Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | John 15:16 "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. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | John 15:16 "You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you and I have appointed and placed and purposefully planted you, so that you would go and bear fruit and keep on bearing, and that your fruit will remain and be lasting, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name [as My representative] He may give to you. |
Subject: Bad Arguments Against Calvinism |
Bible Note: Bad Arguments Part 5 - Conclusion Bad Arguments Against Calvinism by Gregory Koukl Yet, at the same time, there are other things which are clearly stated about God's will that He intends actually come to pass. We see some of those details in the book of Daniel, and this is why Daniel makes the statement that God's will, in this sense, cannot be violated. Daniel's statements can only be sound if we're talking about a different aspect of God's will. If we're not talking about a different will, then we have a contradiction. If you reject the notion that there are two aspects of God's will-- sovereign and moral--and don't want to concede the obvious contradiction, you have one of two choices. Either all of God's will is moral, or all of God's will is sovereign. If you choose the first option, that there is only one aspect of God's will--the moral aspect--which can be broken by our free choices, then it's hard to see how God can have ultimate and sovereign control over human history if our choice is the deciding factor. You might take refuge in the element of God's omniscience, as I mentioned above. I think that explains some things, but I think the full sense of God's sovereignty entails more than just incorrigible anticipation of our moves. If, on the other hand, God's sovereign will is the only concept taught in Scripture, then there can be no immorality. Everything we do is something that He, as the primary and sufficient cause, irrevocably ordains. We don't choose to disobey His moral will; we're just doing what God has already caused us to do. This would make God the direct author of evil. Either God is not sovereign, or God is the author of evil and there is no such thing as disobedience. These are unacceptable alternatives because the Scripture clearly teaches otherwise. Clearly, it seems to me, there are two different wills of God. There's a moral will and there's a sovereign will. And if that's the case, then this removes the fourth objection. By the way, none of my responses establishes Calvinism as true. I could have, in the same spirit, also refuted bad arguments against Arminianism, though that wouldn't establish the truth of that view, either. What it means is that some of the objections raised against Calvinism don't stand, ultimately, and must give way. There might be other objections which are good objections, but not these. If you want to undermine or disprove the Reformed point of view on salvation, then you have to find some other way. Maybe that way can be found. However, the objections I've just described are not good objections to Reformed theology. Calvinism will have to be defeated on other grounds. This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show (http://www.str.org/radio/index.htm) "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/badargum.htm |