Free Will or Predestination?

What is meant by 'Free Will' and 'Predestination'?

At one level we can say that the Gospel message is very simple – so simple, in fact, that a little child can understand it. But it is also the case that over the years, centuries, and millennia a number of issues have arisen as men have sought to come to a fuller and deeper understanding of the principles underlying Christ’s work of redemption.

One of these issues is the degree to which men and women, boys and girls, have the freedom to choose whether, and how much, to commit themselves to Christ, balanced against the degree to which God, in His sovereignty, determines the outcome of the lives of human beings, individually or collectively.

By ‘free will’ we mean that a person is able, of their own volition, to decide to seek God, to believe in the Gospel message, to repent of their sins, to commit to a life of discipleship, and to sustain that lifestyle of humility and obedience until the end of their time here on earth.

By ‘predestination’ we mean that God makes decisions and puts processes into play in order to bring about outcomes which contribute to His overall objectives for the universe, for humanity in general, for particular people-groups (e.g. the Israelites, the Church), and even for individual people.

Why Is It Controversial?

One of the major, and most influential, doctrinal systems in the western church today is what is known as CALVINISM, which was discussed briefly in the article ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’.

Calvin’s basic idea, that by nature every human being is born and lives in a state of TOTAL DEPRAVITY, rendering them unable to choose any course of action which is not resistant to God, and thereby making them inveterately sinful, leads logically to four necessary conclusions:

• UNMERITED ELECTION – since no-one will ever be able to desire to be saved, God, in His sovereignty, must decide who is to be saved, and because this decision cannot be based on any merit that might be found in the one being elected, since no human being has any merit in the sight of God, it must be arbitrary or, at any rate, based on criteria that are known to God alone.

• LIMITED ATONEMENT – since only the Elect are going to be saved, Christ’s redeeming sacrifice can be effective only for them and for no-one else.

• IRRESISTABLE GRACE – since the Elect are unable of themselves to receive God’s saving grace, God must overcome their resistance to it and endue them with saving faith to enable them to receive it.

• PERSISTENCE OF THE SAINTS – since salvation is entirely the work of God with no input whatever from man, it is impossible for anyone to lose their salvation, as God cannot fail. (This is dealt with in another article.)

If what Calvin taught is correct, then it is clear that, as regards salvation, free will counts for nothing, because the free will of the natural man will always be to choose the sinful, rebellious, ungodly way.

The fact that many people are, indeed, saved means, therefore, that God has ELECTED them to be saved, and has followed through on that election by PREDESTINING them to salvation, leaving those who are NOT elected, to be PREDESTINED to be lost, by default.

This teaching is controversial for the simple reason that many theologians disagree with the fundamental principle upon which it is based, and argue that the Bible clearly teaches that Christ died for all men, that God commands all men everywhere to repent, and that all men are held accountable before God for the choices that they have made.

I would say that the two questions that are at issue in the light of this are as follows:

1. Did God choose who is to be saved and who is not to be saved, or does each individual person have a responsibility to choose for themselves whether to respond positively or negatively to God’s call to repentance?

2. Did Christ die for all human beings, or did He die only for the Elect, so that it is impossible for anyone else to be saved, since there is no atonement available for them?

What Does the Bible Say?

Of the two questions cited above, it seems to me that the one that is easier to answer is the second one, and so, by your leave, I am going to provide the answer to this one first, and afterwards tackle the more complex one concerning election and predestination.

For Whom Did Christ Die?

The question, as I understand it, is this:

Did Jesus die for everyone – i.e. every human being who ever did live or will live on the earth, or did He die only for a select group, or groups, of people, to whom we are referring as ‘the Elect’?

Let’s look first at the SCOPE of Christ’s atoning sacrifice by asking the question: What did Jesus actually accomplish on the cross?

(For a fuller treatment of what Christ accomplished on the cross, please read the article 'Why Did Jesus Have To Die?')

Physically, He yielded Himself up as a SINLESS SACRIFICE for the sins of mankind. In doing so, He shed His blood and died, while maintaining His righteousness throughout, even praying for God’s forgiveness for those who were crucifying Him. He was then buried, but on the morning of the third day He rose again from the dead, and subsequently ascended into heaven in His glorified body.

The first point to note is that this was a LEGAL TRANSACTION.

What do I mean by that statement?

Well, according to the law of Moses, if anyone sinned, they were to bring the appropriate sacrifice to the priest, the priest would offer the sacrifice, pouring out the blood at the foot of the altar, and God would forgive the repentant sinner.

The key issue here is that it had to be the APPROPRIATE sacrifice. In other words, God was saying to Israel, “If you offer THIS sacrifice to me for THIS type of sin, I WILL FORGIVE you. If you do NOT offer THIS sacrifice, I will NOT forgive you.”

Was the sacrifice sufficient for the atonement? And if so, why and how?

The answer quite simply is that it was sufficient because God had said so. He is the One who has the power to forgive, and He is therefore the One who determines on what basis He is prepared to offer forgiveness. There is no power or virtue whatsoever in the animal being sacrificed. All of the power rests with God.

Exactly the same principle applies in relation to the cross, as Jesus Himself intimates:

When the camp of the Israelites was invaded by a swarm of serpents, God told Moses to make the brazen serpent and to set it up on a pole, so that anyone who looked upon it would be healed from the effects of the serpents’ venom (Numbers 21:8-9).

Was there any inherent power in the brazen serpent? No, there was not. In fact, it became an idol in later generations and king Hezekiah ordered it to be destroyed (2 Kings 18:4).

So, the question of whether Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient for all mankind displays a misunderstanding of what actually took place.

God has ordained that ANYONE who comes to the cross, confesses their sins, repents of them, and submits to the Lordship of Christ will be forgiven and accepted as His child.

He has determined that the once and for all sacrifice of His sinless Son is sufficient to enable Him to forgive ‘whoever’ (John 3:15), so long as they come to Him with the appropriate heart attitude.

Jesus clearly teaches us this in his conversation with Nicodemus, recorded in chapter 3 of John’s Gospel, wherein we find what is probably the most-quoted verse in the New Testament, which has been used by evangelists to great effect for two-thousand years, and follows on directly from the verses already quoted above:

Now, someone may object that in the case of the brazen serpent it was a specific set of people – an Elect, if you like – which were to benefit from this divine grace. That is correct. It is also the case that the effectiveness of the brazen serpent was time-limited, in that it would work only at that time and for that specific purpose.

But the same principle applies to the Crucifixion. Jesus tells us that the group of people who are to benefit from His Crucifixion is defined by the term ‘the WORLD’, and the specific individuals who are to benefit are defined by the term ‘WHOSOEVER’.

It seems to be clear from this passage that Jesus died not for an Elect, but for everyone, so are there any passages of scripture which support the ‘elect’ position?

Indeed, there are a few, for example:

This tells us that Jesus died for His own nation, Israel. However, it also tells us that there is another group for whom He died, namely ‘the children of God who are scattered abroad’. I have no doubt that there are various theories as to how this group might be defined and who might be contained in it. John does not help us there, but I think we can be confident that he is referring to gentiles (See also John 10:11,16).

In a book that I read some years ago, the author used this verse as evidence of Limited Atonement, saying that Jesus died only for those who were predestined to be integrated into His church.

This illustrates the importance of paying attention not only to what the scripture actually says, but what it also does NOT say.

There is no doubt that anyone for whom Christ died and who subsequently took advantage of His atoning grace, would become a member of His church, His bride; but the passage in question does not state that Christ died only for those who were in any way predestined.

When I read this, I wondered what he would make of Paul’s statement to the Galatians:

Would anybody seriously assume that Paul believed that Christ died only for him? Of course not. We all claim the truth of this verse for ourselves, and in sharing the gospel we tell people, “If you were the only sinner who needed a saviour, Jesus would still have died for you alone”.

I believe that to be the truth. But I was not the only person who needed to be saved, and neither was Paul. We all need to be saved, so is there any evidence that Jesus died for ‘all’?

Indeed there is:

Paul tells us that Christ died for ‘the ungodly’ and for those who were God’s enemies.

You might argue that since we were all ungodly and enemies, the Elect were a subset of this grouping before they repented, and it is these to whom Paul refers when he says that ‘Christ died for us’, ‘us’ being ‘the Elect’.

So let’s compare this to another passage, this time from Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians:

Perhaps this passage makes the case more clearly. Twice he states that Christ died ‘for all’. How do we define ‘all’? Is it ‘all those who are already Elect’ or is it ‘all the world’?

In verse 19 Paul says that ‘in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself’. But does that mean that He died for them?

Look back to Romans 5 verse 10. How were ‘we’ reconciled to God? By the death of His Son, of course.

Even if we assume that Romans 5 is referring only to the Elect, 2 Corinthians 5 is not. It is referring to ‘the world’, and there is no way that ‘the world’ would ever be used to mean ‘the Elect’.

So, if the Elect are reconciled to God by the death of His Son, how is the world reconciled? By a different means, or by the same means? And if it is by a different means, then what is that means, and why is it different?

I am not aware of any New Testament scriptures which teach us that there is any other way to be reconciled to God than through the death of His Son.

Now, on a slightly different tack, Paul tells Timothy about:

How did Christ abolish death? He did it by submitting to death, and then rising again from the dead. But did He abolish death only for some, or has death been abolished for everyone who believes?

The writer to the Hebrews helps us there:

If Jesus ‘tasted death for everyone’ and in so doing ‘abolished death’, then this would mean that the abolition of death is a reality for everyone – the normal proviso being that this grace is received through faith (John 11:25-26).

I’ll give the final word on this to Peter:

Here, Peter clearly associates Christ’s suffering for sins with His death. The Righteous suffered for the unrighteous, and the suffering culminated in His death, which means that He died for ‘the unrighteous’.

It seems to me that when we take these scriptures together, understanding them on the principle that the writers said what they meant and meant what they said, the only logical conclusion we can come to is that Christ’s death was for ALL human beings, that is to say, every man, woman, boy, and girl who ever lived, or ever will live, on this earth.

In summary: who did Christ die for?

• He died for Paul (Galatians 2:20)
• He died for the church (Ephesians 5:25)
• He died for Israel (John 11:51)
• He died for the scattered children of God (John 11:52)
• He died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6)
• He died for the unrighteous (1Peter 3:18)
• He died for the enemies of God (Romans 5:10)
• He died to reconcile the world (2Corinthians 5:19)
• He died to abolish death (1Timothy 1:10)
• He tasted death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9)
• He died for all (2Corinthians 5:14-15)

So if you happen to be ungodly, unrighteous, an enemy of God, an inhabitant of the world, or one of the number that is defined by the words ‘all’ and ‘everyone’, then Christ died for you.

Election, Predestination, Free Will, Personal Choice

The other question cited above has to do with ELECTION or PREDESTINATION, and FREE WILL or PERSONAL CHOICE.

The doctrines of Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace are two of the pillars of Calvinism, which was a reaction to the ‘salvation by works’ stance of the Roman Catholic church in the 16th century. Calvin swung to the opposite extreme and maintained that the natural man is in a state of TOTAL DEPRAVITY, which means that he is inherently incapable of doing anything in relation to God except to resist Him.

This means that if anyone is to be saved it can only be by the exercise of God’s grace alone. Man is incapable of assisting in any way, because his will is always contrary to God. Therefore, if any, but not all, are saved then it must be because God has elected to save some and not to save the rest.

So, there are three questions that arise from this:

1. Does the scripture teach election / predestination? To which the answer is: YES.
2. Does the scripture teach free will / personal choice? To which the answer is: YES.
3. Is there a conflict between these two positions? To which the answer is: NO.

First of all, let’s distinguish between two similar but different ideas, namely: PREDESTINATION and PREDETERMINATION.

When God has predetermined something, it’s going to happen, and nobody can do anything to stop it, a good example being found in the story of Joseph in the book of Genesis:

Seven years of plenty and seven years of famine had been PREDETERMINED by God, and nothing could change it.

Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection were PREDETERMINED by God. They were bound to happen, and no-one could do anything to change it.

Similarly, Christ’s Second Coming has been PREDETERMINED by God. Jesus told His disciples, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority” (Acts 1:7). It is going to happen, and no-one can do anything to change it.

However, the term that Paul uses in relation to our salvation is PREDESTINED, which translates the Greek word ‘pro-hor-ID-zo’ [no. G4309 in Strong’s Concordance], which is a composite word formed from the prefix ‘pro’ meaning ‘before’ and ‘hor-ID-zo’ [no. G3724 in Strong’s] meaning ‘to mark out the boundaries or limits of a place or a thing’.

(I am grateful to the late Roger Forster for the following insight:)

This Greek word gives us our English word ‘horizon’, suggesting that this is not a fixed point that can be easily missed, but a range of opportunities that can be easily met. From this we can deduce that predestination has more to do with ENABLING than DETERMINING a desired outcome.

To illustrate this, let’s take the example of King Charles. From his birth in 1948 he was predestined to become king, being the eldest son of Princess Elizabeth, who at the time was first in line to succeed her father, King George VI, to the throne.

A few years later, Elizabeth, now the queen, gave birth to another son, Andrew, who at the time was second in line to the throne.

In course of time, Charles did indeed succeed his mother and became king, but Andrew, because of his bad behaviour, was stripped of all of his royal credentials and is no longer anywhere in the line of succession.

But, what would have happened if Andrew had been well-behaved and Charles had been the reprobate? Although destined for the throne, Charles would have been disqualified, and although not so destined, Andrew (assuming that Charles had no offspring at the time) would have acceded.

Their grandfather, George the Sixth, came to the throne unexpectedly when his brother, Edward the Eighth, abdicated so that he would be able to marry his love, the American divorcee Wallace Simpson. The one predestined for the throne disappeared into obscurity, and the one not so predestined became king.

To provide a more everyday, down-to-earth, illustration, let’s say that someone gives you a train ticket from Belfast to Dublin. Your destination is Dublin, so you are, in a sense, ‘predestined’ to travel to Dublin. But it has not been ‘predetermined’ that you will. For that, you would have to be forced or coerced in some way. (Calvinism would say that we are forced by irresistible grace, that our salvation is predetermined.)

Unless the ticket is for a specific time on a specific day, you may choose when your journey begins. Even then, you are not obliged to travel all the way. You could decide to disembark at Newry, for example. You might then go elsewhere, or you might decide to continue your journey at a later time and eventually reach your destination in Dublin.

Does the Bible provide any evidence of people, other than Jesus Himself, being predestined from before their birth?

Indeed it does:

• ISAAC, the son of Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 17:15-21)
• SAMSON, the rough and tumble scourge of the Philistines (Judges 13)
• SAMUEL, God’s reward for Hannah’s faith (1 Samuel 1)
• JEREMIAH, the weeping prophet (Jeremiah 1:1-10, especially v5)
• JOHN THE BAPTIST, the forerunner of Christ (Luke 1:5-25)
• APOSTLE PAUL, the converted Pharisee (Galatians 1:14-16)

It is notable that in each of these cases the individuals concerned were being predestined to a particular form of SERVICE, so we cannot see these as evidence for predestination to SALVATION. Indeed, it would not be unreasonable to question whether Samson’s name would even appear on God’s roll of honour, given the abysmal standard of his behaviour throughout his lifetime.

So, if there is no example of an individual being predestined to be saved, are there any examples of what we might call a general predestination?

Paul uses the word ‘predestined’ in two passages. Here they are:

(The same Greek word is used elsewhere: in Acts 4:28, rendered in English as ‘determined’, and 1 Corinthians 2:7, as ‘ordained’, but not with reference to people.)

If we take these two passages at face value, it is difficult to see anything in them other than a decision by God “before the foundation of the world” to call an “elect” group of people to be “conformed to the image of His Son”, and to be themselves “adopted as sons”.

However, the key question is: what does Paul mean by, “those whom He foreknew” and “He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world”?

There are two reasonable interpretations of these statements:

1. ‘to know’ in this context has the same significance as the statement that “Adam knew his wife, Eve” (Genesis 4:1) – that is to say that God had an intimate relationship with the person or people being referred to or, to use a New Testament term, that He was in fellowship with them.

2. ‘to foreknow’ simply means ‘to know in advance’. God tells Isaiah that “I know the end from the beginning” and “I have spoken and I will bring it to pass” (Isaiah 46:10-11).

Either of these options would make sense within the context of these scriptures, but is there any reason for us to prefer one over the other?

In order to answer that question, let’s think about the implications of both options.

A potential problem with option 1 is its implication that the subjects of the foreknowledge were in some way in existence before they were physically conceived.

To take a specific example: when God says to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you”, is He saying that Jeremiah already existed before his conception? And, if so, in what way did he exist? Presumably, as a spiritual being, since he did not yet exist physically.

Now, this sounds as if it might be possible, but it raises another question: if Jeremiah already existed spiritually, and God was in fellowship with him, that would mean that Jeremiah was, at that period, in a state of righteousness, and probably holiness, since God is unlikely to be in fellowship with anyone who is unholy.

At the point of Jeremiah’s conception within his mother’s womb, the righteous and holy spiritual Jeremiah would be merged with the unrighteous and unholy physical Jeremiah. Would this cause a problem?

I could imagine how this would motivate the spiritual Jeremiah to be determined to get right with God and to overcome the unrighteous tendencies of his flesh and his natural mind (Ephesians 2:3; Romans 7:14-24).

Furthermore, when Paul says that God “chose us in Him before the foundation of the world”, does this imply that Paul and those like him already existed before the world was created and were already in Christ at that time? If so, then how did it come about that they came out of Christ in order to be born on the earth and had to be born again in order to be brought back into Christ to be saved? And, more importantly, why did that happen?

Another implication of this would be, if it is the case that God has elected some to be saved and others not, that either:

1. Before the foundation of the world, every human being already existed, but God chose to send us all on to the earth to live in physical bodies, and He elected some to be saved out of their earthly experience but left the others to be lost;

2. Some of us existed in Christ before the foundation of the world, and are therefore destined to survive life on earth, while the others did not, and so are lost at the end of their earthly life.

I have never heard anyone suggesting that this is the way things are, and I have to confess that I am unable to reconcile it with the clear teaching of scripture.

The only person about whom we have been given any detail in relation to the combining of the spiritual with the physical is Adam, about whom we are told:

If we take this simply as it is presented to us, we see that God first moulded the physical body and then imparted of His own spirit by breathing into the newly-formed body, and the interaction of the spirit from God with the body of dust from the ground produced a living creature, or, in the words of the KJV, a living soul.

There is no indication in this account that the spirit that was imparted to the body of Adam was in any way a pre-existent spiritual Adam, but rather that it was simply the life-giving breath of the Almighty, Who is the Source of all life.

And neither, as far as I am aware, is there any good reason to assume that any of Adam’s descendants were pre-existent spirits who were incarnated in a physical embryo.

Does option 2 present us with any difficulties?

One objection that I have encountered is that in order for God to be able to be certain about what is going to occur in the future, He would need to be in full control of events, which would mean that both the free will of man and the randomness of nature would be discounted, as God would have to micro-manage every decision and every occurrence to ensure that everything worked out the way that He wanted it to.

However, this objection is based on the misunderstanding that God is a part of, and therefore constrained by the limitations of, the space/time continuum, which is not the case.

God is entirely self-sufficient and independent of any other entity in existence, because He was the one who created everything other than Himself, and is therefore not bound by anything in any way (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3; Hebrews 1:3a).

This means that God is not limited in relation to time.

For us, who are creatures of space and time and constrained by its limitations, space is three-dimensional and time is one-dimensional.

But what if time, from God’s perspective, is also three-dimensional? He would then be able to see past, present, and future all at once, and so would be able to know exactly what is, from our perspective, going to happen, because from His perspective it is already happening.

If this interpretation is correct, then we can say that God, knowing ‘beforehand’ (from our perspective) what desires of heart each person has or ‘will have’ and what choices each person makes or ‘will make’, can then put in place whatever events He considers to be appropriate to facilitate each one’s progress along the road of discipleship towards being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, which we would experience as being PREDESTINED to arrive at that perfect destination.

It seems to me that, not only does this option not throw up any difficulties at all, but makes perfect sense of all of the statements which refer to predestination and election.

For instance, there is an interesting statement in Luke’s Acts of the Apostles:

The clear message of this text is that God had already appointed, or elected, these individuals to have eternal life, and as a result of that they believed.

But, in the context of the passage, we can see that Luke is being a little mischievous:

The Jews were the ones who, in principle, were appointed to eternal life, because they were God’s chosen people, His Elect through Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, but because of their hardness of heart they had come to the place where, as Paul puts it, they were thrusting aside the word of God and rejecting His grace, but the Gentiles, on the contrary, were lapping it up.

Had God, before any of these people were born, decided to save these Gentiles and unsave these Jews? Or had He already seen where their hearts would be on this particular day, and acted accordingly?

Summary

Why does anyone start out on this journey of salvation?

I would say that most people who have found salvation have come to Christ on a treasure hunt, a trail of discovery.

And who initiates this search? The one who is searching, or the One Who needs to be found?

I suspect that the answer is: BOTH.

However, it is not possible for me on my own to draw close to God. God must invite me. God must draw me (Jeremiah 30:21).

I cannot invite myself to an audience with King Charles, or the Pope, or even my next-door neighbour. I must be invited in, or compelled to come in, as the case may be.

The way that God works in our lives is so subtle that it’s often impossible to distinguish between His initiative and our own initiative. David DuPlessis was asked, “How do you know what are your thoughts and what are God’s thoughts?” He answered, “Well, I know that I’m responsible for the bad ones!”

Our walk with God has many mysterious elements to it. Sometimes we want to cut through the mystery and have everything nailed down and sorted into boxes. But we have to remember that we’re the ones who design the boxes, not God. He doesn’t need boxes, because His intelligence is perfect, while ours is limited.

Does this mean that God has elected some, from before the foundation of the world, to be saved, even before they existed, before they did anything either good or bad? Does it mean that those on this ‘Schindler’s List’ are bound to surrender to Christ, whether they have any choice in the matter or not?

Or does it mean that God already knows who will surrender willingly, once they have the capacity to do so, and so He is able to write their names into His book in advance?

The bottom line, as regards interpretation of these things, seems to me to be that there are Godly men and women who believe one thing, and there are equally Godly men and women who believe another thing. So, who is right?

In some way, probably both! God alone knows for sure.

However, I am forced to reject the Calvinist view of PREDETERMINATION because I see too much PERSONAL CHOICE throughout the scriptures, for example:

• Genesis 4:6-7 – God challenges Cain concerning his behaviour, reassuring him that if he does well, he will be accepted, but warning him that if he does not, he will fall prey to sin.

• Deuteronomy 30:19-20 – Moses urges the people to choose life.

• Joshua 24:14-15 – in similar vein, Joshua challenges the people to “choose this day whom you will serve”, while nailing his own colours to the mast, declaring, “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”.

• Psalm 50:23 – God promises that He will show His salvation to the one who orders his way aright.

• Isaiah 1:16-20 – Through Isaiah, God calls the people to “come now, let us reason together”.

• Daniel 4:27 – Daniel urges Nebuchadnezzar to “break off your sins and do righteousness”.

• Matthew 3:1-2; 4:17 – both John Baptist and Jesus call the people to repentance.

• Matthew 11:15; Mark 4:9,23: Luke 8:8; 14:35 – Jesus cries out, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

• Acts 2:37-41 – the people plead with Peter “What shall we do?”

• Acts 16:30-31 – The Philippian jailer pleads with Paul, “What must I do to be saved?”

• Acts 17:30-31 – Paul tells the Athenian philosophers that “God commands all men everywhere to repent”.

If God has already decided who is saved and who is lost, why go through the motions of preaching the gospel to sinners who are incapable of responding? Why not just send the evangelists directly to the individuals who are already on God’s list and lead them in the sinner’s prayer, if that is even necessary? If their names are already in the Lamb’s book of life, do they need an evangelist?

A stronger objection, and perhaps the strongest, is the matter of eternal damnation for people who have no ability to do what is right.

How can someone be guilty of sin if they are not capable of righteousness? To condemn someone for behaviour over which they have no control would be unjust, and God is not unjust, but both perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

If God is going to judge us – and He is – then we must be able to be held personally responsible for our actions, which means that we must, among other things, have the freedom and the ability to either accept or reject Christ when the Gospel is presented to us.

(The situation for those who have never heard the Gospel is a different matter, and I am not covering that issue in this article.)

Does it Really Matter?

I once read of a servant of God who said, “When I pray, I am a Calvinist; when I preach, I am an Arminian”.

In his prayers, he pleaded with God to save men’s souls, but in his preaching he pleaded with men to “save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40). But, the immediate context of this quotation is interesting:

God calls, and men respond – but do they do so freely or under compulsion?

I would say that this becomes an issue only in how it motivates us to behave in relation to our unsaved neighbours. Are we complacent in believing that if they’re Elect, they’ll be saved anyway, but if they’re not Elect, they’re lost anyway?

The answer to that question will determine whether, for you or for me individually, it really matters.