a better way to put it in human terms) to have known what everyone would choose even before He created the universe in Jesus Christ. Everything that we DID choose is in the plan, the one perfect plan, without which no one could be saved. Predestination means that God has placed those who would choose for Him in the plan as believers; He didn't do that for those whom He knew ahead of time would refuse to believe (and later actually did choose in that way). It's all about faith in Jesus Christ.
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 3:18 NKJV
This is a very short synopsis of what you will find in Bible Basics 4B: Soteriology, under section I, "God's Plan to Save You" (at the link).

And before anyone abandons hope about some loved one who is resisting salvation, my advice is to pray for them. Because God knew in eternity past if you prayed for them . . . and also if you didn't.

Please do feel free to write me back about this.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:
Thanks for your reply I appreciate it a lot.

I believe every word you have said exactly and that's the way I used to think and believe but recently I dont know why I saw on the internet some of calvinist views and debates about it and day after day I started to search more and read more so it got stuck in my head in a way I can't resist it and it ruined everything especially when I read the verses they refer to to assure their beliefs .. it made me think maybe they are right maybe that's the interperance of the verses and it grows like that. even though I don't believe it in my heart and reject it completely if I take the whole context and the whole bible because then the bible seems useless and life seems so but im struggling with the overthinking about maybe it's true. I don't know if that's natural and it goes away with time but im afraid.
Response #15:
Hello Friend,

The only tried and true answer to struggling with lies is a strong dose of the truth. You can't "fight something with nothing". 

To have peace and confidence in our faith, we have to build our faith. Faith is like a muscle which grows when it is exercised and properly nourished but otherwise tends to atrophy.

In other words, if you would commit to spiritual growth, this problem would quickly fall by the wayside. But torturing yourself with lies on the internet is only going to make things worse.

Along with Ichthys (where I recommend starting with the Peter series; at the link), I also strongly recommend Bible Academy as a good place to begin the process of spiritual growth.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

I have some questions about Genesis and Jacob and Esau. My group is going through Genesis and we were on chapter 25.

Isaac's blessing seems important, but I don't quite understand it. Is it a spiritual blessing or a cultural one? How does Isaac know that what he said would happen? I understand that it fulfilled the prophecy that God gave Rebekah when the twins weren't born yet. Is it that God listens to Isaac since he is a believer?

20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future. - Hebrews 11:20 (what is this verse saying?)

Ok, so then we went to Romans 9.

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by Him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist His will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, although choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom He also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:10-24

Here's how I understand this, pls tell me if I have made a mistake.

Verses 10-13: On the surface it looks like predestination, but when it uses the phrase "in order that God’s purpose in election might stand", is it talking about foreknowledge in the sense that "of course, God's purpose will stand, He knows who He has made and how they will turn out" as opposed to "I'm deciding for them, who they will be and do". When it says, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” In my understanding, God loved Jacob since Jacob loved God. God "hated" Esau (hated used so we can relate to God, since God has no human emotions), since Esau did not respect God, as evidenced by his selling of his birthright. Similar to Cain and Abel, when they offering their offerings. God accepts those who accept and obey Him.

Verses 14-18: God is not unjust in allowing us to demonstrate what we want. Pharaoh wanted to harden his heart, so God allowed that, since God wants us to make our own choices. God's desire is for all to come to Jesus, but God can only have mercy on those who want mercy - and His character is consistent.“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

I confess, I'm not sure why the Bible phrases it in this way - I know Paul is making an argument here, I just wonder why the Holy Spirit said it in that way. Can you maybe help me understand that?

Verses 19-21: If God actually did pick who is saved and who isn't, then people might have a legitimate excuse - however, they are just trying to give the blame to God for their wrong actions. Is this talking about in the judgement, when unbelievers are shown why they are condemned?

Verses 22-24: This passage comes to mind.

1st Timothy 1:15-16
15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display His immense patience as an example for those who would believe in Him and receive eternal life.

God displays patience to unbelievers, giving them every opportunity to repent and have faith in Jesus - the objects of wrath (unbelievers) are only so since they chose that and God allowed them to choose. The objects of mercy (believers) are only so since they chose that and God allowed them to choose. There is no "God made me choose to believe or not believe" in this Romans passage.

Respectfully,
Response #16:
Always good to here from you, my friend. And I think you've done a very nice job in understanding these passages fairly well on your own.

To answer these questions in general terms, predestination and free will are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's impossible to have one without the other. We couldn't/wouldn't exist without God's plan and God's plan predestines everything. But that does not mean that we do not have free will. We certainly do. Free will is the entire reason for the plan of God, viz., for there to be eternal creatures with God's image who have chosen to be with God for all eternity – as opposed to those who don't have that image (cats and dogs, etc.). We couldn't exist or choose without the plan; the plan takes into perfect account everything we actually chose. If we didn't have the blessed opportunity to choose, we wouldn't be "us" in any sense of the word.

I see the blessings along the same line. Isaac was absolutely firm in his trust of the Lord. The Lord had told him that whomever he blessed would be blessed, and it turned out that way precisely. He was so convinced in fact that he knew that even if he blessed the one who had not been promised superiority that that son would receive it – which is why he thought to bless Esau instead of Jacob. But God worked it out so that both the prophecy and power of blessing came true.

As Paul says elsewhere . . .
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
Romans 11:33 NKJV
And as Peter says . . .
And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
2nd Peter 3:15-16 NKJV
Keeping you in my daily prayers, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #17:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

Ok, so perhaps I was swinging too far to the free-will side and not enough on the predestination side. I think I do understand when you say "predestination and free will are not mutually exclusive". Maybe the intensity I feel against it when I think about Calvanistic predestination made me knee jerk. Honestly, I was so bothered when two people in the group were explaining the Romans passage cause they were making it seem like Calvanistic predestination.

Thank you for explaining the blessing to me, that makes more sense now! Those passages give me a good perspective. And, as always, thank you for the prayers and your time!

Respectfully,
Response #17:
It's my pleasure!

It's good that you're standing up for the truth!

Thanks for your prayers too, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:
Hi my friend,

I trust that you are well and enjoying the summer (no more tangles with poison ivy?)

How do you explain the will of God to someone who insists that if God”s will is paramount, there’s no point in prayer requests.

I have used all the usual explanations but now I’m stumped and I’ve scoured your writings but can’t find the answer.

Can you help?

Other than that, I had a great reunion with my 6 grandchildren and my late daughter’s children have become wonderful young adults. 

Praise God and thanks for the many prayers regarding this.
Response #18:
No more poison ivy, and the fall is off to a good start now, but the summer was chock full of "fun". Highlights: my part timer for Latin quit with two weeks to go and it was a roller-coaster ride finding a new one and also getting the one we found hired (yes, no, yes, no, do this, do that, etc.); my first year Greek class was accidentally cancelled and had to be reconstituted (God's grace that I noticed this within hours and was able to screen-shot the roster on the alternative system before it disappeared or it would have been impossible to know who was "lost" and get them back in, and then two years would have been compromised); they told me at 7AM on day #2 of teaching that my upper Latin classes would be cancelled, and I had to "defend my life" in about 45 minutes before I had to get down there and teach four in a row. But it all worked out . . . because God worked it all out. As I say, just the highlights.

As to your question, well, if the person in question doesn't actually say a prayer for X, then God who is so "smart" (for want of a better word), could not have possibly have NOT known in eternity past that this person actually did NOT pray about X – and vice versa. The divine decrees take into account all of our free will actions, but the decree actually is the decree in no small part decreeing what we actually decided or decide or will decide to do (or not). Just because God knows it all ahead of time (how could He not?), doesn't meant that we didn't "do it" ourselves or choose it ourselves (whatever "it" is); if we didn't "do it", He would know that too. 

If a person wants to take a more fatalistic view of the plan of God and the will of God and sit on a park bench all day instead of going to work, when the money runs out and the person starves, that may very well be "the will of God", but NOT what God "wanted", if you see the difference. He wants us not to sin, but we often do what we want and not what He wants. BUT what we actually DID do is what is in the plan that He has willed. His perfect plan takes into account every single free will action and yet nothing surprises Him because everything has been decreed ahead of time. If that seems amazing, it is amazing beyond comprehension.
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts."
Isaiah 55:8-9
Anyone who doesn't understand all this in principle (and it is in some respects beyond our ken in practice), doesn't have a clear enough notion of just how "big" (again, for want of a better word) our God is. There's a lot about this in BB 4B: Soteriology under section I, "God's Plan to Save You" (at the link; including free will vs. the Will of God).

How is __ doing?

Keeping you and your family in my daily prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:
Thank you again for your quick response.

I guess some people like to muddy the waters and “ catch Christians out” and some of their reasoning is hard to disentangle. I just find nowadays people just want to argue points with no real searching for the truth. I often feel inadequate in defending the faith even though I am fully committed. It makes it very easy for me to understand election. __ is in remission for which we are so grateful but unfortunately the chemo triggered an autoimmune response and he has full blown Myasthenia Gravis which is quite debilitating. 

God definitely had His hand on you with all those last minute changes you had to make !!!

I’ll check out BB 4B and thank you for always being my “ go to” person when I have a problem question.

You are so appreciated Bob.
Response #19:
I agree with your diagnosis of the times. 

When it comes to unbelievers, their "theology" is usually composed of "trick questions" they feel are unassailable, such as, "What about the people who've never heard the gospel? Since God can't righteously condemn them, certainly He can't condemn me either!" The second part here is given to expose their motives. They don't want the truth. They just want mental relief on the issue of being responsible for their own actions and choices in this life. They want eternity . . . but without God – just like the devil.

I wouldn't worry about feelings of inadequacy. Even Paul felt those (2Cor.2:15-16). But the Spirit will give us whatever words we need if and when we need them (cf. Mk.13:11). Do keep in mind that in the case of unbelievers who are not really interested in the truth, sparring with them is usually a case of casting pearls before swine, and that is a dangerous as well as a pointless thing to do.

OK, I'll be keeping __ in my prayers on this.

Thanks for yours too – and for your good words, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #20:
Something funny I've noticed...Some sects or just single preacher's idea of God (cults or conmen mainly, though these things do often go hand in hand) is basically that of a spoiled toddler in the sky who "breaks" or "damns" people who don't agree with Him. This 'God' is often short tempered with people who hear some 'truth' of his that's far removed from reality or reason, and threatens to "destroy" them in Hell if they don't "take it back and listen to him". If his followers don't be "the perfect playmate" in his game of appeasement, they get thrown away.

In the greatest mockery of all, Jesus is made, in this analogy, to be like a "new game" that the child wants to play. The rules are a bit different, but do anything that upsets him too much even by accident, or decide he's being unreasonable and you don't agree with his nonsensical rules, and he throws a tantrum that won't be calmed down until you're "broken". You often have to beg and plead to be forgiven, and even then "it's up to Him alone".

The sheer irony of it all is that the common cultic template of God, as many point out, is far more like the pagan gods of old in behavior than how Scripture actually shows Him to be. And it's almost poetic in a dark, tragic sense. The gods of men are more often than not(in the case of the "head deity" archetype anyway), basically "cosmic manchildren" who play a cruel game of fate, and they're immutably rightousness and holy on virtue of their position of having such power and "transcendent nature" alone. Anyone who doesn't agree, gets judged in horrific and unfair ways. Not sure if this is entirely true, but I imagine the Israelites in Egypt and Babylon who stayed faithful to God despised the pagan pantheons for reasons much deeper than just "they act in ways that God doesn't agree with and they're supposed to be divine". God delivered them from living under the worldview of the exact kind of being cults often make the Lord out to be ruling the cosmos, and now people label Him with that same template of personality and say "this is what's truly holy".

It's tragic to people trapped in cults, being led to believe fear is the main motivation for following the Lord and that fear and anger are His main language. "Love" is often conditional here and is subject to the "don't make God have a tantrum" rules. I have no bottom to my sympathy and heartache for those believing they have to do perfect or live this life of an unbearable yoke for even the slimmest chance to be saved. The wounds of the despair amd self hatred, the trauma I suffered in such life is something that may never truly heal this side of eternity.

Why, if free will is absolute and unmitigated by circumstances, do people clearly take on ideas and beliefs, and often form behaviors informed by their environment and culture, even if it's obviously not decided by it completely? You don't see ideas like Islam suddenly come into existence in Feudal Japan, for example. Did "less willing/more wicked by what they would end up wanting" souls get stuck in eras, places and times that fit that? And I mean if said person was destined to want to "believe lies because others were morally degenerate and approved the same they wanted to believe", is the culture being absorbed into evil behavior and belief because said people were going to want that, so they were born there and then for the sake of "God honoring free will but predestining history with that in mind"?

The reality of culture and environment informing at least somewhat belief and behavior(mental, emotional and outward) is so empirical and dare I say it, a form of lying to oneself to deny it having happened for the self(as far as in a vacuum of the life, without natural revelation and predestination at least), that it makes my soul have no peace unless I know the answer. Unless I'm missing something or getting the wrong idea (as I often can), this doesn't feel right. In my spirit it speaks to me on a deeply unsettling level.

God bless.
Response #20:
Good comments about cult manipulation through fear. We are to honor and respect and stand in awe of God – as we would of a perfect parent (which we can imagine even for those who've never experienced it), not be in constant terror. God is love. He is merciful and gracious. And He loves us.
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
1st John 4:18 NIV
As to the plan of God, there is only one plan of God. There are no hypothetical situations, no "what ifs". People can pose these things, but believers have to understand that absolutely everything has been foreordained. The problem with traditional theology is that it can't seem to understand that this truth is not contrary to free will. Indeed, free will could only be possible with a system of time and space which God created – and of course that creation would have to be perfect including its perfect flow and conclusion ordained in advance by a God who is superior in every way to time and space and could not possibly be uninformed about absolutely everything that would ever take place once He decreed and effected creation.

God is VERY much "bigger" than what people imagine. A God who knew about the exact swerve of every particular subatomic particle at the far end of the universe eons ago – and its consequences for absolutely everything else that would happen until the end of time – has no problem recognizing the effects of some cultural or environmental factor on one of the precious spirits He created in His image. Ergo, He put each and every one of us in just the right place and at just the right time, justly giving us what we needed and wanted for all who recognized the need for Him and wanted a relationship with Him.

Jesus Christ died for the sins of all of these people we don't really know much about who lived in the past. But God knew how and/or if they would respond to the truth. It would be unjust for Him to have put anyone in any situation where they would not be saved if in some alternative situation they would respond to His grace. And God is NOT unjust. He has the knowledge, the power and the right to do as He is doing (Rom.9:20-24). Our job is to trust Him that "He knows what He is doing" – which obviously He does. Otherwise, what sort of faith do we have? And one cannot please Him without trusting in Him (Heb.11:6).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/