John Piper

[Bro.Johnny Mac]

Calvanism teaches that God only works in the hearts of those who he has predestined for salvation,and those who he has predestined to hell are never delt with by the Holy Spirit concerning salvation.

The bible teaches He works in every mans heart(Jerry has given plenty of scripture in previous posts to show this truth).

Calvanism teaches that man can not resist the drawing of the Holy Spirit,the bible teaches that man can resist Holy Spirit conviction.

Calvanism teaches that a person is born again BEFORE they believe the gospel,this is also not biblical.

Calvanism also teaches that there are people who are false believers,they think they are saved but they are not.So how can a Calvanist ever have assurance?This is where the perserverance of the saints comes in,assurance comes from the fact they have good works.Where as the Bible teaches that assurance comes from trusting that God's word says you are saved if you believe the gospel.So biblical assurance doesnt come in trusting our works but Jesus' work.

Calvanism also teaches that Jesus dint die for all of mankind,so if you go soul winning and tell a lost person that Jesus died for their sin,you are going against Calvanism,because Jesus didnt die for every ones sin.

Calvanism also teaches that man is so depraved that he cant believe the gospel.That he needs to be born again first,and then he believes,so even the elect dont have a choice about salvation.
The Bible teaches that all men are sinners,all men are lost,no man can save himself,and that God wants everyone to be saved.When a person dies without Christ and is in hell forever,its because of them,not God.God has given evrey person the freedom to accept or reject Jesus,thats what sends a sinner to hell,they rejected Jesus,not that there is no way they will ever be saved because God chose them to go to hell before they were ever born.

I guess these are the main sticking points I have with Calvanism.

P.S Thank you Dwayner,for your kind words.I really neede to hear that,it TRULY blessed my heart. God bless you Brother.

[okjac80]

Calvanism teaches that God only works in the hearts of those who he has predestined for salvation,and those who he has predestined to hell are never delt with by the Holy Spirit concerning salvation.

The bible teaches He works in every mans heart(Jerry has given plenty of scripture in previous posts to show this truth).

Calvanism teaches that man can not resist the drawing of the Holy Spirit,the bible teaches that man can resist Holy Spirit conviction.

Calvanism teaches that a person is born again BEFORE they believe the gospel,this is also not biblical.

Calvanism also teaches that there are people who are false believers,they think they are saved but they are not.So how can a Calvanist ever have assurance?This is where the perserverance of the saints comes in,assurance comes from the fact they have good works.Where as the Bible teaches that assurance comes from trusting that God's word says you are saved if you believe the gospel.So biblical assurance doesnt come in trusting our works but Jesus' work.

Calvanism also teaches that Jesus dint die for all of mankind,so if you go soul winning and tell a lost person that Jesus died for their sin,you are going against Calvanism,because Jesus didnt die for every ones sin.

Calvanism also teaches that man is so depraved that he cant believe the gospel.That he needs to be born again first,and then he believes,so even the elect dont have a choice about salvation.
The Bible teaches that all men are sinners,all men are lost,no man can save himself,and that God wants everyone to be saved.When a person dies without Christ and is in hell forever,its because of them,not God.God has given evrey person the freedom to accept or reject Jesus,thats what sends a sinner to hell,they rejected Jesus,not that there is no way they will ever be saved because God chose them to go to hell before they were ever born.

I guess these are the main sticking points I have with Calvanism.

P.S Thank you Dwayner,for your kind words.I really neede to hear that,it TRULY blessed my heart. God bless you Brother.

I am sorry sir, but you get these quotes from a Calvinist? Or did you read somewhere that this is what we believe and put them in your own words? Because, (and I am trying very hard to not get upset)
MOST OF THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT WHAT WE BELIEVE!!

while some of this is right, it has been twisted and turned and so distorted that it barely resembles the truth.

[Bro.Johnny Mac]

I am sorry sir, but you get these quotes from a Calvinist? Or did you read somewhere that this is what we believe and put them in your own words? Because, (and I am trying very hard to not get upset)
MOST OF THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT WHAT WE BELIEVE!!

while some of this is right, it has been twisted and turned and so distorted that it barely resembles the truth.

No need to shout Bro. :loll:

If I have misrepresentd the teachings on the tulip,let me know where I did so.
This is what the tulip teaches as far as I can tell.

[okjac80]

No need to shout Bro. :loll:

If I have misrepresentd the teachings on the tulip,let me know where I did so.
This is what the tulip teaches as far as I can tell.

for one thing, I am a girl, but I do guess that is hard to tell by my name! LOL

When I get back, I'll gladly put in my 2 cents, or however much it may add up to be! LOL

gotta' go to the commissary. first let me say that I have not always been a Calvinist. Growing up we went to an AG church (scared the livin' daylights out of me for YEARS! LOL), then when I was a teen, we switched to an SBC church. It wasn't until the past 3 years or so that we started following the Reformed church and joined. We (my husband and I) did a lot of prayer, soul searching, reading, etc. We came to the conclussion that Calvinism is truly biblical. THere isn't one point we didn't question. We didn't arrive at this point carelessly or w/o much prayer. Also, I do believe thanks to a few extremes and "hyper Calvinists" that we have become the most missunderstood group of Christians around! LOL

[heartstrings]

The TULIP , basicly presents a God who would be unfair and unrighteous. Why? Because He supposedly made you to be saved, but made me to go to Hell. You may say, but God is righteous and can send who He chooses to Hell, because he's "sovereign", Wat does that mean to Calvinists? Do you even find that word in your Bible?

Since this thread is about John Piper, I will mention that this particular Calvinist teaches that God is cheifly interested in His Glory. Oh really? So, really, why did God create the Universe? The Bible says He created it for His pleasure.
The Bible says that God IS love. In 1 Corinthians 13, you will find some of the attributes of Love. The Bible says that "charity seeketh not her own". What does that mean? It means that love, (and there is no purer love than God) is not selfish. So, did God really create the Universe and everything in it for His own glory? Please enlighten me. The Bible says He created all things for His pleasure. Is that Glory? What then is His pleasure? The Bible says that God's pleasure is to give us the Kingdom.
So, how far was God willing to go to do what gave Him pleasure?

The Bible says no greater love hath any man than this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends.
God came down to this earth and bled and died for every sinner that has lived or will ever live. That's how big and righteous MY God is. He died for every single person.
So, once again love(charity) "seeks not her own" and that would include "Glory". But yet the Bible says that God WILL recieve Glory. Why? Because He is worthy. Why is He worthy? What is the only reason that man will ever WILLINGLY give God glory? Because of what Christ did for us. Who will give the most glory? Those who are the most thankful the Bible says. And who might that be? The Bible says those who He forgave much. God EARNED His glory on the Cross of Calvary. But once again, why did He do it? Not because of sefishness. But because God is Love. He did it all for us.

Why would a loving God send anyone to Hell? Because to love self, sin and degradation so much that you would reject love personified.....Jesus....the Love that gave His own life, Whoever would reject that is wicked and evil and deserving of Hell. God does the drawing and wooing by the Holy Spirit of love. All we have to do is beleive and trust in Him. We have a choice. God is not unrighteous and He don't make no robots. The Bible says WHoseover will, let Him come and drink from the water of life freely.

[hayesy]

The TULIP ' date=' basicly presents a God who would be unfair and unrighteous. Why? Because He supposedly made you to be saved, but made me to go to Hell.[/quote']
If that makes God unrighteous, you are not going to like the Bible much either, for that is exactly what it says:


God decided "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" before either had been born, "neither having done any good or evil". Why? So "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth".
Paul asks the rhetorical question burning on my mind (v14): Is God unrighteous to do so? (Notice this: If this passage is not talking about God's sovereign election, where does this question come from?)
Paul's answer: Not at all! God is God, and will have mercy on whom he has mercy. What? How is that an answer? The thing that strikes me is what Paul doesn't say: "We have a choice. God is not unrighteous and He don't make no robots." - He doesn't defend God's righteousness by saying we have a choice, but actually does the opposite: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."
It depends not on our will or works, but on God's mercy! Surely, if it were our own will, Paul would havApparently, God can show mercy to whom he shows mercy without being unrighteous.
According to v17, God raised up Pharaoh just to do this: "Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. "
He raised up Pharoah so that he might harden his heart - thus showing his power - so that his name would be declared!!
It is helpful to read the account of it in Exodus 14:4 "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. And they did so." and again in v17: "And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.
18And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten me honour upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen. "
God hardened the hearts of Pharoah and the Egyptians - it is an active process - so that he might be honoured (some might say, glorified!)

Having given this example, Paul feels he can extend his argument in v18 to say "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth"
The question again arises: v19 "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"
And indeed you did say unto me "The TULIP , basicly presents a God who would be unfair and unrighteous. Why? Because He supposedly made you to be saved, but made me to go to Hell."
Notice, again, that Pauls rhetorical question only makes sense if Paul is arguing for predestination. If he is not, the question is nonsensical.
Paul's answer in v20-21: Who are you? Who are you to say what is right for God to do? "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? "
Again, he does not say we have a choice - instead, he says God has the power to prepare some of us for honour, and some for dishonour. And we see, quite inescapably, that there are "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction"!

And ultimately, why? "that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory".

I cannot read that any other way except that we, like Jacob and Esau, were chosen before our birth, before we had done any right nor wrong, to be prepared either for mercy or to be hardened, either for glory or for destruction so that God's purpose might be done.
It doesn't feel just, it doesn't feel right, and I don't claim to fully understand it. But that is what I believe the scriptures say, and I'm probably going to spend the rest of my life meditating on it trying to work it out.
Does it mean we have no responsibility? As far as I can work it out at the moment, we are certainly responsible for our sin. From that point, it is not unjust for God to punish everybody, and the fact that anybody is saved shows amazing mercy! I also find a lot of answers in Matthew 20:1-16 - "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?" - who are we to question His generosity? It is up to him what he does with his grace!

Some more verses:
1 Thessalonians 2:13-15
He called you! Nowhere in that passage is a man given a choice! God chose, from the begining, then called you!

. Ephesians 1:11-12
"We are not robots!"..... yet our God works all things according to his own purpose? Even a cursory read of the Old Testament reveals the hearts of rulers as putty, moulded by God to his ends.
"That we should be to the praise of his glory" - even if you maintain a free-will approach, you cannot ignore this: we are saved to the praise of his glory!

2 Corinthians 4:6
It was God who gave us knowledge of his glory - it was He who drove out the blinding darkness of Satan!

I've run out of puff. :coffee

[heartstrings]

Hasey,
It's really very simple.

God is love.
Love is the most holy thing that exists.
Jesus shed His blood and died for the whole world.
His Holy Spirit draws all men.
It's up to each of us to accept or reject.
We have the choice.

[hayesy]

Hasey,
It's really very simple.

God is love.
Love is the most holy thing that exists.
Jesus shed His blood and died for the whole world.
His Holy Spirit draws all men.
It's up to each of us to accept or reject.
We have the choice.

EDIT: I don't necessarily disagree with this. Suppose you chose - but [b]why[/b] did you choose? Was it not because God predestined you to be an vessel for honourable use?

I don't disagree that it is simple. However, it astonishes me that after my attempt to return to the Bible for the source and authority of anything I believe, you post a list such as this without any references. How may I be convinced of its basis in scripture? Do you suppose that reason is the best way to find God's truth? Can you please post references, especially for the final 3?

And perhaps an explanation of how what you have just said is not in direct conflict with the references I posted, especially Romans 9.

Also, Ephesians 1:11 explicitely states that God "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will".
That is not conditional - He works ALL things. This is (at least one place) where the sovereignty of God idea comes from. (hereare some more places)

As an aside, would anyone disagree with Question 1 from the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, [a] and to enjoy him for ever.
[a]. Ps. 86:9; Isa. 60:21; Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; Rev. 4:11
. Ps. 16:5-11; 144:15; Isa. 12:2; Luke 2:10; Phil. 4:4; Rev. 21:3-4

Compare that with Piper's belief.

[heartstrings]

God is love.

1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16

Love is the most holy thing that exists.

Remember....God is love 1 Samuel 2:2, Revelation 15:4

Jesus shed His blood and died for the whole world.

John 3:16-17, 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9

His Holy Spirit draws all men.

John 12:32

It's up to each of us to accept or reject.
We have the choice.

Revelation 22:17, Isaiah 1:18, Acts 16:28

So why would anyone want to love God? 1John 4:19 says We love him, because he first loved us. The Bible says that God is love. He is Holy and righteous. There is no unrighteousness in Him. Therefore, He did not elect you to Heaven and the man the street, to Hell.
He tasted death for every man..... Hebrews 2:9

[Jerry]

The references in Romans to Jacob and Esau were regarding whom God would use - not whom He would save. One is regarding service - the other is dealing with salvation. Big difference there!!

[Bro.Johnny Mac]

The references in Romans to Jacob and Esau were regarding whom God would use - not whom He would save. One is regarding service - the other is dealing with salvation. Big difference there!!

No word of salvation,justification even mentioned in Romans 9.These verses are not even referring to salvation.
In context,God was talking about choosing Isreal to be his servant.Paul in Romans 9 is quoting Malachi cahpter 1.
In context he is speaking about the nations of Isreal and Edom,not that God chooses to hate some and send them to hell with no chance of being saved and that Jesus didnt die for them.
A proper reading of the entire chapter of Romans 9 makes it clear that God is speaking about Isreal.

Then again people run into trouble in thinking that Isreal and the church are the same thing,but thats another topic :smile

[hayesy]

The references in Romans to Jacob and Esau were regarding whom God would use - not whom He would save. One is regarding service - the other is dealing with salvation. Big difference there!!

I see your point, and I admit that I haven't seen that side of it before... but there are a few verses that do not seem to fit this view (such as v22 "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:" - sounds more like salvation/damnation than service to me!).

Firstly, are you so certain that the two, service and salvation, are entirely separate? Could it be that Paul is bemoaning both the Israelites loss of service and salvation. By this I mean that I think Paul may be lamenting that the Israelites as a nation are no longer God's people - and hence, no longer saved.
I'll try to show you where I get this idea.
Immediately after the passage I quoted earlier, Paul writes that God said:

v25 I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Thus, we gentiles are called to his people though we are not his people, and shall be called children of God. This goes far beyond who God will use!
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12
Those that believe on Jesus' name are saved, no? And here we see that those who do so are sons (children) of God.
"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:13-14
" Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. " Romans 8:21
(If you think this is a new train of thought, look at verse 8 - he is only continuing the thought he begun there.)

So though you say "No word of salvation,justification even mentioned in Romans 9", we find right in the middle of it discussion of whom will be called children of God.

I admit that that particular part is not unambigous, but this bit seems to me to be pretty clear:

"What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. [Romans 9:30-31]

There is no break in the flow of thought between the passage that supposedly relates only to service, and this passage. Yet we see it is talking directly about righteousness - "even the righteousness which is of faith".
In Romans 3 we saw that we have recieved God's rightousness through faith - this is justification. But you said "No word of salvation,justification even mentioned in Romans 9."
It is clear that somehow this is about more than just whom God will choose to serve him - it is about who he calls his children and whom attains righteousness.

But the strongest evidence of all is this:
Paul begins Chapter 9 by writing:
"2That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;"
His heart is heavy and sorrowful...
Then we see, in the first verse of the next chapter:

Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. [Romans 10:1]

Now, it is therefore clear that Israel, as a nation, is not saved. Is this a completely new thought? Given that he has been talking about the people of God and righteousness just prior to this, I don't think so. I think this is the conclusion to the preceding chapter and the starting point for another chain of thoughts.
If this is so, wouldn't we expect to see some other reference to salvation in the chapter?
Ah, but there is:
Romans 9:27: "Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved"
Bro.Johnny, with all respect, I am forced to disagree with"No word of salvation,justification even mentioned in Romans 9." - I see repeated examples of both.

And just in case one is tempted to think the two concepts, election and salvation, are not connected: "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. " Romans 11:7


I apologise for the rambling and poor coherent analysis I have taken here. I wish I had the time to tidy it up, and I wish I had the knowledge to better interpret this. I'm just about to leave High School and have never had any formal Bible training. I don't expect to have been able to understand the passage perfectly, but I have considered your claim that "In context,God was talking about choosing Isreal to be his servant" and feel forced to at least qualify it: In context, perhaps God is talking about choosing Isreal to be his servant, but in context God is certainly talking about whom he will save.

Final word:
You appealed to the context - which is good! But I appeal to a greater context still: Chapters 9 through 11. I encourage you to read and consider them as a whole. The end of this section is clear, with a doxology, and throughout Paul discusses Israel. Election even makes a curtain cal, recurring right at the end: "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes."

Yes, a proper reading of the entire chapters of Romans 9-11 makes it clear that God is speaking about Isreal - but he is also speaking to the gentiles about the gentiles and despairing that there must be "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction".

[Jerry]

The context of the statements regarding Jacob and Esau were in regards to who He would use - we see this from all the passages dealing with this: Genesis, Hebrews, Romans, even Malachi. God knew Esau would despise the birthright, would have no use for the spiritual inheritance - and for whatever other reasons, chose Jacob to be the one whom the Messiah would come through. He choose that sovereignly - based on His own will, not theirs. Again, the issue is not salvation, but service (or whatever other term you feel is fitting).

Verse 11 is not dealing with salvation:

Romans 9:10-13 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

First, God refers to Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob - the line the Messiah and the spiritual blessings would come through. The elder shall serve the younger - does not mean the younger will be saved, but the elder wouldn't be. This statement: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" was written in regards to the nations, not the individuals.

Reference is made to Pharoah - no Scripture is of any private interpretation. Compare Exodus to Romans. The Pharaoh rejected the Lord and hardened his heart many times FIRST before God rejected and brought judgment upon him. God had chosen the nation of Israel, not the nation of Egypt - however, He was still willing to save those within the nation of Egypt that would repent - but, the Pharaoh refused to humble himself. It is not an issue of God not choosing to SAVE Pharaoh, but of God not using Pharaoh - using Israel instead.

Romans 9:22-23 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction**: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

**They (not God) fitted themselves to destruction. Compare with verse 23. I am not a Greek expert, but from what I have read, this is also supported by the tenses of the verbs used.

[heartstrings]

EDIT: I don't necessarily disagree with this. Suppose you chose - but [b]why[/b] did you choose? Was it not because God predestined you to be an vessel for honourable use?

I don't disagree that it is simple. However, it astonishes me that after my attempt to return to the Bible for the source and authority of anything I believe, you post a list such as this without any references. How may I be convinced of its basis in scripture? Do you suppose that reason is the best way to find God's truth? Can you please post references, especially for the final 3?

And perhaps an explanation of how what you have just said is not in direct conflict with the references I posted, especially Romans 9.

Also, Ephesians 1:11 explicitely states that God "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will".
That is not conditional - He works ALL things. This is (at least one place) where the sovereignty of God idea comes from. (hereare some more places)

As an aside, would anyone disagree with Question 1 from the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

Compare that with Piper's belief.

Haysey,
Sorry for no references. I was pressed for time yesterday. I did give you references to part of a few posts back, if you want to go back and read them.

The reason I chose?
I was near the front of the church on the left side. It was Mother's day, 1985. All I know is that I was confronted, with the presence of the sweet love of God, through the preaching of Gospel. I realized that I was a wicked sinner, on my way to Hell. I certainly didn't want to go to Hell. I know now that the preacher was full of the Holy Ghost. His countenance showed it, his manner, his voice, and there was love and compassion all over his face as he preached from the 23rd psalm. And the Word of God was speaking directly to me. I realized for the first time that God was really real, and that message was for me alone. I mean, God was REAL and He really loved me! But I remember hesitating, just before I stepped out of the pew. Something inside me gave me the thought; "don't do it". I remember actually shaking my head to that thought and in my mind I said "no"!! When I went to step out of that pew, I was screaming Jesus' name. I did absolutely nothing...I believed on His name before I could get out of the pew. God did not make me choose Him. I could have said no. I could have listened to that thought and the Holy Ghost may have stopped dealing with me right then. But here is one verse, the Word of God, pertaining to "choosing".

Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

[hayesy]

I have to apologise, I have exams for the next two weeks and this is taking up too much of my time. I'd love to go deeper still, but I simply can't afford the time.
You've challenged me, but the passage still cries "predestined!" to me. But not it alone, either:

Some more verses:
1 Thessalonians 2:13-15
He called you! Nowhere in that passage is a man given a choice! God chose, from the begining, then called you!

. Ephesians 1:11-12
"We are not robots!"..... yet our God works all things according to his own purpose? Even a cursory read of the Old Testament reveals the hearts of rulers as putty, moulded by God to his ends.
"That we should be to the praise of his glory" - even if you maintain a free-will approach, you cannot ignore this: we are saved to the praise of his glory!

2 Corinthians 4:6
It was God who gave us knowledge of his glory - it was He who drove out the blinding darkness of Satan!

And more:

29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Romans 8:29-30

I let the scriptures speak for themselves.

But I must take issue with this:
"**They (not God) fitted themselves to destruction."
For:
v21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

It does not fit Paul's analogy in any way to say that the clay or the vessels fitted themselves to destruction. How may clay fit itself to anything? Surely it is the potter who fitted the clay unto destruction... as indeed v21 says.
If the greek implies otherwise, then the KJV is not perfect! (well, I am imperfect, so I suppose that could be the problem.)


Heartstrings, I appreciate your answer. The reason I asked why you chose is this: No calvinist would deny that we have taken an action, a decision, to follow Christ. The Calvinist says, however, that it was predestined before the foundation of the world that you should 'choose' that.
It is interesting that, in Piper's justification of his belief in the TULIP that he does not follow the tulip's order:

We have found, however, that people grasp these points more easily if we follow a presentation based on the order in which we experience them.
[list=]We experience first our depravity and need of salvation.
Then we experience the irresistible grace of God leading us toward faith.
Then we trust the sufficiency of the atoning death of Christ for our sins.
Then we discover that behind the work of God to atone for our sins and bring us to faith was the unconditional election of God.
And finally we rest in his electing grace to give us the strength and will to persevere to the end in faith.

Could it be that someone who is only 3 points 'into' the tulip has yet to discover the unconditional election of God?

I maintain that anyone who takes issue with Piper's Calvinism must account for the wealth of scripture he has provided here to explain it.

EDIT: I found an interesting reference there:

Acts 13:48 reports how the Gentiles responded to the preaching of the gospel in Antioch of Pisidia. "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Notice, it does not say that as many believed were chosen to be ordained to eternal life. The prior election of God is the reason some believed while others did not.
Similarly Jesus says to the Jews in John 10:26, "You do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep." He does not say, "You are not my sheep because you do not believe." Being a sheep is something God decides for us before we believe.

OH! this keeps getting better:

NOTE: Some interpreters say that Romans 9 has nothing to do with the election of individuals to their eternal destinies. They say that the chapter only relates to the historical roles that are played by the peoples descended from Jacob and Esau.

We recommend The Justification of God by John Piper (Baker Book House, 1983) which was written to investigate this very issue. It concludes that Romans 9 not only relates to the historical roles of whole peoples, but also to the eternal destinies of individuals, because among other reasons (Justification, pp. 38-54), verses 1-5 pose a problem about the lostness of individual Israelites which would be totally unaddressed if the chapter had nothing to say about individuals.

I've not read that. But I should like to.
Actually, Piper's 'defense' of unconditional election is quite thorough.

Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.