Calvinist Arminian dialog

[Skala]

lol I know, right.

Here is what we are disagreeing on. In the God's knowledge scenario, God knows all free actions, therefore no election is really necessary since God's election equals those that He knows will have faith.

Elect means to choose. You can't say "election isn't necessary" when the Bible says "He chose us". Apparently, election is very necessary, even biblical.

Therefore, the believer has the free will to choose God during their lifetime while the reprobate has the free will not to choose God during their lifetime. None can choose opposite to what God already knows simply because they don't know what the future holds so the action is a free will action by definition but is one that God already knows and the person does not. God retains His sovereignty and man retains his free will. Also, this explains why God is not the creator of sin by electing the reprobate to perdition since they chose to sin to death.

So you argue that God's knowledge is determinate. I agree with this

So, the logical conclusion is that there is no valid Calvinist versus Arminian argument since both have elements that are wrong and both have elements that are right but neither properly explains election in light of God's knowledge.

Your conclusion is a non sequitur, because the Calvinist agrees with you that God's knowledge is determinate. it's the arminian that has trouble explaining how everyone's fate is not fixed if God is omniscient.

The Calvinist has no elements that are wrong, and it does properly explain election. When someone asks a Calvinist to explain his understanding of election, he simply quotes verbatim passages like Romans 9, Eph 1:4-11, etc. The Calvinists' "explanation" of election is simply repeating what the bible says. The bible explains election, and the Calvinist simply believes it.

 

[OzSpen]

Sure I can. take a gander at Romans 9, 2 Thess 2:13, Acts 13:48, 1 Cor 1:20-31, Eph 1:4-11, and hundreds of other passages that speak not only about election but God's complete and absolute sovereignty over each person's destiny as well as complete and absolute sovereignty in general.

In your view, does God's 'complete and absolute sovereignty in general' mean that God causes or decrees all events in the universe?

 

[tulipbee]

...So you deny election completely, not just Calvinists understanding of election?...

Arminians hold to "election", but it is prescient election.

Something very different than Election as depicted in Scripture !

 

[tulipbee]

Gotta be honest, I don't even know what we're disagreeing on.

They talk Prescient Election. God chooses those who choose Him. And -as you pointed out- it's a problematic concept.

"Although God knows whatsoever may or can come
to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not
decreed anything because He foresaw it as future"
(March 25)


In soteriology this refers to Prescient Election. A false teaching totally without warrant in the Scriptures.

"non-decisive election of particular persons to salvation
occurred because of a foreseen faith, conversion, holiness,
godliness" (March 28; Canons of Dort referring to Prescient
Election)

Arminians ...like their their semi-Pelagian brothers in Rome... subscribe to unbiblical doctrines such as prescient election, temporary salvation, post-conversion regeneration, and resistible grace.


The semi-Pelagian take on Prescient Election:

The Most High looks into the future and sees all us 'good people' who will "come to God" and "accept Jesus" ...then chooses them to save !

This reducing the Supreme Being to a mere ticket-taker at the gates of heaven.

A doctrine totally alien to the Scriptures !

God's Word (Bible), instead, has Saving Faith as a "gift" ("God has allotted to each a measure of faith" Romans 12:3 NASB).

If the Lord were to look into the future to see who -on their own- will have faith, He would see ...NOBODY !

​

 

[tulipbee]

Ever heard of God's omniscience?:o

Missing from your daring doctrine of the Atonement is the fact of God's omniscience.

You have failed to factor-in that the Supreme Being foreknows the fate of the reprobate.

Now, if I correctly comprehend your thinking here, you cannot agree that God makes a sincere offer of salvation to those He knows are unable to accept it.

But -in point of fact- there's NOBODY in their native and natural condition able to accept the Gospel offer !

In each and every case, no one can (or really wants to) respond affirmatively to the General Calling.

So there's nothing special about the Elect vis-a-vis the non-elect [reprobate] in this regard. BOTH classes are lost sinners who can't (and don't) want Christ to save them !

Those whom Christ atoned for [the Elect] being in exactly the same position as the reprobate in relation to the "sincere offer" of the General Calling.

And, Omniscient God foreknows this !

He also knows whom He will bring to salvation despite themselves.

This because they aren't saving themselves ...even by the minimal causation of their generating faith... but because He gifts them with the requisite faith.

Hence the General Calling is a "sincere offer" in both instances (i.e., to the Elect and to the non-elect). Their inability notwithstanding.

Nor does He have to atone for them to offer them atonement. Remember: Omniscient God foreknows they can't muster Saving Faith.

It's sort of like one of us making a bet with someone who we know will lose. E.g., "I bet you a million bucks you can't recite the Gettysburg Address !". We don't have the million bucks, yet we are certain that they don't know the Gettysburg Address.
( An awkward example, but it works. )

The point of the General Calling as it pertains to the reprobate being that it: a.) proves they won't "accept Christ" even if given the chance, and b.) increases their condemnation.

They ain't atoned for, however they don't have to be atoned for because God in His omniscience foreknows they won't take Him up on this "sincere offer".

Still, it's a sincere offer of salvation due to the fact that -if they did- He would. But, of course, they won't. And, He KNOWS they won't !

They whole point of the exercise being to remove all excuse that "they didn't have a chance".

As far as your argument about the Elect having to be certain of their election...

Our salvation isn't conditional upon our personal assurance of it.

We can be justified before the Lord without even having heard of the doctrine of divine election !

As part of our subsequent sanctification we are improved doctrinally as well as morally. And an aspect of this is learning about things like Election.

Yet we don't save ourselves. Nor is our salvation dependent upon what we know about divine election.

Nobody has complete and total faith, anyway. Our faith in Christ is intertwined with our assurance of His saving us ...which, in turn, connects with our realization of our election.

Saving Faith, though, is NOT utter and absolute faith. Nor does it require a complete assurance of our personal election.

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror" (1 Corinthians 13:12 NIV), and our present spiritual situation is that our faith is a "hope" (v. 13 NASB, NIV, NKJ; cf Romans 4:18, Romans 8:24, et. al)

As John Calvin pointed out, it suffices that we have a Scriptural faith. From this it can be reasonably inferred that our faith is salvific (and, thereby, we are Elect). Absolute certitude doesn't enter into anything we -as finite creatures- know !

​

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

There you go ignoring the definition of the word again

You prove nothing by asserting that I misused the word seeing as how all I did was quote the scripture where it is used to say that it is the same word that you used. I even showed the two NT Greek teachers meaning of the word and it would agree like John 12:32 says that Jesus would draw all men to Himself when He is lifted up. God sent His Son into the world to draw all men to repentance and to be reconciled to Himself in His Son, and that can only be accomplished by drawing them to Jesus in the first place and for them to confess Him and receive the reconciliation that only He can provide. Your meaningless disagreement of the wrong use of the word is proof to you, but does not hinder the passage that I showed from scripture. Just as the same word is used in James 4:7 draw near to God and He will draw near to you. It is a command, but one has to obey to receive the benefit. And the passage in John 6 goes on to say in v47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me hath everlasting life. And when reading on down in the passage one sees that the reason Jesus made the statement in v44 was because many of those there did not believe in and therefore would not have been of those that Jesus said He would raise up in the last day. Only those who receive Him will be raised up and that is the Father's will, v60-66

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”​

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.


Just as v 63 shows the Holy Spirit will convict the world of their sin, righteousness and judgment as Jesus says later in John and it is the word of God that He uses to convict them, and to draw them to Jesus for their salvation, but it must be done in faith. And to all and on all who repent and turn to Him He will raise up in the last day. Now whether you agree with this or not is up to you but in no way does it void what scriptures teaches just because you say I misused the word draw. Each will have to decide what they believe.
​

 

[OzSpen]

tulipbee,

We cannot have a rational, reasonable discussion when you impose on my posts your Calvinistic views. I find that to be manipulative and dishonest. I'm speaking about what you did here.

• 'Missing from your daring doctrine of the Atonement is the fact of God's omniscience.' FAILED. Nowhere have I ever stated that I don't believe in God's omniscience associated with the atonement. You have invented a false representation of my view.
• 'You have failed to factor-in that the Supreme Being foreknows the fate of the reprobate.' FAILED AGAIN.
• 'Those whom Christ atoned for [the Elect] being in exactly the same position as the reprobate in relation to the "sincere offer" of the General Calling.' That's your Calvinism speaking with its limited atonement, i.e. 'Christ atoned for [the Elect] being'.
• 'you cannot agree that God makes a sincere offer of salvation to those He knows are unable to accept it.' That's your invention about what I believe.
• 'But -in point of fact- there's NOBODY in their native and natural condition able to accept the Gospel offer !' Again, that's your imposition on me. You can try that on someone else, but I can see what you are doing to my views. You are inventing what I don't believe.
• 'This because they aren't saving themselves ...even by the minimal causation of their generating faith... but because He gifts them with the requisite faith. ' Why, oh why, do you write this? It has nothing to do with what I said. FAILED!
• 'They ain't atoned for'. That's your Calvinistic belief and insertion.
• ETC, ETC.

You have given an imposition of what you believe on my beliefs. You have misrepresented me. If you ever do this again, I will not reply to you.


Oz

Missing from your daring doctrine of the Atonement is the fact of God's omniscience.

You have failed to factor-in that the Supreme Being foreknows the fate of the reprobate.

Now, if I correctly comprehend your thinking here, you cannot agree that God makes a sincere offer of salvation to those He knows are unable to accept it.

But -in point of fact- there's NOBODY in their native and natural condition able to accept the Gospel offer !

In each and every case, no one can (or really wants to) respond affirmatively to the General Calling.

So there's nothing special about the Elect vis-a-vis the non-elect [reprobate] in this regard. BOTH classes are lost sinners who can't (and don't) want Christ to save them !

Those whom Christ atoned for [the Elect] being in exactly the same position as the reprobate in relation to the "sincere offer" of the General Calling.

And, Omniscient God foreknows this !

He also knows whom He will bring to salvation despite themselves.

This because they aren't saving themselves ...even by the minimal causation of their generating faith... but because He gifts them with the requisite faith.

Hence the General Calling is a "sincere offer" in both instances (i.e., to the Elect and to the non-elect). Their inability notwithstanding.

Nor does He have to atone for them to offer them atonement. Remember: Omniscient God foreknows they can't muster Saving Faith.

It's sort of like one of us making a bet with someone who we know will lose. E.g., "I bet you a million bucks you can't recite the Gettysburg Address !". We don't have the million bucks, yet we are certain that they don't know the Gettysburg Address.
( An awkward example, but it works. )

The point of the General Calling as it pertains to the reprobate being that it: a.) proves they won't "accept Christ" even if given the chance, and b.) increases their condemnation.

They ain't atoned for, however they don't have to be atoned for because God in His omniscience foreknows they won't take Him up on this "sincere offer".

Still, it's a sincere offer of salvation due to the fact that -if they did- He would. But, of course, they won't. And, He KNOWS they won't !

They whole point of the exercise being to remove all excuse that "they didn't have a chance".

As far as your argument about the Elect having to be certain of their election...

Our salvation isn't conditional upon our personal assurance of it.

We can be justified before the Lord without even having heard of the doctrine of divine election !

As part of our subsequent sanctification we are improved doctrinally as well as morally. And an aspect of this is learning about things like Election.

Yet we don't save ourselves. Nor is our salvation dependent upon what we know about divine election.

Nobody has complete and total faith, anyway. Our faith in Christ is intertwined with our assurance of His saving us ...which, in turn, connects with our realization of our election.

Saving Faith, though, is NOT utter and absolute faith. Nor does it require a complete assurance of our personal election.

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror" (1 Corinthians 13:12 NIV), and our present spiritual situation is that our faith is a "hope" (v. 13 NASB, NIV, NKJ; cf Romans 4:18, Romans 8:24, et. al)

As John Calvin pointed out, it suffices that we have a Scriptural faith. From this it can be reasonably inferred that our faith is salvific (and, thereby, we are Elect). Absolute certitude doesn't enter into anything we -as finite creatures- know !

​

 

[Skala]

In your view, does God's 'complete and absolute sovereignty in general' mean that God causes or decrees all events in the universe?

Decrees, but not causes.

 

[Skala]

You prove nothing by asserting that I misused the word seeing as how all I did was quote the scripture where it is used to say that it is the same word that you used. I even showed the two NT Greek teachers meaning of the word and it would agree like John 12:32 says that Jesus would draw all men to Himself when He is lifted up.

Your error brother is that because you misunderstand "draw", you likewise misinterpret John 12:32

because you insist that "draw" means to "woo" or "entice" you are then forced to conclude that John 12:32 teaches that Jesus is trying to "woo" all men unto himself. to further add error to the issue, you take the phrase "all men" to mean "all individuals"

Whereas I start from a different starting point, in recognizing that "draw" means to literally effectually bring a person unto himself. (without fail). Therefore, when I read John 12:32, and recognize that some Greeks had just approached to see Jesus in the context, I interpret the phrase "draw all men unto myself" as "bring all kinds of men, both Jews and Gentiles, unto myself" (being that "all kinds" is a common usage of the word "pas" which we translate to "all" - Again, look it up)

To reiterate, you interpret John 12:32 as follows:
Jesus is trying to save every individual

I interpret John 12:32 as follows:
Jesus will actually save people from both Jews and Gentiles

I hope this explains my argument well. Jesus never "tries" to save anyone. He saves. 100% without fail, all those that the Father entrusted him to save. (John 6, John 12)

 

[OzSpen]

Decrees, but not causes.

So are you saying that God decrees all of the sin and evil in the universe? That includes the Holocaust, 9/11, the current rape of Christian women by Muslims as they try to escape persecution in Syria, the pedophiles who rape children, etc?

Oz

 

[Hentenza]

Arminians hold to "election", but it is prescient election.

But Arminians view of prescient election places the onus of salvation on man not on God. If God has foreknowledge of all free will actions then the reprobate cannot choose away from God's foreknowledge which invalidates the Arminian claim. Frankly, the Arminian claim makes God contingent on man's decision which removes God as the first cause of creation because God then would be contingent on man. The creator cannot be contingent on His creation.

Something very different than Election as depicted in Scripture !

Election is biblical; that cannot be denied. However, if God knows who will accept Him then election equals those who have chosen Him which makes election equal to knowledge.

 

[Hentenza]

Elect means to choose. You can't say "election isn't necessary" when the Bible says "He chose us". Apparently, election is very necessary, even biblical.

If the elect equal the saved then there is no contradiction.

So you argue that God's knowledge is determinate. I agree with this

God's knowledge is determinate simply because a person will naturally choose according to God's knowledge simply because God knows the present and past of what a person will do but the person does not. Free will is exercised within God's sovereignty.

Your conclusion is a non sequitur, because the Calvinist agrees with you that God's knowledge is determinate.

Naturally.

it's the arminian that has trouble explaining how everyone's fate is not fixed if God is omniscient.

I agree with this.

The Calvinist has no elements that are wrong, and it does properly explain election.

It doesn't. Heck even Calvin did not believe in double predestination. If God has the knowledge of all free actions then the actions are still free and God is absolved from electing. This is question that you are still to address. If God knows all who will be saved and who will not be saved, and if the elect equal all that will be saved, then why does God has to choose who will be saved?

When someone asks a Calvinist to explain his understanding of election, he simply quotes verbatim passages like Romans 9, Eph 1:4-11, etc.

Naturally. The argument is fixed.

The Calvinists' "explanation" of election is simply repeating what the bible says. The bible explains election, and the Calvinist simply believes it.

Interpretation is a double edge sword. If a person argues from either camp then their interpretations will favor their beliefs. No surprise there.

 

[SeventhValley]

But Arminians view of prescient election places the onus of salvation on man not on God. If God has foreknowledge of all free will actions then the reprobate cannot choose away from God's foreknowledge which invalidates the Arminian claim. Frankly, the Arminian claim makes God contingent on man's decision which removes God as the first cause of creation because God then would be contingent on man. The creator cannot be contingent on His creation.




Election is biblical; that cannot be denied. However, if God knows who will accept Him then election equals those who have chosen Him which makes election equal to knowledge.

What you described as your view is Classical Arminianism.

 

[SeventhValley]

God creates all foreknows all and predestined all.
But God also give us a reall choice to remain in him or be cut off.

It is a holy mystery as to how both work.


This passage says both predestination and predestination from foreknowledge based off our choices are correct.

Ephesians 1:11-13 HCSB

We have also received an inheritance in Him, predestined according to the purpose of the One who works out everything in agreement with the decision of His will, so that we who had already put our hope in the Messiah might bring praise to His glory. When you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you believed in Him, you were also sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.

 

[SeventhValley]

Calvinism and Arminianism are both theories.

We need to forget them.

We just need repentance,baptism,and living a life that Glorifies God.

 

[tulipbee]

But Arminians view of prescient election places the onus of salvation on man not on God. If God has foreknowledge of all free will actions then the reprobate cannot choose away from God's foreknowledge which invalidates the Arminian claim. Frankly, the Arminian claim makes God contingent on man's decision which removes God as the first cause of creation because God then would be contingent on man. The creator cannot be contingent on His creation.




Election is biblical; that cannot be denied. However, if God knows who will accept Him then election equals those who have chosen Him which makes election equal to knowledge.

Can't tell you how the Lord, exactly, arranges circumstances. Because it varies for each event.

But I can say it's the circumstance which God directly controls ...NOT the human.

Then, the human responds in their own will to the circumstance !

Thus human volition makes a free choice within circumstances while the Most High arranges circumstance so intended results occur.

Again: It's the circumstance God directly controls, not human will. In this manner our choice is 'free'. We are not robots or zombies.

Now, regarding how the Lord arranges circumstances, it varies for each instance.

You have heard, though, the philosophical dictum that moving just one grain of sand on a beach eventually changes the course of entire history ? Same principle with Divine Providence.

We start with God's foreknowledge of outcomes. He knows in advance what effect any given change would have.

Next, the Most High alters some small thing. And that has the ripple effect to present the circumstance God intended. [ Almost sounds like Science Fiction ! ]

 

[tulipbee]

When the Lord "permits", He decrees to permit !

There's God's Secret Will, and His Revealed Will.

Also, His Decretive Will ...some of which is revealed and the rest secret.

Then there's the Lord's Prescriptive Will. And that's all revealed.

We might even toss in His Permissive Will. It's frequently misunderstood.
However, it's a sub-set of Decretive Will because God decrees to permit.

The overriding point, though:

God doesn't have several wills. His will is one.

These are simply categorizations of that one will.

Like Revealed Will vs. Secret Will.

Only difference between the two being what we see. It's all the same will. We just see part (Revealed Will) and not the other part (Secret Will).

 

[OzSpen]

Heck even Calvin did not believe in double predestination.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Why do you misrepresent John Calvin's teaching like this? This demonstrates that you do not know what Calvin taught about predestination.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The facts are: Calvin most definitely did believe in double predestination. This is what he wrote and taught:[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who
would be thought pious ventures simply to deny....By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he
determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms,
but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created
for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death (Institutes of the
Christian Religion 3.21.5). [/FONT]

From where did you get the idea that Calvin did not teach double predestination? Did you get it from another Calvinist?

This quote from the Institutes of the Christian Religion refutes your statement about Calvin.

Oz

 

[tulipbee]

Double Predestination is the Scriptural doctrine of the Lord's sovereignty in election and reprobation.

Couple things here, though:

First, while the Supreme Being is the ultimate determiner of who gets saved and who gets damned, that does NOT obviate our individual responsibility !

There will be no innocent people in Hell !

And no "good people" trying to get into Heaven but refused because they're not on the admissions list.

God decides who goes to Heaven ...and Hell.

Everybody is bad. ALL deserve Hell. And it's only by His mercy -which He has every right to bestow freely yet arbitrarily- that anyone is saved !

Secondly, while the Most High predestinates both election and reprobation, He does NOT work these two the same way.

Election works redemption by the Lord's positive application of grace in the life of an elect person ...starting with their monergistic, supernatural, and irresistible regeneration.

Whereas -to reprobate someone- all God need do is nothing !

We're already bad, slaves to sin, servants of Satan, and in total rebellion against our Creator. The Lord don't have to do anything to anybody to cause them to deserve eternal perdition.

Election unto salvation is a active working of the Holy Spirit in the person's life.

Reprobation -in contrast- being preterit. God simply leaves the person in their natural state of sin and rebellion.

The Reformed Theology doctrine is "Double Predestination"...

...NOT "Double Election".

While the Most High exercises complete sovereignty in salvation and reprobation, foreordaining [predestining] both, this doesn't mean He employs the same means for each class.

Scripture nowhere uses the term "election" to refer to those condemned to perdition (i.e., the reprobate).

Reformed Theology teaches that the reprobate are 'passed by' (Institutes; Bk. 3, Ch. 22. Sec. 1; and Bk. 3, Ch. 23, Sec. 1, 10, & 13; John Calvin; The Purpose of God's Decrees; Thomas Boston; Westminster Confession; Ch. 3, Sec. 7), they're "abandoned" (Institutes; Bk. 3, Ch. 23, Sec. 4), and 'passed over' (Chosen By God; R.C. Sproul).

The Westminster Confession says about the reprobate: "They harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others" (WCF; Ch. 5, Sec. 6).

And, Calvin: "They perish by their own iniquity, not by unjust hatred on the part of God" (Institutes; Bk. 2, Ch. 8, Sec. 20).

This being the diametric opposite of how God saves the Elect !

Whom the Lord irresistibly and monergistically regenerates and grants a gifted salvific faith.

The fate of BOTH the Elect, and the reprobate, is under the sovereign and predestinate control of the Supreme Being.

But -in the latter class- they are left in their sin and rebellion. While -in the former class- they are subject to Irresistible Grace.

 

[OzSpen]

And I noticed that you provided not one single piece of scriptural evidence to support your case for DOUBLE predestination.

Please provide exegetical, scriptural evidence that thereprobate receive eklektos to damnation.

Oz

Double Predestination is the Scriptural doctrine of the Lord's sovereignty in election and reprobation.

Couple things here, though:

First, while the Supreme Being is the ultimate determiner of who gets saved and who gets damned, that does NOT obviate our individual responsibility !

There will be no innocent people in Hell !

And no "good people" trying to get into Heaven but refused because they're not on the admissions list.

God decides who goes to Heaven ...and Hell.

Everybody is bad. ALL deserve Hell. And it's only by His mercy -which He has every right to bestow freely yet arbitrarily- that anyone is saved !

Secondly, while the Most High predestinates both election and reprobation, He does NOT work these two the same way.

Election works redemption by the Lord's positive application of grace in the life of an elect person ...starting with their monergistic, supernatural, and irresistible regeneration.

Whereas -to reprobate someone- all God need do is nothing !

We're already bad, slaves to sin, servants of Satan, and in total rebellion against our Creator. The Lord don't have to do anything to anybody to cause them to deserve eternal perdition.

Election unto salvation is a active working of the Holy Spirit in the person's life.

Reprobation -in contrast- being preterit. God simply leaves the person in their natural state of sin and rebellion.

The Reformed Theology doctrine is "Double Predestination"...

...NOT "Double Election".

While the Most High exercises complete sovereignty in salvation and reprobation, foreordaining [predestining] both, this doesn't mean He employs the same means for each class.

Scripture nowhere uses the term "election" to refer to those condemned to perdition (i.e., the reprobate).

Reformed Theology teaches that the reprobate are 'passed by' (Institutes; Bk. 3, Ch. 22. Sec. 1; and Bk. 3, Ch. 23, Sec. 1, 10, & 13; John Calvin; The Purpose of God's Decrees; Thomas Boston; Westminster Confession; Ch. 3, Sec. 7), they're "abandoned" (Institutes; Bk. 3, Ch. 23, Sec. 4), and 'passed over' (Chosen By God; R.C. Sproul).

The Westminster Confession says about the reprobate: "They harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others" (WCF; Ch. 5, Sec. 6).

And, Calvin: "They perish by their own iniquity, not by unjust hatred on the part of God" (Institutes; Bk. 2, Ch. 8, Sec. 20).

This being the diametric opposite of how God saves the Elect !

Whom the Lord irresistibly and monergistically regenerates and grants a gifted salvific faith.

The fate of BOTH the Elect, and the reprobate, is under the sovereign and predestinate control of the Supreme Being.

But -in the latter class- they are left in their sin and rebellion. While -in the former class- they are subject to Irresistible Grace.