Are the Apostles the Only Predestined?

Ephesians 1:3-13

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 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, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.  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.

Here is a thought I haven't tested anywhere yet, and it may be a complete dud, because I don't know how to read original languages of the bible. Here goes....

Can we read the "US & WE" in Ephesians 1:3-12 as meaning only Paul and the Apostles? Verse 13 says "YOU also" and the pronoun changes, to perhaps mean the church at large...? So there are two groups being discussed in Paul's letter.  There are the "Us's" and "We's," the Apostles; and from authority they write.  And then there are the "You's," which is everyone else.  Paul says that he learned "the mystery" from God and has been in charge of sharing it (as one of the holy Apostles and Prophets) in the beginning of chapter 3. He uses the pronouns in this way, "it has been given to ME for YOU" eph 3:2. Here is Ephesians 3:1-13

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles—if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.
To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him. Therefore I ask that you do not lose heart at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.

My turning point in being challenged by this was trying to reread Eph. 1:9.  I'm pretty sure it says that God only "made known to [the holy Apostles] the mystery...".   If I re-read verse 1:4 with such an idea, it would imply "He chose [the holy Apostles] in Him before the foundation of the world."  The topic appears to be much different doesn't it?

As one can see, this letter seems to spend a good deal of time talking about the credentials of Paul. Not everyone learns the mystery of the gospel of salvation in Christ from the same source. Paul had it revealed to him by the Spirit of God at the turn of the age. Notice that Apostles come to know the gospel from the new administration (dispensation); however "You" meaning the Ephesian church, comes to know the gospel when it was preached to them from other men. Notice also that the "Us," meaning Apostles, were the "first to trust in Christ," and of course they did precede the Ephesian believers. Would not God predestine that those who would first be given the gospel message personally as Paul had, as specially selected from the beginning of time to successfully bear and share the gospel truth? It would be important that they would receive such a supportive measure of God's power and grace to be sufficient ministers at the opening gate.

Doesn't it make much more sense with the whole "predestination by God to salvation" business if it is for a very limited group? What does the passage really say is "predestined" by God?

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.

"Should be" to the praise of His glory. "Should be" is defined as, "to happen." Predestination means... concerning Paul and the other Apostles, He would meet His desire; He would be glorified.

Has anyone anywhere said this before? Is this totally impossible by the knowledge of bible scholars, and that is why I have not heard it as of yet?

Free Grace is a Movement

My husband subscribes to snail-mail from Ligonier Ministries founded by R.C. Sproul [1]. This month's mailing was sitting out where I noticed what was highlighted in red on the front of the envelope:

"'Reformation is a movement, not just a historical event.'
- R. C. Sproul"

Well. If Reformed theology is speaking of itself as a movement, then I'll speak in turn that Free Grace is a movement too.

Besides video lectures and interviews at the Free Grace Alliance website, and articles and newsletters at the Grace Evangelical Society website, there are some excellent blog writers around the internet. A sample follows.

By introduction, Tim Nichols frames the conversation over Reformed theology with grace and perspective writing in a recent post about the historical Protestant Reformation,

The whole point of their system of doctrine was that we must thank God, and God alone, for our salvation, and that thanks must arise from a joyful heart that is certain of its salvation. ... The Reformation confessions and catechisms teach this quite clearly. They also teach clearly the perseverance of the saints, and this created a hairline fracture in their system of doctrine. That fracture permits a squinty-eyed, untrusting person to begin to question whether, if he were really saved, he would commit the sins that he does. Many Reformed people have widened this hairline fracture to an unbridgeable chasm, and as a result whole denominations have been led to abandon both the Bible’s clear teaching of assurance of salvation and the Reformers’ fine example in that area.

Dr. Fred Lybrand, former President of the Free Grace Alliance has written many posts at his blog largely on logic & doctrine from the Free Grace perspective in the last year.

The Faith/Works Logic Issue

You'll Never be Tempted to Judge Anyone's Eternal Destiny Again

Faith Alone or Not... are you one of those awful Antinomians?

Does Works Prove Faith?

Appendix B From Back to Faith by Dr. Lybrand: Is This Antinomianism?

Antonio daRosa, workshop speaker at the Grace Evangelical Society has written some slightly more lengthy arguments in his blog's index of Free Grace articles.

God Drags Down the Path of Obedience?

Carnality Unto Death

Calvinism and its House of Cards

Free Grace Doctrine Correlation: My Positions

Additional Thoughts on the Second and Third Soils in the Parable of the Sower

For more information on the teaching of Free Grace, keep reading these blogs or contact the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) or Free Grace Alliance (FGA).

[1] Accessible are some basic teachings of R.C. Sproul at Reformation Theology: Are You New to Reformed Theology?
Sproul interprets Hebrews 6, Romans 9, free will, regeneration preceding faith, God never 'changing His mind,' intercessory prayer, and more in the online mp3 titled Chosen By God: 2005 St. Louis Conference.

An encouraging conversation

I had sent an email of relative distress to Dr. R. He gave me a short reply because he has been quite busy lately, but, we talked on the phone yesterday afternoon between snow bursts when he was actually at the Seminary. It was personally, very encouraging.

I asked him a question of where the free grace movement is today. He answers this question by going back to the very beginning -- of his own life. It takes a while to listen to, but, every time he tells it he shares different details than the time before and I am able to get a better sense of all he has seen and done and learned. He seems to know the history and pastors of every church of influence in evangelical America in the last fifty years. He has worked with so many notable people. It's rather amazing to listen to these things.

What I would love to do is capture his voice on audio, and transcribe it. The more I listen to him the more I realize how little I know. I truly do know little. If there is one thing I might know, it is a discernment of what's out there...? (Sharing one's faith with LDS people makes you ask a lot of questions about your entire system of beliefs.) I have also tested many of the most popular errors in conservative biblical Christianity. I wrote briefly of this in a post which I took down earlier this week. Let me share that paragraph again here:

If you take a tour of most of conservative evangelical Christianity, you'll find a common doctrine that people are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. So: does the "free grace" movement exclusively own the burden which Galatians depicts? No. It belongs to everyone of course. I confess, I do not know of any other movement committed to defending both justification and sanctification, though. Take that same tour of conservative evangelical Christianity and you will discover there is conversely a great variety and confusion over sanctification: this is no where nailed down for believers like us.

If we move just a little to the left or right in conservative evangelical Christianity, we end up with deviations of sorts, on the gospel of salvation. You can have your pick, your combination, your preference: the pentecostal version of how to be saved; the church of christ version of how to be saved; or the lordship theology (hyper-calvinism) version of how to be saved. They are all "faith in Jesus, & also works." Beyond these? Everything else is certainly an abandonment of faith alone in Christ; liberal protestantism, catholicism, and works-based non-mainstream movements (commonly termed "cults").

I suppose this really is not any kind of accomplishment to have learned this. But it was enough for me to gain confirmation on a variety of my observations again and again while listening to him. How unprecedented and brave, free grace theology is attempting to be. In fact, I have heard him recommend an option of being a "Zero-point Calvinist," meaning we just don't need an acrostic at all to explain our faith, do we? We have the bible and that is all we ever needed.

This is simply brilliance way overdue.

Why "Theological Legalism" in Free Grace?

Why might there possibly be "theological legalism" in free grace circles?

I'll tell you why not; I am overlooking trifle things. It is not so much because:

1- people have a strict interpretation of an incredibly narrow construction of truth about the content of saving faith or the content of the gospel of salvation. (Of course this is something to make a big deal over because it is concerning the essentials of the faith.)

If you want to call this "legalism" it might or might not be so. If it is, it is a more narrow and less significant form, and I'm thinking of pinpointing a much larger element.

2- tensions have been increasing perhaps until as of late, and there has been a slow formation of theological camps. There are individuals on both sides who have a lot of scriptural might, who try and determine the course of others' convictions both within their own camp and across the free grace spectrum.

Even this, if you want to call it a form of legalism, is pretty common and normative. In the typical evangelical setting, influencing others with so heavy a hand is still considered by many to be a loving and therefore welcomed interaction.

Neither of these is what I am thinking of as the theological legalism within free grace.

When I think of theological legalism I am concerned about this one thing: its beginning premise. It is not as if no one in the world was ever getting saved in the midst of the Lordship Salvation era of evangelism. Free grace began because those who continue to hold fast "to what they heard in the beginning" as the Apostle John commands in his first epistle, are aware that the shift of the content of the gospel nevertheless reaps eternal damnation. Clarity had an unmistakeable and growing force of opposition, manifested in Lordship Salvation.

I ask this question: Is it true that there cannot be any error, therefore, in free grace soteriology, lest it fail its mission? We were created with a mission to protect the gospel message from error. I observe that we are indoctrinated by our own founding premise, that in order to preserve the gospel from any error, we must preserve it from any people who disagree.

I submit that a sustained future mission becomes less likely if it continues that we practice purging people.

Free grace began as a withstanding of the increasing error of people. As a withstanding of the error of certain teachers. As a withstanding of the error and confusion brought by a significant degree of theological error.

We started that engine righteously. But how important is it that we turn it off before it takes us further than we best go?

Are we not still looking for the same taxon of "enemy"? I think we are, unfortunately, still looking for "people" to take out of play, not quite able to prove if they are in opposition to the gospel. Is our mission forevermore to be after people; certain teachers? Is our mission to be ever increasingly seeking to eliminate people with theological error?

(For a bit of perspective, these questions are similar to those that must be asked of Christians who are legalists in their works; they don't want "sinners" to be acceptable and so they measure purity outwardly to give assurance, but assurance is never really attained.)

Where can this lead, ultimately?

All "gospel" "content" conversations aside, there must be a point even on the fundamental teachings of the faith, where a limit in detail to what is known and what is designed to be known, is perceived. Is there a limit of knowledge regarding the gospel? I don't know. Maybe Stegall and JP are right in saying the gospel and the content of saving faith can truly be known and proved without doubt from scripture. If that is true why are there so many Spirit-led free grace disciples that have not yet been convinced? This is a question that I believe deserves a great deal of respect and consideration. Maybe Rose is conversely correct; perhaps God has designed some things to maintain a small element of mystery. I myself do not know the answer of "limit" in the gospel-content debate.

I wonder about this: how long is that engine that we started up for good in the founding days, going to keep on working these same processes within? Is it not eventually leading us to impotence?

If we keep purging people, on what basis will we be doing so? On the basis of our own personal convictions. There is nothing wrong with that, excluding one thing: there is a great deal of variety in belief over the content of the gospel/saving faith. The end products? Three. Following on with this beginning premise to purge people who hold to error:

- we will all be purging one another. We have to; for any other gospel is "anathema."

- we will have no justification or freedom to publicly change position should we one day honestly be convinced differently.

- we will lose great minds and personalities to distant and broken fellowships.

May I submit some concepts for solution?

With a few exceptions, there needs be a distinction between purging error and purging people. Yes, we know there are a few "bad apples" on the fringe who cannot accept the terms of the most obvious and well established attributes of the content of the gospel. They may never change their mind. In the 1980s when we stood distinct with dissatisfaction with the worst of them, we essentially made this statement to the watching world:

"Do you know how important it is to preach the gospel with accuracy? Now that we have made so vocal a stand against those who preach error, and we have your attention, let's discuss together the content of saving faith and the content of the gospel."

In this sort of approach, you can see that the engine that was ignited by the obvious and unrepentant error of the extremists, has been intentionally, subsequently turned off. We no longer are seeking to purge people, only the error of the people caught up in this trend. Now that we have been established, shifting the focus away from people, and onto their error, allows for grace to be practiced. It allows space for people to ask questions. It permits grace for people to read for themselves. There is time to establish answers that are more than just what they were told, but what the scripture actually provides. This allows them to become teachers of free grace theology, in their own spheres of influence. It allows for the talents and work of those who have some disagreement over the gospel, to be used in whatever portion is helpful to advance the message that the gospel is an important matter for wholesale Evangelical Christianity to be self-motivated in studying.

Most importantly, this shift in emphasis off of people and onto discussing error alone, means that outsiders may no longer be derisive of our movement.

They might want to say, "Free grace began because they wanted to stop people from teaching error about the gospel, but they'll never achieve their goal because they can't unanimously prove what error is and what it is not."

But instead the mission and realization is this: "Free grace began because they wanted to stop the preaching of error in the presentation of the gospel, and everyday they are spurring their world and one another in fulfillment of that goal."

What do you think? Is there such a thing as "theological legalism"?

Renewed dialogue

It is amazing how much smaller a world it seems to be as the internet becomes more and more interactive. I need to confess something important.

The last couple months have generated in me a good deal of zealotry against old-school evangelism/calvinism's worldview. Whatever that is, and wherever that comes from, that has infiltrated not only the Lordship Salvation camp but nearly the whole of evangelical Christianity -- anywhere where the Augustinian, and therefore Lutheran and Calvinist concepts, have been incorporated into the theological grid.

To me it feels great to be free of that. But this post is not about me, except to say that in all the heat and bitterness I have exhibited, I am sure I made one very important person feel about two inches tall. Her online name is "Echo." I love her and appreciate her so much. She's Evangelical Lutheran, and when it comes to evangelism, she's old-school. Or at least that's how she's been with the LDS up to this point, though beginning in 2006. She doesn't deserve to be made to feel less important, or left out. I believe in her. I believe that God is working in her and through her. I believe she has a heart of gold toward the LDS.



In the categorizations I have made, I have a feeling I might have alienated her.

In a post titled My Testimony this is what I wrote of her:

Online, I have been evangelizing the LDS at a religious forum. I've been there loving on them for five and a half years. In year three, an Evangelical-Lutheran came in to evangelize them too. She loved the Word of God but made mistakes in how she treated them, and how she presented the truth. She called herself someone who believed that grace is free -- but she didn't act or preach in a manner obedient to that belief. For instance, she believed in baptism for salvation. I had to make a choice: was she right that the gospel was more than just faith, or was salvation that simple? I felt peer pressure, thankful to have another evangelical to witness to this great bunch at the LDS forum. Through a year of wrestling with my thoughts over watching her methodology and message, and what I knew I already believed should be the message and methodology from scripture, I took a stand in front of the LDS, against her message, defending the simple truth: faith in Jesus is what saves. She accused me of being softened by the LDS toward heresy. That's okay. We're still in contact. I emailed her a fifteen page document of scripture I wrote showing her how simple faith really is. For a time it excited her, then she decided it was not true once more.

If she is anything like my calvinist husband, I can imagine her saying in response, "That isn't fair, because I believe that the truth is simple, too; faith in Jesus is what saves." But I want to make room to hear exactly what she thinks.

I re-read what I've written and I think it is fair and true. I still think the same. But when it comes to relationships it matters a whole lot less what I intend to say and a whole lot more, how I am received.

It is time for me to express regret for the pain I might be causing -- even if it was not at any time intended, it does not change the real feelings she may be experiencing. I want to know how I have been received into her hearing. Just today she has returned after being absent for several months, to My LDS Stuff. We have not yet spoken since I've "become free grace." Hopefully she will respond and share a bit in the thread labeled A Thought at that forum, though she is invited to discuss it here instead if she wishes.

God bless you sister!

God in a Box

Who can thwart God?

This question has haunted me forever. It is responsible for lack of hope infiltrated in everything: prayer, faith, works, evangelism. How... can God be prevented from His purposes? How can God be stopped by me, from achievement of his will? If someone came along and said "But what you do, does matter," secretly on the inside I'd think "God can do whatever He wants; He's God after all." The M.O. of a bully.

I am irrelevant when it comes to affecting good. I am also helpless to prevent the bad.

However, if free will is true, then it must mean there is a limitation God enforces upon himself, a substantial restraint. If God's restraint is not true, then free will is just a pretty idea.

I learned recently in this class that most all Christians have a notion of specific sovereignty: God is in control of every detail, and has decreed all things, yet we cannot and must not ever think He was lending a hand toward sin. The only way to do this is to appeal to mystery and the inscrutibility of God. I never thought that was good enough. How does it make you feel?

Free will is real in a concept of general sovereignty: He is the ultimate boss, but leaves individuals their choices. God works all things together for good just like in a chess match; ultimately no matter if it takes us five moves or 50 moves, we're still the winner, God's purpose is still the winner.

If someone says "God causes all things," but then clarify that He only causes half, the good

If we really do have a child/parent relationship with God, then it makes sense to use an analogy from our own experiences. Certainly our children are free to choose where they go on the playground. There are times when we're lucky to catch them when they are about to fall, but, sometimes a child falls

Me Lucky Charms

Absorbing more from class again tonight, I'm wrestling a bit with my former attitude of spiritual disciplines. (The disciplines are things like praying, going to church, worship, reading the Word.) I used to think that how I became increasingly obedient to God's commands was by my spiritual participation in spiritual disciplines. As if doing these things (and having faith grow as a result) would make me want to obey God. They would change my mind, they would force themselves on me "as an irresistible gift." It also assumed that, once I had the faith that grew, said faith would automatically complete itself in obedience. This automationed idea of faith mixes the distinction between conviction and choice. The practice has been nagging at my conscience long before I discovered free will. But, I don't need more Spirit. What I need is to submit to the Spirit that I have. And that is what Romans 8 teaches.

It's funny, how I've been trying to massage these for all they were worth. It was getting tiresome.

Seeking Practical Truths

It seems to me, as I look over things, that my Christianity has been one of too much dreaminess. There's nothing wrong, per se, in thinking deeply into the nature of God in nature and man and life. I certainly take pleasure in that stuff. By calling it dreamy I am not trying to suggest that it has been one without works, because it has not gone uncomplimented and I say that without falling in the trap of comparison. I am trying to say that I would like it to be more sound, more biblically-practical. I'd like to see the theory and concepts be more intimately connected with the circumstances of life. As someone recently said to me, "If there's something wrong with God and His realness, then there's something wrong with your concepts." Boy does that seem the case recently.

I learned in my class last night (yes, I'm taking another one) that the doubt over eternal destination causes doubt over whether we've been given by God the ability to excel. That's a good thought, though my personal problem has been its sister-thought: Had I been given the gift of perseverance? I didn't doubt heaven was for me but I sure did wonder, on the premise that all good works come graciously from God, whether God had destined me to be a success or a failure. And who could know the answer? In fact, by experiencing failure (which I know now why is my own fault), I would be inclined to think that He had not given me much grace to obey. What a sad thought.

But why should I worry and strain to wonder as if I am not in control just because God is sovereign? By knowing my destiny is in my own hands, that God is just and I am responsible for myself, the truth becomes very important to read as if for me to study and apply.

Now that my walk is in my hands, there's only one thing left to do: Learn the truth. Then start practicing it. Sounds simple, but, you know, it's scary. Dreaming seems a lot more familiar. What if it doesn't work, I mean, for me? I confess it's scary, but I soon will be trying it out, to see if it really works.

Simple and plain truths

Formerly while reading the Word, I had liquified all distinguishment between the faith that makes me spared from hell and the faith I can choose to operate with as His child. I rarely read any passages in scripture speaking to my faith post-reception of Christ, because I had absorbed the "irresistible grace" thought. And that was a huge loss.

I want to share with you my former presuppositions. I want to share with you what I think I know, without bothering to research it till after it's out there in the open.

What I thought I knew about the New International Version (NIV) of the bible, I had heard in my own church and also from many churches at various points; that it translated the original documents comprising the bible by phrase-units, not by words, as units. For that reason I had been taught that the NIV was a good version for gaining comprehension but not for fomulating doctrines.

Now: what I heard in the last two weeks of class, about the NIV is that the council of Christians who did the translating were Calvinists, more specifically "Lordship Theologists," who obfuscate the righteousness that comes by the faith that saves and the righteousness that comes by the faith of walking with the Spirit.

If these new insights into free will from Romans 8 are correct, it'd blow the roof off of some traditionally difficult passages. For me one of the worst books in scripture to make cohesive with the gospel is 1 John. 1 John reminds me a lot of my own personality... at least the kinds of mistakes I try not to make. It thinks of reality as black and white, right and wrong, without any room for gray, without any grace or practicality.

Now as I pop the top what will I find? Let's read a characteristic black/white passage from 1 John (3:4-6 ) in the NIV and then again in the NKJV (which I was recently told, distinguishes the faiths of justification/sanctification):

NIV:

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

NKJV:

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

I see a huge difference... do you? The first makes it sound, and, this is the only way I could understand it, as if those who are saved by Christ do not sin. It makes me have to assume, therefore, that he means this as a generality, in comparison to those without God, because it can't be absolutely true... obviously.

I see this now, and can you too? The NIV reads scripture as if we're distinguishing the saved from the unsaved, and the NKJV reads it as a matter of who, among the saved, is growing to be like Christ. What a difference.

I now suspect that the "study notes" accompanying my NIV bible are also written by the same group of Christians, those who by the power of a Calvinist mindset, meld justification with sanctification as if by the power of irresistible grace, the Holy Spirit is ever intervening in us to make us obey despite our choice to resist.

Let me read to you the "study notes" footed in the two versions:

NIV:

John is not asserting sinless perfection, but explaining that the believer's life is characterized not by sin but by doing what is right.

NKJV:

If Christ is sinless and the purpose of His coming was to remove sin, then whoever abides in Him does not sin. Habitually sinful conduct indicates an absence of fellowship with Christ.

Wow, pretty dead-on.

Well, which one is it?

Is it possible to be a carnal-Christian, or is it not? Is it possible to be sin-free at times, or is it not? Which concept of Christian rules do you believe John meant to communicate?

And if I think that's an important question (for perhaps both study notes make true interpretations), here's one that is even more important: which filter of the Word does the least gymnastics? I praise God that His Word can be read in a superiorly simple manner.

Irresistible Grace: Irresistible Doctrine

Walking through the whole Romans text has brought me invaluable benefit.

Somewhere in former years I learned the points of Calvinism and Arminianism and decided that in the grand sense, it really didn't matter. They are doctrines made by men and while I found many ideas of both sides well said, they were inferior to the Word itself. I would be better off without: I believe in God to lead me when I read, and, scripture is everything that I should need to form concepts. So I went on my way and set aside the controversy.

But what really happened was this: my mind had been formed thus-forward. Once I had read and understand the points of Calvinism, I absorbed it without even realizing it.

I didn't even see how jaded I was to God's Word till these last two weeks, while reading Romans in the context of its entirety. I was amazed that scripture so resolutely answered my need for understanding and yet I was blind for so long. Let me give an example. Chapter eight gives direct opposition to the Calvinic principle called "irresistible grace[1]:"

In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.

Here is what Romans 8 says:

Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live....

I have never read this passage as if it were speaking on the matter of pleasing God after salvation, only for justification! Once I read it as a teaching subsequent to salvation, it became evident that I had a choice! That I must choose, in every decision! Either life and peace by focusing on the Spirit's thoughts, or to continue on living dead in sin by listening to the flesh.

Well, duh!

I mean, I knew that, but somehow, I never grasped on to it. I knew that my life needed me to choose to obey. Can I tell you that I have been laboring for most of the conscious years of being a Christian, as expecting God to intervene and make me want to? I think God pulled out after a long time of putting up with my ignorance, knowing that eventually choices needed to have some sense of competition in me in order for Him to really be loved by me, instead of me acting like I think I'm some automation. The most wretched thought borne of this irresistible grace is that sin, my sin, is God's fault.

Yeah, I've been feeling guilty wanting to say that all these years. How sad, but very very real.

How I listen to the bible is so, so important. I should be diligent to open my mind to the way it plainly is expressing truth.


1. Comparison of Calvinism and Arminianism