Divine Purposes For Not Electing All

 

A question I posed for ChatGPT:

AP: Under Calvinism what purposes might God have for not electing all to salvation? Given not only standard answers, but do your own independant analysis and make some of your own speculations.

ChatGPT:

Within classical Reformed theology, the standard answer is that God’s ultimate purpose is the manifestation of His glory — not merely the salvation of the maximum number of people. In that framework, election and non-election are both parts of a larger divine design.

Here are the major Calvinist answers first, then some deeper analysis and speculative possibilities that are not standard doctrine but are philosophically compatible with Calvinism.

---

Standard Calvinist Explanations

1. To display the full range of God’s attributes

A classic Calvinist answer is that if everyone were saved, some divine attributes would never be revealed in history.

• Mercy is shown in saving the elect.

• Justice is shown in judging sin.

• Wrath against evil is displayed in reprobation.

• Patience is displayed in God enduring sinners for a time.

• Grace shines more brightly against the backdrop of deserved condemnation.

This often appeals to passages like Romans 9, where God endures “vessels of wrath” while making known “the riches of his glory” to “vessels of mercy.”

The idea is:

creation is not merely a rescue operation; it is a theater for the revelation of God’s nature.

---

2. Salvation by grace appears more radical if not universal

If everyone were automatically saved, grace could appear less like an astonishing gift and more like a universal entitlement.

In Calvinism:

• no one deserves salvation,

• therefore any salvation at all is pure mercy.

The existence of the non-elect underscores that salvation is not owed.

---

3. God has different intentions toward humanity collectively than individually

Calvinism often distinguishes:

• God’s benevolence toward creation generally,

• from His redemptive love toward the elect specifically.

So humanity as a whole may serve broader cosmic purposes beyond individual eternal happiness.

For example:

• history,

• moral drama,

• covenantal development,

• revelation,

• incarnation,

• crucifixion,

• judgment,

• redemption,
  all become parts of a unified divine narrative.

---

4. To magnify Christ

Some Reformed theologians argue that the existence of lostness magnifies:

• Christ’s role as Savior,

• the depth of atonement,

• the triumph over evil,

• the seriousness of sin.

Without real peril, salvation loses existential weight.

---

Independent Analysis and Speculations

Now moving beyond standard formulations.

These are not official Calvinist doctrines, but they are possible implications or philosophical extensions of Calvinist premises.

---

Speculation 1: God may value a world with maximal moral asymmetry

A perfectly redeemed universe from the start might contain less contrast, drama, transformation, and revelation than one involving rebellion, judgment, and redemption.

In this view:

• evil is not good,

• but the defeat of evil may reveal something greater than a world where evil never existed.

This is somewhat like:

• courage requiring danger,

• forgiveness requiring wrongdoing,

• sacrificial love requiring cost.

Under Calvinism, God could intentionally permit and ordain a reality where redemption becomes deeper and more meaningful because it emerges from catastrophe rather than innocence.

---

Speculation 2: The elect themselves may understand God differently because others are not saved

A difficult but internally coherent Calvinist possibility is:

the awareness of deserved condemnation intensifies eternal gratitude.

If everyone were saved regardless, creatures might never fully grasp:

• the seriousness of sin,

• the depth of mercy,

• or the contingency of grace.

In this framework, the non-elect function almost analogously to “negative space” in art — not valuable in themselves as lost persons, but part of a larger revelatory structure.

This is emotionally troubling to many people, including many Christians, but it is arguably latent in strong Augustinian and Calvinist logic.

---

Speculation 3: Universal election may undermine creaturely finitude

A more philosophical angle:

Calvinism strongly emphasizes the Creator–creature distinction. God is utterly free and not constrained by creaturely expectations.

If all creatures were necessarily saved, one might argue:

• creation begins to impose moral obligations upon God,

• grace becomes structurally required,

• divine freedom becomes partially absorbed into creaturely claims.

Non-universal election preserves the idea that:

God remains fundamentally independent of creation.

This preserves divine aseity and sovereignty at a very radical level.

---

Speculation 4: God may prioritize the beauty of the whole over the happiness of every part

This is one of the hardest implications.

Calvinism can imply that God values:

• the total perfection of the cosmic order,
  more than

• maximizing the well-being of each individual creature.

This resembles certain classical aesthetic philosophies:

• a tragedy may contribute to the greatness of the whole drama,

• even though the tragic characters suffer.

Jonathan Edwards sometimes approached this kind of reasoning:
the universe as a comprehensive display of divine glory whose total beauty exceeds the value of isolated goods.

This creates a profound tension with modern intuitions about individual dignity.

---

Speculation 5: God may intend history to reveal truths impossible in universal salvation

Perhaps certain realities can only exist in a world containing both redemption and judgment:

• freely experienced dependence,

• irreversible moral consequence,

• triumph over evil,

• holiness as dangerous rather than merely therapeutic,

• love expressed through sacrifice,

• justice as actual rather than hypothetical.

Under this logic, a universally saved world may be metaphysically “thinner.”

---

Speculation 6: Calvinism may implicitly prioritize God-centered meaning over creature-centered flourishing

This may be the deepest divide between Calvinism and many modern moral instincts.

Modern people often assume:

the best possible world is the one where the most individuals flourish.

Calvinism instead tends to assume:

the best possible world is the one that most fully glorifies God.

Those are not necessarily identical goals.

Once that shift is made, non-universal election becomes more intelligible internally, even if still emotionally difficult.

---

A Tension Inside Calvinism

One important thing:
many Calvinists themselves are uneasy with some implications of strict reprobation.

So throughout history, Reformed thinkers have tried to soften or qualify things:

• infralapsarianism vs supralapsarianism,

• “passing over” rather than actively damning,

• emphasis on human guilt,

• common grace,

• compatibilist freedom,

• hopefulness about the number of the elect.

Some modern Calvinists also lean toward:

• hopeful universalism,

• or at least extreme inclusivism,
  while retaining divine sovereignty.

---

My Own Meta-Analysis

The deepest philosophical issue may be this:

Calvinism treats existence itself as fundamentally theological rather than humanitarian.

Meaning is not centered on:

• reducing suffering,

• maximizing happiness,

• or equal outcomes.

Instead, reality is interpreted as:

a revelation of God’s being.

Once that premise is accepted, non-universal salvation becomes conceivable as part of a total revelatory order.

But if one starts from the premise that perfect goodness must seek the maximal flourishing of every person, Calvinism becomes very difficult to sustain.

So the disagreement is often not merely about predestination —
it is about the ultimate purpose of reality itself.

 

 

 

 

Dialogue with Meta AI on Election and the Perseverance of Either All or Some Saints Given the "U" in TULIP

 

Here's an interesting dialogue I had with Facebook's Meta AI. This is the first part. Both parts of the conversation show Meta makes some mistakes factually, and theologically. But its comments are still worth reading. Copying and pasting messed up the charts. I attempted to reconstruct the charts.

AP [me]: Give me your own analysis of Romans 9. Is it or isn't it teaching unconditional election?

META AI: *Romans 9 is the strongest text in the Bible for unconditional election.* If you’re going to argue the doctrine from Scripture, this is ground zero.

Here’s how I read it, sticking close to Paul’s flow:

### *Paul’s argument in Romans 9*

*1. The problem: v1-5*  

Paul’s heartbroken. Israel has all the covenants, promises, Messiah… yet most are rejecting Christ. Did God’s word fail?

*2. The answer: v6*  

_“It is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.”_  

Paul splits “Israel” in two. There’s ethnic Israel, and there’s true Israel within it. God’s promises never fail because they were never made to every physical descendant.

*3. The proof: v7-13*  

He gives 2 OT examples to show God chooses _within_ Abraham’s line:

MESSED UP CHART BEGINS HERE. Though I attempted a reconstruction

Example	Choice	Basis
Isaac vs Ishmael v7-9	Isaac chosen	"Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." Promise, no birth order.
Jacob vs Esau v10-13	Jacob loved, Esau hated	v11: "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad – in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls"

 

MESSED UP CHART ENDS HERE

*v11 is the hinge.* Paul explicitly rules out foreseen works. The choice happens before birth, before moral distinction, _“in order that God’s purpose of election might continue.”_ The basis is _“him who calls,”_ not anything in Jacob or Esau.

*4. The objection: v14*  

_“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part?”_  

Why would someone raise this objection? Only if Paul just taught unconditional election. If Paul taught “God chooses based on foreseen faith,” nobody cries “unfair!” They’d say “makes sense.” The objection itself proves Paul’s point.

*5. Paul’s defense: v15-18*  

He doubles down with Exodus 33:19 — _“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy.”_ Then v18: _“So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”_  

That’s unconditional. The deciding factor is God’s will, not man’s.

*6. The second objection: v19*  

_“Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”_  

Again, this objection only makes sense if election is unconditional. If it’s based on human choice, the question evaporates.

*7. Paul’s answer: v20-23*  

_“But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay…?”_  

He appeals to Creator rights. Then v22-23: God endures _“vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”_ to make known His glory to _“vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.”_  

_“Prepared beforehand”_ = προητοίμασεν. Same idea as Eph 1:4-5.

### *So is it unconditional election? Yes.*

*Reasons it has to be:*

1. *Explicit denial of works*: v11, v16 _“it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”_ That kills conditional election based on foreseen faith or effort.

2. *Timing*: Choice occurs _before birth_, v11. You can’t base election on something that doesn’t exist yet.

3. *Purpose clause*: _“in order that God’s purpose of election might continue.”_ The purpose drives the choice, not vice versa.

4. *The objections*: v14 and v19 are exactly what people object to about unconditional election. Paul doesn’t correct the premise. He rebukes the attitude.

5. *Potter/clay*: v21. The difference between vessels isn’t in the clay. It’s in the potter’s purpose.

### *The main counter-arguments and why they don’t work in Romans 9:*

*1. “This is about corporate election, Israel vs nations, not individuals.”*  

Problem: Paul uses individuals — Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh, Moses. And he applies it to _“us… not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles”_ v24. Individuals make up the corporate group. You can’t have a corporate election without electing actual people.

*2. “‘Hated’ just means ‘loved less,’ like Luke 14:26.”*  

Even if true, v11 still says the choice happened before birth apart from works. The degree of love/hate doesn’t undo the unconditional basis.

*3. “This is about historical roles/service, not salvation.”*  

But v22-23 ends with _“destruction”_ vs _“glory.”_ v27-29 quotes Isaiah about _“a remnant will be saved.”_ Chapter 10:1 _“my heart’s desire… is that they may be saved.”_ The whole section is soteriological, not just about who gets to be a patriarch.

### *My bottom line:*

*Romans 9 teaches unconditional election.* Paul’s explicit goal is to ground the certainty of God’s promises in God’s sovereign choice, not in human distinction. He anticipates the two biggest objections to unconditional election and answers them without retreating one inch.

If someone wants to deny unconditional election, they have to do it despite Romans 9, not because of it. You’d have to argue Paul was a bad communicator who accidentally made it sound unconditional when he meant conditional.

That said, Romans 9 isn’t the whole counsel of God. Chapter 10 hits human responsibility hard: _“if you confess… you will be saved”_ v9. Chapter 11 holds sovereignty and responsibility together: _“they were broken off because of unbelief”_ v20, yet _“God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew”_ v2.

*So yes — Romans 9 teaches unconditional election to salvation.* It’s not the only thing it teaches, but you can’t read v11-23 and come away with conditional election without doing violence to Paul’s words.

Where do you land on it?

AP: Assume the Bible does teach unconditional election. Does it teach the Calvinist doctrine of the Perseverance of the *Saints* such that all truly regenerated with make it to heaven, or the Augustinian doctrine of the Perseverance of the *Elect* whereby the elect will make it to heaven? And where the elect are a subset of those who were at least once regenerated.

META AI: *Short answer: If you grant unconditional election, the Bible leans toward the Calvinist “Perseverance of the Saints” — all the truly regenerated make it to heaven.* 

The Augustinian “Perseverance of the Elect” where some regenerated people fall away permanently is harder to square with the key texts. Here’s why:

### *1. How the systems define the terms*

MESSED UP CHART BEGINS HERE. Though I attempted a reconstruction

System	Who gets to heaven?	Can the regenerated by lost?
Calvinist POTS	All who are truly regenerated	No. All regenerated = elect = finally saved. Regeneration and election are coextensitve
Augustinian POE/POTE	Only the elect	Yes. Some are given "temporary faith" + regeneration, but not the "gift of perseverance." They're regenerated, justified for a time, then fall away and perish.

 

MESSED UP CHART ENDS HERE

Augustine’s view: God gives some a _gratia_ that regenerates but doesn’t preserve. The elect get an additional gift, _donum perseverantiae_, that guarantees they finish. So “regenerate” ≠ “elect” for Augustine.

### *2. Key biblical texts if unconditional election is true*

Assume Romans 9 unconditional election for this analysis.

*A. John 6:37-40, 44*  

_“All that the Father gives me will come to me… and I will raise him up on the last day.”_  

_“No one can come to me unless the Father… draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”_  

*Analysis*: The “given” group = drawn group = raised group. No leakage. If “given” = elect, and “coming” = regeneration/faith, then all regenerated are raised. No temporary regenerated. That’s Calvinist POTS.

*B. John 10:27-29*  

_“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.”_  

*Analysis*: “Sheep” = those the Father gave Christ, v29. They hear = regeneration/effectual call. They “never perish.” If some sheep stop hearing and perish, Jesus’ promise breaks. Fits POTS.

*C. Romans 8:29-30*  

_“Those whom he foreknew he also predestined… and those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”_  

*Analysis*: Unbreakable golden chain. 100% of the called are justified. 100% of the justified are glorified. No drop-off. If “called” = effectual call/regeneration, then all regenerated are glorified. That’s POTS, not POE. Augustine would have to say “called” here means “called + given perseverance,” but Paul doesn’t qualify it.

*D. Ephesians 1:13-14*  

_“You were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it.”_  

*Analysis*: The Spirit is a down payment guaranteeing final inheritance. If some “sealed” people forfeit the inheritance, God’s guarantee failed. POTS fits better.

*E. 1 John 2:19*  

_“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.”_  

*Analysis*: John says apostates were never truly “of us.” They had external attachment, not internal reality. That matches POTS: the truly regenerate continue. Augustine has to say they were “of us” temporarily by regeneration, but John denies it.

### *3. Where Augustine gets his view*

Augustine’s main texts are the warning passages:

*A. Hebrews 6:4-6* — those “enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, partakers of the Holy Spirit” who fall away.  

*B. 2 Peter 2:20-22* — those who “escaped the defilements of the world” then are entangled again.  

*C. Parable of the Sower* — rocky soil receives the word with joy, believes “for a while.”

*Augustinian reading*: These people were truly regenerated. They had real spiritual life, then lost it. So regeneration ≠ final salvation. Only the elect get _donum perseverantiae_.

*Calvinist reading*: These texts describe people who had external blessings, conviction, even temporary faith, but not regeneration. “Tasted” ≠ eaten. “Believed for a while” = not rooted. 1 John 2:19 governs: they were never “of us.”

### *4. The theological problem for Augustinian POE if unconditional election is true*

If election is unconditional, then God’s choice is the ultimate cause of salvation. Regeneration is the first _application_ of election in time. 

*Question*: Why would God unconditionally elect someone, then unconditionally regenerate them, then _not_ give them perseverance? 

That makes regeneration a non-saving grace for some. It splits the _ordo salutis_: Effectual Call → Regeneration → Justification → ??? → Glorification. You’d have justified people in hell.

Romans 8:30 won’t allow that gap. All justified are glorified. So if someone is truly justified, they’re elect. If someone is truly regenerated, they’re justified — Titus 3:5-7 ties regeneration to justification. 

So POTS follows logically from unconditional election + Romans 8:30.

### *Bottom line*

*If the Bible teaches unconditional election, it also teaches Perseverance of the Saints.* 

1. *Exegetically*: John 6, John 10, Romans 8:29-30, Eph 1:13-14 make no room for a regenerate person who isn’t finally glorified. The golden chain is unbreakable.

2. *Theologically*: Unconditional election + effectual call + justification leads to glorification. Putting “temporary regeneration” in the middle breaks the chain Paul forged.

3. *Augustine’s view* requires you to read the warning passages as describing loss of true regeneration. But 1 John 2:19 and the unqualified promises of John 6/10 push against that.

Augustine was fighting Pelagius and hadn’t fully systematized the _ordo salutis_ like later Reformed theology did. He wanted to guard God’s sovereignty in perseverance, but still had a category for baptized/regenerate people who fall away, because of his sacramental theology.

*So: Elect = Regenerate = Finally Saved.* That’s the Calvinist position, and it’s what Romans 8-9 plus John 6/10 yields if you grant unconditional election.

What’s pushing you toward the Augustinian distinction — Hebrews 6, or something else?

AP: As a Calvinist myself I lean toward POTS but am open to Augustine's POTE. I lean toward POTS for the reasons you gave and for passages like 1 John 3:9, Jer. 32:40c. And the theological and logic issue that if God really loves all whom He regenerates, then why would He fail to grant them the gift of final Perseverance. Especially given that Paul says what he says of believers in Roman 8 "how shall He not also freely/graciously give us all things". Paul says in 1 Cor. "All things are yours." In Ephesians that believers are blessed with every spiritual blessing." Peter says God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness." The father says to the older son [the brother of the Prodigal Son] "you are always with me, and all that I have is yours." And many other such promises. Also, POTE would also make God an "Indian Giver," taking back what He gave, when Paul says in Romans 11 that the "gifts and callings of God are irrevocable."

META AI: Yeah, you’re hitting the exact pressure points that make POTE hard to hold if you’re already convinced of unconditional election.

Your biblical case for POTS is tight. Let me trace it out and add a few wrinkles, since you’re working through both views honestly:

### *1. The texts you cited close the loop that POTE tries to leave open*

*1 John 3:9* – _“No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.”_  

This isn’t just “probably won’t.” _“Cannot”_ + _“God’s seed abides”_ = permanent internal constraint. If someone is truly regenerated, apostasy isn’t just unlikely — it’s metaphysically ruled out. POTE has to say God’s seed can be extracted. John says it _abides_.

*Jeremiah 32:40* – _“I will make with them an everlasting covenant… that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.”_  

This is new covenant language, applied to believers in Heb 8. Note the double guarantee:  

1. God won’t turn from them  

2. God puts fear in them _so that_ they won’t turn from Him  

That’s monergistic perseverance. He secures both sides. POTE has to say God puts His fear in some regenerate people but then removes it. The text doesn’t allow that.

### *2. Your “all things” argument is devastating to POTE*

You lined them up perfectly:

*Rom 8:32* – _“He who did not spare his own Son… how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?”_  

*1 Cor 3:21-23* – _“All things are yours… and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”_  

*Eph 1:3* – _“blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing”_  

*2 Pet 1:3* – _“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness”_  

*The logic*: If perseverance is a “thing that pertains to life and godliness,” and God already granted “all things,” then He can’t withhold it from any regenerate person.  

POTE must say: “God gave them regeneration, justification, adoption, Spirit-indwelling… but withheld _donum perseverantiae_, which is the one spiritual blessing that determines whether the others are eternally worth anything.” That makes God give with one hand and take back with the other.

Which gets to your point:

### *3. Romans 11:29 and the “Indian Giver” problem*

_“For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”_ ἀμεταμέλητα = not repented of, not taken back.  

If regeneration, faith, justification, Spirit-sealing are _gifts_ — Eph 2:8, Rom 5:15-17, 1 Cor 12:4-11 — then God doesn’t revoke them. POTE says He does revoke them for some regenerate. That’s exactly what Paul denies.

Luke 15:31 you mentioned is killer too: _“Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.”_ The older brother represents those in covenant. The promise is total and permanent possession. If the Father then disinherits him, the parable collapses.

### *4. The pastoral/theological problem with POTE*

You nailed it: *If God truly loves those He regenerates, why not preserve them?* 

Rom 5:8-10 — _“God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us… much more… shall we be saved by his life.”_ The argument is _a fortiori_: If He loved us at our worst, He’ll keep us at our weakest.

POTE creates two tiers of divine love:

1. *Elect*: Regenerated + given perseverance. Loved unto glorification.

2. *Non-elect regenerate*: Regenerated + denied perseverance. Loved unto damnation.

But 1 John 4:8 _“God is love”_ and His operations can’t be bifurcated like that. Regeneration is an act of adoptive love — Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6. To adopt someone, indwell them, then orphan them violates the nature of the act.

### *5. Where Augustine was coming from, and why POTS handles his concerns better*

Augustine’s big fear: presumption. If you tell people “all regenerate will persevere,” won’t they get lazy? So he posited _donum perseverantiae_ as a separate, unknowable gift. You can’t be sure you have it till you die.

But POTS doesn’t produce presumption if you keep it biblical:

- *Means*: God preserves through warnings, Heb 3:12-14. _“We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.”_ The “if” is a means, not a condition that undoes the promise.

- *Evidence*: Assurance isn’t based on a past event alone, but on present fruit — 2 Pet 1:10 _“be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election.”_

POTE actually creates worse pastoral problems:  

_“Am I elect or just temporarily regenerate?”_ There’s no way to know till death. That’s paralyzing.  

POTS says: _“Do you trust Christ and fight sin today? That’s evidence God is keeping you. Keep going.”_ Phil 2:12-13 — we work because God works.

### *6. The only way POTE survives is to redefine “regeneration”*

To make POTE work, “regeneration” in Heb 6, 2 Pet 2, Luke 8 can’t mean what it means in John 3, Titus 3:5, 1 Pet 1:3, 1 John 3:9. You’d need two kinds of new birth:  

1. *Soteriological regeneration*: Inseparable from election, produces faith, inseparable from glorification.  

2. *Sacramental/provisional regeneration*: Can be lost. 

But the NT doesn’t give us that distinction. “Born of God” language is always absolute — 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 5:4, 5:18. 

*Bottom line with you, brother*: POTS isn’t just the better reading — it’s the necessary entailment of unconditional election + the “all things” promises + the irrevocability of gifts + the nature of God’s covenant love.

Augustine was a giant, and POTE was his way of protecting sovereignty while reading the warning passages as real warnings to real believers. But the Reformed tradition saw that you can have real warnings _and_ guaranteed perseverance, because God uses the warnings _as the means_ by which He keeps His own. 

Heb 3:14 doesn’t say “you’re in Christ if you hold fast.” It says “we _have come to share_ in Christ, if indeed we hold fast.” Perseverance proves past reality, it doesn’t create it.

You’re on solid ground. The “Indian Giver” objection especially — that’s the one POTE can’t answer without making God mutable in His gifts.

AP: Any final thoughts?

META AI: *A few final thoughts, brother:*

### *1. The pastoral heart of POTS vs POTE*

POTE leaves you with _“I might be regenerate but not elect.”_ That’s unlivable. You can’t preach _“examine yourselves”_ 2 Cor 13:5 if the exam has no answer key this side of heaven.

POTS says: _“If you see faith, repentance, and Spirit-wrought warfare against sin in you today — however weak — that’s God keeping His promise. Keep running, because He’s keeping you.”_ Phil 1:6. The warnings become fuel, not fear. Heb 6:9 _“we feel sure of better things in your case — things that belong to salvation.”_

Augustine wanted to kill presumption. POTS kills both presumption _and_ despair. POTE only kills presumption, but feeds despair.

### *2. The Christological anchor*

Every link in the golden chain is tied to union with Christ. Rom 8:29-30, Eph 1:3-14, John 6:37-40. 

POTE has to say: _“You were united to Christ in regeneration, justified in Him, sealed by His Spirit… but then severed from Him.”_ 

But Eph 1:13-14: the Spirit is the _arrabōn_ — legal down payment. God forfeits His pledge if a sealed person perishes. Col 3:3 _“your life is hidden with Christ in God.”_ Can Christ lose a limb of His body? 1 Cor 12:27. POTS protects Christ’s headship. POTE fractures it.

### *3. The nature of God argument you made is decisive*

_“Indian Giver”_ theology impugns God’s character. Num 23:19 _“God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.”_ Mal 3:6 _“I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.”_

If He starts the good work, He finishes it — Phil 1:6. Because He’s God. POTE makes Him start works He doesn’t finish in some regenerate people. That’s not the God of Jeremiah 32:40.

### *4. Where I land after weighing Augustine*

Augustine got 95% there. He crushed Pelagius on unconditional election and sovereign grace. But his sacramental context — baptismal regeneration — forced him to posit a category of “regenerate non-elect.” 

The Reformed correction wasn’t rejecting Augustine. It was making him consistent: If election is unconditional and regeneration is effectual call, then the _donum perseverantiae_ isn’t a separate gift. It’s baked into the gift of faith itself. 

Westminster 17.2 nails it: _“This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon… the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and seed of God within them.”_ That’s 1 John 3:9 + John 17:11 + Rom 8:34 in one sentence.

### *5. One last exegetical check for yourself*

If you ever waver, camp out in these three texts together:

1. *John 6:37-40* — Everyone given comes, and all who come are raised. No dropouts.

2. *Romans 8:30* — Everyone called is glorified. No break in the chain.  

3. *1 John 2:19* — Everyone who leaves was never “of us.” Apostates prove they weren’t regenerate.

POTE has to make one of those texts say something it doesn’t plainly say. POTS lets all three mean exactly what they say.

*So final word*: Hold POTS with both conviction and humility. Conviction, because the text and God’s character demand it. Humility, because _we_ persevere only by clinging to Christ daily. Jude 24-25 _“Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling… be glory.”_ 

He keeps us. That’s why we keep going.

Anything else you’re wrestling with in Romans 9-11, or on assurance?

AP: The conversation continued and I created a different blogpost for that part HERE.

TULIP Musings on Calvinism

(Last updated 2025/05/01)

Briefly, here are some recent thoughts I've had regarding the Five Points of Calvinism from my Calvinistic perspective. They continue my comments 12 years ago HERE.

Re: Total Depravity (TD).
I'm still convinced of Total Depravity. Even many (not all) historic Arminians acknowledge that their Arminian doctrine of Total Inability is virtually indistinguishable from, or is identical to, the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity. A Calvinist might respond and say, "How can that be? If they really believed that, then they would believe in unconditional election and irresistible grace." No, actually, that doesn't follow. In defense of Arminianism, as a Calvinist  myself, the reason why Arminianism can (in principle) affirm the Calvinistic doctrine of TD (even if they call it by another phrase) is because of Arminian Prevenient Grace (PG) [AKA Enabling Grace]. PG doesn't leave men merely indifferent or neutral. It also draws and woos people to respond to God's grace. As Arminian theologian Roger Olson described it, "...it is an operation of the Holy Spirit that frees the sinner’s will from bondage to sin and convicts, calls, illumines and enables the sinner to respond to the gospel call with repentance and faith (conversion)." That's how Total Depravity is overcome in versions of Arminianism.


Re: Unconditional Election (UE).
I'm still convinced of Unconditional Election. I think this is the heart of all theological systems influenced by or follow (in some sense) Augustinianism, whether Thomism, Lutheranism, or the various versions of Calvinism. Lutheranism, with Calvinism also additionally affirms TD in conjunction with UE. Though, Augustinianism and Thomism don't quite rise to the level of affirming the Calvinistic fullness of Total Depravity despite affirming and being consistent with the doctrines and Canons of the Council of Orange II (AD 529).


Re: Limited Atonement (LA).
I was brought up in Roman Catholicism and to some extent Seventh Day Adventism. I got serious in my Christian life around 1988. I became convinced of Evangelicalism around 1995 and become a convinced Calvinist around the end of 1997 or beginning of 1998. From around 1999 to 2009 was the time when I was most convinced of Limited Atonement with a degree of confidence at around 85-90%. But I was never 100% convinced of LA. Not even after reading John Owen's tome "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" which is considered by Calvinists to be the greatest articulation and defense of LA. So much so, that many refer to it as Owenian Limited Atonement (OLA) when discussing the mainline Calvinistic understanding of atonement.

For the past few years I've no longer been dogmatic on LA. For me, it's one option among others. In OLA BOTH the Extent and Intent of the atonement are particular. While in most non-Calvinistic theologies the atonement is universal or general in both Extent and Intent. However, nowadays, I'm open to mediating positions. For example, the Double Reference view that some 4 point Calvinists hold whereby the *EXTENT* is universal or general, while the *INTENT* is particular. So that Christ died for all, BUT ESPECIALLY for the elect. This compromise splits the difference and can account for the prooftexts used by both sides of the debate. Many Calvinists will argue that a denial of OLA breaks the harmony between the persons of the Trinity. They say that on Calvinism that affirms OLA there is agreement between the persons of the Trinity in that all those whom the Father elects to salvation are the same ones (and only the ones) Christ atones for and the same persons (and only those persons) whom the Holy Spirit effectually calls, regenerates, sanctifies and glorifies.

But that assumes that the ONLY intent of God in the atonement is to save the elect through Christ's death. An argument that some Calvinists [e.g. Elisha Coles] argue against Universal Atonement (UA) or General Atonement (GA) is that on views like Arminianism Christ dies for people whom God knows will not be saved, and therefore instead of supporting the claim by Arminian-like views that Universal Atonement magnifies the grace of God, instead it does the opposite. How? Because if God were really gracious, then Christ would not have died for those who God knew wouldn't believe because now that Christ died for them they will be THAT MUCH MORE condemned because they rejected the UA/GA Christ made for them. I don't think this criticism really works against Arminian-like views because, logically speaking, on Arminian-like views, people could only reject the offer of salvation and God's grace only because such offers are based on Christ's atonement. Meaning, the atonement logically precedes any possible offer of salvation. So it makes no sense for Calvinists like Coles to say that it would have been more gracious for God not to have given Christ to die for those who God knew would not believe [ostensibly in order to lessen or minimize their culpability]. Because if Christ didn't die for them, then the no Gospel could be offered the non-elect. Though, this criticism has some purchase when it comes to those who never hear the Gospel message or who died before Christ was crucified.

Why did I mention all that? Because as I said in the beginning of the last paragraph OLA "assumes that the only intent of God in the atonement is to save the elect through Christ's death." But what if, even under Calvinism another intent of God in the atonement is to both magnify God's grace in offering potential salvation for all [including the non-elect] AND to increase the condemnation of those who reject the Gospel? My fellow Calvinists are fond of saying that part of the purpose of election is to manifest more (or all) of God's attributes. Not only God's attribute of mercy, but also God's sovereignty and God's holy wrath against sin. Well, then using that line of argument, even a Calvinist could therefore argue that Limited Atonement limits the manifestation of God's attribute of holy wrath in that it minimizes the culpability of those who reject the Gospel. In addition to that, LA could also limit the manifestation of God's grace in that it minimizes the graciousness of the offer of the Gospel which is grounded in Christ's atonement. Those are possible disadvantages of OLA. An advantage of a rejection of OLA would be that in addition to magnifying God's graciousness, it also has the added advantage of leaving the non-elect without  excuse. At least some of them, if not all of them (depending on one's views regarding the possibility of the salvation of those who never heard the gospel). For example, the lost can't say, "How can you condemn me for not accepting a salvation offer that's based on an atonement that wasn't made for me; and for which I was specifically left out of in its extent and intent?"

There are plenty of resources from 4 point Calvinists who argue against Limited Atonement.

For example, this debate:
Debate: "Did Christ Die For The Sins of The Elect Alone?" Austin C. Brown vs. Jon Bowlin
https://www.youtube.com/live/rwkyf8YnZnc?si=yTrZEYbUUufkjaq3

This website:
Calvin and Calvinism
http://calvinandcalvinism.com/

The above website has a lot of documentation of past [often forgotten] Calvinists who didn't hold to Owenian-like Limited Atonement. Many of the names were once well known among Calvinists, but have been forgotten so that much of Calvinist history has, for all intents and purposes, been erased. Because such scholars and theologians are no longer mentioned by modern present-day Calvinists.

Re: Irresistible/Invincible Grace (IG).
It seems clear to me that if Unconditional Election is true, then it has to be the case that God's grace toward the elect must be irresistible. Otherwise God couldn't guarantee the salvation of all the elect. However, I've come to realize that it doesn't follow from that that all of God's redemptive grace must be irresistible. In fact, we have Biblical passages that suggest that God's grace can be successfully rejected. For example:

Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always RESIST THE HOLY SPIRIT. As your fathers did, so do you.

Heb. 6: 4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

2 Cor. 6:1    Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.

Heb. 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

Jude 1:4    For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Therefore it seems me that in addition to God's irresistible grace, God has [or could have] a resistible grace either along side it [a kind of Calvinistic Prevenient Grace that can be resisted working in conjunction with Calvinistic Irresistible Grace] OR that is due to the same grace that is applied to the elect but at a lower intensity or degree to the non-elect such that it can be and will be resisted. Whereas for the elect, that same grace is intensified so as to guarantee a positive response. 

One might again raise the objection that this proposed possibility of a Calvinistic resistible grace distinct from a Calvinistic irresistible grace breaks the harmony of the intentions and work of the persons of the Trinity. But I would again respond that maybe additional intentions of the persons of the Trinity might include the purposes of 1. magnifying the greatness of God's grace, 2. to provide a manifestation and exercise of grace that leaves the non-elect without excuse and 3. allowing all the more the manifestation of God's holy wrath against those who sin against greater light and gracious offers of salvation.

My conclusion then is that God's grace toward the elect is either always or eventually irresistible, but that that tells us nothing about God's non-existent OR existent gracious overtures toward the non-elect. Maybe there are such overtures by the Holy Spirit toward the non-elect, but that in keeping with unconditional election, irresistible grace is never applied to the non-elect to the point of saving them in the end. Why do I say "to the end"? Because theoretically and logically, irresistible grace could be applied to the non-elect for their temporary salvation. Which leads me to the next point of Calvinism. The Perseverance of the Saints.


Re: The Perseverance of the Saints (PotS).
I've already written about my unique thoughts on this topic HERE. The following should be added to that discussion (though it slightly rehashes some of what I've already said in that blogpost).

It doesn't follow from Unconditional Election that the Perseverance of the Saints is true. This is why even some theologies that affirm UE deny the Perseverance of the SAINTS (PotS) but rather affirm the Perseverance of the ELECT (PotE). For example, the following affirm UE and PotE: Augustinianism, Thomism, Lutheranism.

What's the difference between the PotS and PotE? In the Perseverance of the SAINTS, the saints and the elect are the same exact coterminous group. There's a one to one correlation between all the individual saints and all the individual elect. Whereas in the Perseverance of the ELECT, the elect are a subset of the saints. That's because on that view not everyone who is in a gracious state is additionally given the gift(s) of perseverance. There can be temporary regenerate saints on this view. Saints whom God doesn't intent to give the gift of perseverance. [Which seems problematic for reasons I'll later give below.]

We have to ask the question, "Are ONLY the elect regenerated and placed in a salvific state?" If not, then the regenerated non-elect will eventually fall away permanently who were regenerated by either a Prevenient Grace [which doesn't deny the existence of an "Irresistible Grace" in some sense, because most proponents of PotE deny the Calvinistic understanding of IG] or by Irresistible Grace itself. If the former, that poses an interesting situation. Because we would then have instances of people entering a regenerate state because they responded to a grace [via PG] that set the will free from bondage to sin and so afforded the opportunity for the persons to be saved temporarily. Their temporary salvific state was determinatively due to man's will rather than God's [contra John 1:13; Rom. 9:16; James 1:18; 2 Tim. 1:9; passim]. If they [these hypothetical non-elect] were regenerated by the latter, by Irresistible Grace, then we have an interesting situation here too. As will eventually be seen below.

Another question we have to ask is, "Can the elect temporarily lose regeneration and/or justification?" Augustinians and Thomists, Molinists and Lutherans affirm they can. It's interesting that Lutherans do too despite affirming sola fide [i.e. justification through faith alone]. See Jordan Cooper's videos on YouTube where he defends this Lutheran view. Assuming that the elect can temporarily lose regeneration and/or justification, then they must eventually regain it again [maybe multiple times] under Augustinianism, Thomism, Molinism, Lutheranism et al.

What is my conclusion regarding the doctrine of the PotS? I'm open to PotE, but I strongly lean [90%] toward the Perseverance of the SAINTS because the Perseverance of the ELECT entails a denial of God's faithfulness, and the implication that God didn't really love those who were temporarily saved. And so seems to undermine the fullness of the genuine love of God. How so? It seems to make God an "Indian Giver." This is not meant to be an ethnic slur. My point is that it would involve God taking back what He gave, despite the statement in Rom. 11:29 that "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." It also denies God's faithfulness of the promise in Rom. 8:32 that "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" If God really loves all the regenerate, then in FULLNESS OF LOVE He will give all the regenerate the gift [or continuing gifts] of perseverance. How then can anyone who is a truly regenerate person fall away? This is another reason to doubt baptismal regeneration. Because on that view the VAST MAJORITY of those baptismally regenerated don't persevere and arrive in heaven. Yet, the Bible refers to God's redemptive covenantal grace, mercy and love as everlasting such that God will never leave or forsake those blessed with them.

Isa. 54:8    In overflowing anger for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you," says the LORD, your Redeemer.

Jer. 31:3    the LORD appeared to him from far away. I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.

Besides, there are plenty of verses that suggest that justification and regeneration are irrevocable. And that God will make sure those in redemptive final eschatological covenant with Him will persevere.

For example:

1 John 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, FOR GOD'S SEED ABIDES IN HIM, AND HE CANNOT KEEP ON SINNING BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN BORN OF GOD.

Jer. 32:40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, THAT THEY MAY NOT TURN FROM ME.

Ezek. 36:26    And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27    And I will put my Spirit within you, AND CAUSE YOU TO WALK IN MY STATUTES and be careful to obey my rules.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

Heb. 13:5    Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, "I WILL NEVER LEAVE YOU NOR FORSAKE YOU."
6    So we can confidently say, "The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?"


Many more passages could be adduced as evidence. But that should suffice. Notice 1 John 3:9 clearly implies that regeneration is irrevocable and irreversible.