A couple—husband and wife—are deeply in love with each other and with Jesus. They also love children, very much. One Sunday at church they hear the testimony of another couple who flew thousands of miles to a foreign country to adopt a little girl. The couple in the pew sits in awe and gives each other a look, silently saying what is on their hearts.
They begin the process, fill out paperwork, and spend thousands of dollars. Some months later they find themselves flying across the ocean to a foreign country. They are taken to an orphanage in a part of the city where bricks crumble and windows are boarded. The orphanage fares no better. Winter air seeps in through holes in the wall and cracks in the ceiling. The fire burning in the corner provides hardly any heat.
In a makeshift crib lay an infant boy. His clothes and blankets are dirty, as is his face. And his skin is stretched tight against his bone. The couple is moved to compassion at the sight of this child in his squalor. More paperwork. Interviews. Money. Finally, they arrive home with the child cradled in their arms. They clean him, and dress him in nice clothes. They give him a bed that is strong and secure. They give him a new home, a new family, and a new name.
They don’t wait until this child can make a choice. They don’t ask his opinion, after all how could he respond? Out of their gracious and unconditional love, they choose him to be theirs and take him into their home.
They speak to him and feed him milk. They tell him how much they love him. He is their son. The child grows and soon learns to walk and to talk. He calls out their names…mommy, daddy…and smiles. He loves them, because they first loved him…
Is it a perfect anecdote to describe what God has done for us? Of course not (as if we could create a perfect story)… but it’s what my mind returns to when I think of God’s amazing love, his unconditional election, and his irresistible grace in saving us from the squalor and helplessness of us in our sins!
And I think it fits the language of scripture: “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ The spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” (Romans 8:14-16)
The debate over the doctrines of Calvinism has been going on for centuries among various godly men and women, and I can almost guarantee that won’t change anytime soon. This is just my own attempt to positively add to the discussion by framing a couple of the doctrines in language that I don’t think we typically hear (or at least I’ve never seen elsewhere!).
{ 842 comments }
Mike,
This is a great post and I think you are exactly right. Another picture of salvation which fits Ephesians 2:1-10 perfectly is that we are dead, dry, lifeless bones that can do nothing to bring ourselves to life, but only God by breathing life into us can make it happen.
Dr. Grant Osborne who is a non-calvinist says, “I see choice in the Bible.” Because he is an honest intellectual and scholar he admits there arent any passages that really draw out our “choice” in salvation, but he says it is merely implied everywhere. Well, he can read that into the text, but something that isn’t merely implied, but stated very clearly is that we are DEAD in our sins, BUT God rich in mercy, MADE us alive to Christ.
We were dead, God made us alive- it truly is crystal clear. I don’t see how people read that and say- we are dead, but we have just enough life to choice God so that he can make us alive. Of course, they dress it up pretty than that, but even a dressed up skunk is still a skunk!
The language we see in Scripture- HE CAUSED US TO BE BORN AGAIN- is clear to all those who don’t insist on playing a role in their salvation beyond providing the sin.
Again, great post- you give a good picture of our salvation.
actually it’s “made us alive WITH Christ.”
Thank you for this post. I have never been able to grasp the intricacies of Calvinism, as my Calvinist acquaintances know, so I am grateful for another way to view it, in hopes that I might have a chance to understand it better.
Hi MATT SVOBODA,
You wrote this about the non-Calvinist Dr. Osborne saying, “I see choice in the Bible.” Because he is an honest intellectual and scholar he admits there arent any passages that really draw out our “choice” in salvation, but he says it is merely implied everywhere.”
I suppose he knows of this passage from the book of Deuteronomy and he, of course, knows Our Lord’s ‘I am the Way the Truth and the Life’, so I can understand that he would see a connection:
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. ‘
Choose life so that you and your descendants may live.
Deuteronomy 30:19
Matt,
What about the multitude of Bible verses that call for the unbeliever to … believe … repent … turn …come …receive …accept …
“But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12,13).
It is clear that God effects the new birth [regeneration] but it is conditioned upon faith — “as many as received him.”
Unless of course … you believe that regeneration precedes faith.
If so … you have a “saved unbeliever”
Sorry, there is no such creature in the Bible.
Blessings!
Ron,
No calvinist denies that you have to repent and believe. Deal with what calvinists really believe.
You can’t say that people are dead in their sin and yet choose God. Dead people can’t make live choices. Non-calvinists accept two contradictory things and call them both truth. At least Arminians are consistent by saying people aren’t born dead in their sin. Non-calvinists try to have it both ways- they are dead in sin, yet they choose God.
They are either born good and can choose God or they are dead in their sin and God must make them alive. Pick one- be consistent.
The Bible calls people to repent and believe, but it is God that must enable them to do this because they are dead in their sin.
Matt,
You write, “No calvinist denies that you have to repent and believe. Deal with what calvinists really believe.” I read through Ron’s comment to you. Where did he deny “what calvinists really believe”? I must have missed it.
Second, you assert “You can’t say that people are dead in their sin and yet choose God…” It depends on what you actually mean by “dead in sin” and if what you mean is what the Bible means when it speaks of human depravity.
Third, “Non-calvinists accept two contradictory things and call them both truth. At least Arminians are consistent by saying people aren’t born dead in their sin. Non-calvinists try to have it both ways- they are dead in sin, yet they choose God.” Matt, you simply are very confusing here. A) Please demonstrate the blatant contradiction “Non-Calvinists” call both “truth”.
B) Who said Arminians teach “people aren’t born dead in their sin.” This would be one of those times, Matt, when it’s you, rather than Ron, who is placing beliefs at the doorsteps of those who do not hold necessarily such a view. In fact, most every Non-Calvinist with whom I am acquainted (either in person or via book) can and do make the very statement you make closing your comment: “The Bible calls people to repent and believe, but it is God that must enable them to do this because they are dead in their sin.” The Calvinist and non-Calvinist both hold to prevenient grace; the difference is in what constitutes the prevenient in the grace.
In addition, could you to please inform us which SBC non-Calvinists do not believe humans are born dead in trespasses and sins? The only one I can think of off hand is the late Professor Dale Moody. Perhaps you know of others.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
1) I have never met a calvinist that says their are saved unbelievers. Also, he implied in the beginning that somehow Calvinists deny that people must repent and believe, or turn, receive, etc.
2) Dead in sin can only mean one thing. That people are dead(lifeless) in their sin. I have never seen a dead person make a decision, have you?
3) I think my point was pretty clear.
4) I agree that most non-calvinists believe people are born wicked, with a sinful nature. That is why I used the word Arminian. True Arminianism opposes the 5 points of Calvinism- which include the T, does it not?
Dale Moody certainly does come to mind, but I am not talking about SBC only non-Calvinists. Well over majority of people in the SBC do believe people are born dead in trespasses and sins and for that I am grateful. But within broader evangelicalism that belief isn’t as prominent as it is in the SBC.
Matt,
A) I read back thru Ron’s comment. He says not a thing about Calvinists denying repentance and faith. If he did, please point it out. As far as the “saved unbeliever” Ron was only showing what he sees as implied by your statement, Matt. Don’t you see that? Hence, it does not mean Ron was not dealing with what he sees Calvinists “really believe.”
B). “Dead in sin can only mean one thing.” Well, now that’s the question, isn’t it? So your assuming only *one* possible answer exists solves the issue? Well, I’ll declare…
C) You are correct: you were very clear in *asserting* a contradiction exists between two alleged “truths” non-Calvinists supposedly make. Assertion does not equate to demonstration, Matt. Sorry.
D) You are patently incorrect, Matt. No one believed more in total depravity–spiritual deadness–than J. Arminius himself. Nor is John Wesley an exception. And for the record, you have it completely backwards: “True Arminianism opposes the 5 points of Calvinism.”
E) I haven’t a clue what you’re trying to suggest in the paragraph on D.Moody.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
I’m not assuming anything. Dead can only mean one thing. Here is a link for you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dead
You are right about Arminius and Wesley, but it wasn’t too long after Arminius died that his followers rejected his belief on that point and began to believe in the goodness of man. Not all of course, but there are many Arminians throughout history that have rejected that man is born dead in their sins.
Matt, In your comment, number 7, you wrote to Peter: “2) Dead in sin can only mean one thing. That people are dead(lifeless) in their sin. I have never seen a dead person make a decision, have you?”
If we are born dead in our trespasses and that constitutes dead spiritually–not dead physically–the person indeed can “make a decision”. While I was dead in my trespasses, I decided whether or not to brush my teeth each morning, whether to drink coffee or water. I was a living, breathing, walking, smut-talking, seeing, hearing, “dead in my trespasses” female. But I was not unable to make a decision. I was not brain dead, nor flat-lined. I was able to decide to go to church where I heard the Word of God. Before I was made alive in Christ, I was dead in trespasses–but not dead as a physically dead person who cannot make a decision. selahV
SelahV,
Your analogy is horrible. Someone who is dead spiritually cannot make a “live” spiritual decision. Obviously we are alive physically therefore we make physical decisions. No you were not physically brain dead, but you were spiritually as dead as a person in a coffin. No one in a coffin makes decisions.
If someone is dead physically they cant make any physical decisions- same as spiritually.
Someone who is dead spiritually cannot make a “live” spiritual decision.
Matt, even though I agree with you overall on these doctrines, this is one area of the calvinistic defense I have issue with; primarily b/c (at least in the human situation) I don’t think biblical death is cessation of function; rather it is separation.
We are separated from a “right relationship” w/ God in our spiritual death; and we are separated from our bodies in physical death.
The problem is if we take spiritual death = lack of ability b/c we are like a dead man in a coffin, then that also means spiritually we can no longer sin, either.
In spiritual death we still can make spiritual decisions, it’s just that we are so blinded by sin and so opposed to God we will never make a decision in his direction (Rom 3).
Mike,
That is an interesting take. The coffin is probably not a good analogy. What I am saying is they are dead in sin, therefore, they cannot make a LIVE decision. People who are dead in sin choose death, every time.
So maybe you are right, I shouldn’t say they cant make any decisions because what I merely mean is that they cant make LIVE decisions. They choose death and darkness every single time.
Does that make more sense? Yes, they choose to sin because they are dead, therefore, they themselves cannot make choices of LIFE because they are dead.
Matt…”horrible, huh?” well, brother…you just go pastor a church and tell them they can’t make any decision about God because they are dead in their sin–and have no need to bother praying because they are dead and God doesn’t hear them anyway–because they are dead, and dead people can’t pray and ask Jesus to help them understand His Word, because they can’t make those kind of decisions. They are dead. Go ahead. Tell them they are like a dead man in a coffin. And while you’re at it, tell them they didn’t really decide to come to church today–because they are dead, and dead people can’t make the moral decision to follow any nudgings from the Holy Spirit because they are dead in their trespasses. What do you say if a lost individual asks you a spiritual question? do you tell them to go back to their coffin because they can’t understand things of the Spirit–because they are dead in their trespasses?
I may have a “horrible” analogy, Matt, but yours seems to give little more than an overstuffed, satin-lined lid to study while considering the reason one is lying in a coffin–dead in one’s trespasses. selahV
SelahV,
Did you read my comment above yours? Apparently not.
Also, your comment badly misrepresents Calvinism. It seems I struck some type of nerve, but that is no reason for you to ramble off a post that completely misrepresents what Calvinists believe. I clarified what I was saying in the comment above yours- you either missed it, ignored it, or saw it and decided to post your comment despite my clarification.
Not me or one other Calvinist acts and responds to people the way you indicated in your comment.
Matt, I read your comment above mine…I was responding to your comment #11 to me…not Mike. And I wasn’t trying to represent Calvinism or misrepresent Calvinism with my comment #14. I haven’t mentioned Calvinism once until this one. As far as my response being out of line because of your response to Mike, I don’t see how that matters. What you said to me is not what you said to Mike.
In my response to you, I was trying to point out how your “coffin” analogy regarding being “dead” in trespasses was worse than my “horrible” analogy for which you took such distaste in the beginning.
As for all your other assumptions regarding my response to you, well…as usual, you must be right because I’m always wrong, huh?
Originally in your comment #7 (and point #2) you said: “Dead in sin can only mean one thing. That people are dead (lifeless) in their sin. I have never seen a dead person make a decision, have you?”
I didn’t mean to irritate or offend you, Matt, with my first answer to your rhetorical question. It seems no matter what I say to you in a stream, you take it to mean something I did not intend. I went overboard in (comment #14) with the “dead” phrase, because it makes perfect sense to me to overemphasize what “dead” can mean to living people, in light of your analogy of the coffin.
I suppose I should have just told you that your analogy was “horrible”. Would that have better communicated to you that I didn’t agree with it? selahV
SelahV,
My analogy was bad, which is what I admitted to Mike. I didn’t get emotional and upset because Mike pointed out the flaw in my analogy. I saw he was right, clarified what I was saying and moved on.
Which is why your comment was completely unnecessary because you rambled on about a point that I had just clarified and told Mike that he was right- the coffin analogy wasn’t the best.
I am a blunt person which is why I dont mind other people being blunt, like Mike was with me, if you are not used to that with me and it struck a nerve then I apologize, but I think you need to calm yourself a little bit.
The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches salvation before believe: “This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.” X. II.
Loraine Boettner writes about salvation first and believe later: “A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved.” Loraine Boettner, Predestination, p. 101; cited by Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, p. 521.
Arthur W. Pink says regeneration first and believing as a result: “A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, but he believes in Christ because he has been regenerated.” Arthur W. Pink, The Holy Spirit, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978, p. 55).
R. C. Sproul perpetuates this error of regeneration before believing: “We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order that we may believe.” R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, p. 73; cited by Ibid., p. 521.
Note the implications of this doctrinal error: 1) faith is not necessary to be saved at all, which is completely contrary to Scripture; 2) salvation is thus settled by the decree from eternity and carried out by irresistible grace; 3) and faith, according to the theory, comes as a result of salvation. This is an alien teaching–alien to the Bible that is!
The Calvinist altered & reversed the Biblical order of salvation to irresistible imputation of righteousness, there is now no responsibility to believe to be saved.
According to the system of Calvinism, the elect one is irresistibly saved apart from faith or condition whatsoever, the saved one believes after he has been saved. And so, if belief or faith is after salvation, then tense and mood with respect to salvation terms have no functional necessity in the New Testament. So the rhetoric about repentance and faith is in essence a meaningless nonsense.
Concerning dead in sin, we choose that which is our greatest desire. Before Christ it was sin. Why? Because we were spiritually dead and could not choose anything else. There are some very good people who are without Christ. But their good deeds are not done to please God, but for other reasons. They were raised that way, they do it to please other people, to keep their jobs, all reasons but to please God. After God changes the heart supernaturally, with his power, we then see ourselves as God sees us without Christ, we see our need for a Savior, and we fall in love with our Savior. We don’t want to come to Christ just to escape hell, but because we truly see our need and we run to what God has to offer, not out of fear, but of our love.
I didn’t count the number of quotes in this post, but I don’t remember seeing one quote from Scripture. The problem is that all the quotes give “definitions,” and not exegesis. There is a difference.
I believe that if we start with Scripture and stay with Scripture — in context — no one will ever be able to give a conclusive judgment on the Calvinism vs. Arminian question. In two thousand years, nobody has solved the problem.
My question always comes back: to what end do we need to attack or defend TULIP? It is not the Scripture we are debating but how one might “act” if they believe one way or another.
Let me give an example: what difference does it make if one accepts the definition provided by the Westminster Confession as true? In the real world when such a person encounters another person (assume the other person is lost) how will this definition benefit the lost person. The answer to that question is worth debating but I don’t think an endless debate of “definitions” is going to help anyone.
Great points and these cannot be explained away!
Well, I don’t think so either, but clearly some try very hard!
Matt,
O.K. teach me something tonight before I hit the hay …
When does a Calvinist believe the unbeliever repents and believes?
Does regeneration precede faith in your system of belief?
And, if you do believe that regeneration precedes faith … does this pattern fit your personal testimony?
Blessings!
Ron,
As soon as our hearts are regenerated is when we have faith and believe the gospel. There is never a big gap between regeneration and faith, IMHO. Some calvinists may disagree with me.
Matt,
The order of salvation that you describe is:
Regeneration >>> Faith >>> Believe
Like I said, if regeneration comes before believing; you have a “saved” unbeliever. No such creature in the Bible.
Believe and Receive … this is the gospel message.
Blessings!
Ron:
This is my “order”… By the way, I dont like “ordo salutis”- I think most of them are simultaneous, not one after another.
Regeneration
Faith>>>>Believe
Sorry … Matt, I disagree.
Did you always believe this to be true?
Does this “order” agree with your personal testimony?
Blessings!
Ron and Matt,
God’s regeneration causes faith causes belief. As I think Matt alluded to, they’re simultaneous. Can’t have any without the other at any point, in my opinion.
I can’t make sense out of saying simultaneous events can also be sequential. Help me out here.
Hmm, I don’t think I agree that regeneration and faith are simultaneous. Also, what distinction are you making between faith and belief?
Bill,
You are correct. Faith always precedes regeneration.
The Bible says in Romans, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
How does this work from my view?
This is where Acts 16:14 comes in. The passage on Lydia hearing, God opening her heart to understand and receive.
Don: I didn’t say that. I just said I don’t think they are simultaneous. I believe regeneration precedes faith.
I have been offered broccoli. I am free to eat broccoli. But I don’t eat it because of the horrifying taste. I can’t make myself like it.
But if God changes my tastebuds, then the next time I am offered broccoli, I will take, and eat.
I think people confuse regeneration and sanctification. The change God brings about in us after we come to faith in Christ may be dramatic at first, but it is not a onetime phenomena but a lifelong alteration. Regeneration is the Big Bang that starts the whole thing off.
There are times in Scripture where it is clearly stated that God grants repentance and gives the light of salvation. This means that God effectually moves inside the thoughts and affections of people, turning them toward him in love where there was once rebellion. Naturally, most of us can point to a time when we made the choice to follow Christ. Calvinists are simply saying that God was effectually working to grant the knowledge and affections to assure that choice was made. Without this sovereign inner working of God, no one would be saved because the Bible says that no one seeks him. The fact that no one seeks God and no one understands is absolutely irreconcilable with any notion that faith precedes and is therefore at least a secondary cause of regeneration.
Mike,
Romans 8:14-16 is a great passage.
It is backed up by Gal. 4:5 “That we might receive the full rights as sons.”
Of course, an adoption record receives a stamp and seal to give authenticity of the adoption and the rights of the adoptee.
Ephesians 1:13 says, “….Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.”
Verse 14 goes on to say, “Who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession — to the praise of his glory.”
While your story and anecdote sounds good to some … I see no teaching of unconditional election or irrestible grace. While the baby in the story could not resist, a sinner can resist the Spirit of God; I did for years.
Ephesians 1:13 says, “Having believed”.
Blessings!
“While the baby in the story could not resist, a sinner can resist the Spirit of God; I did for years.”
And why did you finally change, Ron, if you don’t mind my asking?
Ron,
Yeah, “having believed.” What does that passage say right before that? Deal with passages in context, that passage comes 2 verses after, “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,”
All things- includes salvation. He predestined us in him before the foundation of the world, therefore, we “have believed.” And I am thankful that he did because left to ourselves we would never “choose him.”
Ron,
The question is not THAT they believed, it’s always HOW they believed.
As they’ve said before, the worst thing about Calvinism is what non-Calvinists SAY about it.
The natural man cannot perceive Spiritual things, and all the “free will” in the world cannot overcome that. It takes a move of God in the heart of a person, to bring that about.
God knew the day, the hour, and the process of my salvation before I was even born. That made it certain. The Calvinist would say it was certain BECAUSE God knew it. The non-Calvinist would say God knew it because it WAS certain. Which, of course, would mean that something besides God had sovereignty over my life.
I don’t think so.
What the non-Calvinists don’t seem to realize is that the Calvinist message is “If you, a sinner, will repent, confess your sin, and turn to Jesus for salvation, He will gloriously save your soul and make you a new creation.” At least that was the case during the years I was a member of 3 different Presbyterian denominations’ churches.
Quoted from above–What the non-Calvinists don’t seem to realize is that the Calvinist message is “If you, a sinner, will repent, confess your sin, and turn to Jesus for salvation, He will gloriously save your soul and make you a new creation.”
Isn’t this the point? There are acres of common ground between both sides of the argument and yet we let our arrogance and desire to be right about what happens first turn into so many things God hates. Let’s unify around what we do believe, that the blood of Christ is sufficient to cleanse us of our unrighteousness.
We sit and argue to “finer points” of theology while nearly half of the world has little or no access to this good news we take for granted and argue to the point of sinfulness. Is it good to know God’s word? Absolutely, but please do not let the good things keep you from the best things. Let us go and make disciples.
Seth: I hear this argument but it is bogus. What this view does is show the Majesty and power of God. That God doesn’t just sit passively by waiting for us to decide, he does the work we are not capable of doing. It brings the opposite of arrogance. The frustration seen is not arrogance, but not wanting to see who God is, who he really is, his power, being downgraded in favor of mere humans having the upper hand. They don’t. God always has from the time of Adam and always will, even today.
Debbie, you’ve assumed I oppose your point of view. Of course God has the upper hand. Is the created superior to the creator? How can I realize I need a savior unless I see my sinfulness by the work of the Holy Spirit. I can’t. But lets get about the business of sharing this Gospel instead of debating it.
Seth: The topic is Adoption, Irresistable Grace and Unconditional Election, an anecdote. I am sorry if my memory is short, but I don’t remember addressing you before this comment. No, wait, my memory is pretty darn good. I still don’t remember discussing this with you
Now, I haven’t commented all day, for starts, and what you are saying is spiritual lingo for quit talking about it. We have those yelling there is not enough doctrine. You yell that there is too much. This is why I don’t listen much to either side. Can you tell I’m irritated? I get very irritated to those who try and pass themselves off in this way. It is probably one of the most ridiculous and frustrating comments anyone can make.
And I apologize Seth for the course rendering of my comment, but you might as well just shorten your comment to don’t talk about it anymore. I don’t want to hear it. But the topic is what it is.
Darby,
Several times you mention that “no man seeks God.”
This may be true for many. However, when a man is being convicted by the Holy Spirit of God there is a seeking; especially after hearing the gospel and studying the Word.
Hebrews 11:6 says, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who EARNESTLY SEEK HIM.”
Acts 17:27 says, “God did this so that men would SEEK HIM and perhaps reach out for him and find him.”
I came to Christ at the age of 23 after a very sinful life. God used every witness [and they were few] and God used His Word, as the Holy Spirit did his “office work” on me … bringing me to repentance and faith.
No glory for me because he was the: convicter, convincer, and converter!
Praise Him!
Blessings!
Wholeheartedly agreed. Blessings back.
Ron,
HOW do they come to seek Him?
And, Ron, the Scripture says NO MAN, how did you turn that into “that may be true for SOME?” Huh?
And how do you reconcile Acts 16:6, preceding your quoted verse, in which the Holy Spirit forbids evangelism in Asia? Doesn’t 17:25-26 say that God allots the boundaries, even the boundaries that are forbidden to evangelize in? Hmmm.
Judaism is a strong advocate of man’s free will and of his ability and need to choose the proper path.
The rabbis believe that God is ‘omniscient’ (all-knowing).
An old saying among the rabbis: ‘man plans, God laughs’
The question then becomes: does the all-knowing, all-powerful Master of the Universe permit choice?
The rabbis say ‘yes’.
The implications of this then focus on:
the help given to that choice by the ‘Spirit of Counsel’.
The Holy Spirit of God, in aiding in our discernment,
is a powerful testimony to the gifts we have been given,
as God is the ‘first cause’ of all goodness that comes to us.
In our human weakness, we cannot fully comprehend the mysterious paradox of a sovereign God, the Master of the Universe, Who is allowing us ‘choice’.
In our human weakness, we then ask ‘does God open His Hand of love to ALL who live, that they may choose life or not’ ?
In our human weakness, we must acknowledge that His Ways are far above our ways, so it is likely that these questions will remain unanswered for Mankind, until the Day of the Lord,
when we no longer see ‘as through a glass darkly’.
Mike,
I think analogies possess a special attraction to illustrate a particular truth one wishes to communicate and do so with a unique power all its own. Thanks for allowing your creativity to work. It does stump me how exactly the story you create relates to the visionary motif of Calvinism. In fact, it seems the infant only did what any infant would naturally do. In other words, there is no special or supernatural element in it at all.
Moreover, there is positive progression in the relationship between infant and parents from the very beginning. That is, nothing in the infant rebels or rejects the parents’ love. Or, to say it another way, the infant shows no signs of spiritual “deadness” resulting in hate directly toward the parents which, of course, is a fundamental denial of Calvinism’s view of human depravity. Perhaps ‘tweaking’ the story in that area would lend more ‘punch’ to the purpose of it…
With that, I am…
Peter
Oh, by the way, Matt, could you please give me the reference for your quote from Osbourne? Thanks.
With that, I am…
Peter
I wish I could.
He came to teach Revelation and before he started his lecture we started discussing this issue and he said it then.
Darby,
You write, “The fact that no one seeks God and no one understands is absolutely irreconcilable with any notion that faith precedes and is therefore at least a secondary cause of regeneration.” Interesting. So far as I know neither Calvinist nor non-Calvinist put faith as cause–either primary (non-Calvinist) or secondary (Calvinist)–to regeneration. No one or no thing causes our rebirth outside of the Holy Spirit Himself.
With that, I am…
Peter
Agreed Peter, as far as you’ve stated. I have never heard anyone say faith is the cause of his regeneration. So are you saying that regeneration precedes faith?
Mike,
Let me give you another angle on adoption in the ancient Roman world. In most cases — children were not adopted; adults were adopted. Children were brought into homes and loved and cared for, and the adoption usually took place when the former slave or whomever became an adult.
While the tiny baby could not resist the loving adoptive parents coming to his country and taking him home, certainly you can see that an adult could “resist” the adoption if he or she did not want to become a son or daughter of the person seeking the adoption.
John 12:32 shares “…if I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men (peoples; literally everyone) to Myself.”
John 6:44 shares “No one can come to Me unless the Father …draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
I hope you are not translating the “drawing” of these verses into words like: dragged, forced, coerced, or even kidnapped.
The baby [in your story] could be forced, coerced, and dragged away without any resisting. However, an adult with a rebellious [I'll have it my way] spirit could indeed resist this adoption.
Blessings!
Ron: Read the Apostle Paul/Saul’s conversion story. Was he dragged, forced, coerced? (Acts 9)
How about Lydia? (Acts 16:9-15)
Debbie,
Thanks for the question, I’ve got time for Paul.
So did God choose Saul/Paul or did Saul/Paul choose God?
I think we can answer … Yes. Both are true statements.
Paul enjoyed giving his testimony about his Acts 9 salvation experience.
In Acts 22 [Williams Translation] …
14. “and he said, “The God of our forefathers has appointed you to learn His will and see the Righteous One and hear Him speak,
15. “because you are to be His witness to “ALL MEN” of what you have seen and heard” [emphasis mine].
16. “And now, why are you waiting? Get up and be baptized and wash your sins away BY CALLING on His name” [emphasis mine].
History would tell us that Paul listened to the Lord [he sure got his attention] and Paul listened to Ananias.
Verse 14 … indeed tells us that Paul was a chosen vessel for the eternal purpose and plan of God.
Verse 16 … teaches us that Paul … got up from his blinding spell … calling on Jesus and was baptized. Paul chose God and His Will for his life.
Then he went preaching to “All Men”.
Because Paul was faithful … we [the Gentiles] got to hear the Good News.
Debbie … Ain’t God good?
Going by the words contained in the passages, I would disagree.
John 12:32 reads: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”
The translation based on the original that has SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD (conditional mood) should run as follows: “And I, if I may be [subj, mood] lifted up from the earth, I will attract/draw all conceivable men with regard to Myself.”
This verse plainly states that to attract/draw is CONTINGENT on being lifted up. . . . Accordingly, there is neither Calvinistic predestination nor decree here or in John 6. There is no predestination toward a forced grace here.
if I may be lifted up from the earth: This is a third class condition clause, expressing CONDITION. Then, if this happens, the drawing process will be set in operation in which
the Holy Spirit will convict, woo, draw, and attract all men. The statements “All that the Father gives me shall come to Me” and “except the Father . . . may draw him” of John 6, and “will draw/attract all conceivable men with respect to Myself” are predicated upon the THIRD CLASS CONDITION “if I may be lifted up from the earth” and NOT the decree of election/predestination that produces irresistible grace.
Nothing is said, hinted, or implied here or in John 6 about a decree. The “decree is an artificial construct” brought to theology to support a man made philosophy! The decree is a man-made doctrine, existing in concept, but not in fact [text].
I will attract/draw all conceivable men: Yes, this verse says Christ will attract/draw all conceivable men. Does this teach universalism? Absolutely not! But what it does say:
Christ shed His blood to attract/draw all conceivable men of a fallen race to come to Him. The word “come” in one form or another, is used in Jn 6:37, 44, 45, and 65 four times. In each instance the form is in the ACTIVE SENSE, showing that coming involves HUMAN VOLITION/WILL in cooperation with Divine initiative.
Thus God, the Trinity, are faithful to all conceivable men in a diversity of ways that They may use to save fallen man, convict, draw, attract, or the like; these Divine efforts are NOT definite redemption.
with regard to Myself: This shows Christ is involved in the effort to reap the reward of His sufferings, drawing all men for whom He suffered, shed His blood, and died. But it is precisely this that Calvinists deny to the Son?the reward of His sufferings and that He even died for ALL men. There is thus no greater enemy of the cross than LIMITED ATONEMENT.
I deem that no Calvinist has affirmed his/her position on this area of doctrine grounded in the text of the Greek New Testament–meaning, it is a man-made philosophy but not a biblical teaching. I see this position only as a stringing of quoting Bible texts out of contexts to support a man made philosophy.
My Dad had a good sermon on this very text. He would often invoke George Truett,or one of his stories with attribution, as example, a way of getting at the Text.
I think in addition to Calvin, Charles Kimball may be a good lens for many of you to get at the full meaning.
lu ba bi,
Thank you for the excellent post and for using the Word!
<
If I may offer a counter, since you start with John 12:32 and then argue into John 6.
With John 12:32 the Greek literally says: pantas helkuso pros emauton… or… “I will draw all to myself”… the pantas is kind of open ended as to what all Jesus is talking about. However given the context that just before this Philip and Andrew brought some Greek people to Jesus and with that Jesus finally says “I have come to this hour…when I am lifted up I will draw all to myself”, one could easily aruge that Jesus is talking about the inclusion of the gentiles and that the all refers to all nations–Jew and Greek–and not all people individually.
So you can’t really make a solid argument that Jesus is talking about all people and then read that back into the drawing of John 6.
With that the idea of “coming to Christ” is not an issue. The calvinist agrees that a person must repent, turn to Christ, exercise faith, etc. The question we ask is: how does one turn to faith and does everyone have this ability?
Consider John 10… vs. 14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me.” vs. 16 “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” Here Jesus says that his sheep know his voice. And he has sheep who are not of this fold (the Jews…thus refering to the gentiles). Jesus says these are his sheep but it is in the future they will hear his voice (and thus follow). So he considers them sheep though they have not yet heard his voice or followed him.
A little further, Jesus says to some who do not believe in him: “but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life…” (26-28).
Here, Jesus clearly tells them why they do not believe: they are not his sheep. He doesn’t say “You are not of my flock b/c you do not beleive” but “You do not believe b/c you are not of my flock.” If they are his sheep, when they hear his voice they will follow and have eternal life. But since they are not his sheep they do not follow.
You take that and it fits perfectly back into John 6:44 that no one can come unless they are drawn by the Father.
The Father makes us his sheep, thus giving us the ability to believe so that when we hear the “voice” of Jesus we will believe, we will follow, and we will have life. If we are not made his sheep then no matter how much we hear, we will never believe b/c it’s not of our nature.
Yes we have to choose to follow and have faith, but first God must enable our faith. And all who have their faith enabled will make that choice and follow. Through the Gospel Jesus’ voice calls to all who hear, but only the sheep listen and follow.
Mark,
Bang up job.
Again I would remind you that irresistible grace can’t be found in John 6:44-45. Predestination and irresistible grace can’t be drawn from a subjunctive mood of may draw of helkuse.
“The subjunctive is the mood of mild contingency; the mood of probability. While the indicative assumes reality, the subjunctive assumes unreality” (Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p 163).
Here is what scholar(s) say about the third class condition IF (ean).
“Third class condition is the probable future condition. It is expressed by if [ean] with the subjunctive in the protasis and any form needed in the apodosis. It expresses that which is not really taking place but which probably will take place in the future” (Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek, p 82, , 109).
Most translations disregard the third class condition ?ean + the subjunctive. This construction is what gives the third class condition its distinctive meaning, hence the manner of translation expressive of that meaning.
Accordingly, when the subjunctive is not translated, as is done in Jn 6:44, and is simply translated draw, rather than may draw, the translation is not a third class condition.
Jn 6:44 is regularly translated as a first class condition.
The translation that incorporates third class condition should read: “No man is able to come to Me, except the Father?the One Who sent me?may draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
How Scholars Translate This Verse?
Young’s Literal Translation reads as follows: “44 no one is able to come unto me, if [ean] the Father who sent me may not [m?] draw [helkus?] him, and I will raise him up in the last day.”
The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament reads: “44 … UNLESS THE FATHER — HAVING SENT ME SHOULD DRAW [helkus?] HIM ….”
The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament reads: “44 … unless the Father the [one] having sent me should draw [helkus?] him ….”
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament reads: “44 … unless the Father who sent me draw [helkus?] him ….” Berry was a Baptist and translates with the indicative mood?draw?as do most translators. So translated, the third class condition is ignored.
Young, Brown and Comfort, and Marshall who translated the third class condition are first class Greek scholars.
Calvinistic seduction could well be at its best at two crucial passages–Jn 3:16 and 6:44. Jn 3:16 is critical to their doctrine because it shows that salvation is conditional, using subjunctive verbs; Jn 6:44 is critical because it is conditional, using the third class condition, rendering null and void their decree, election, predestination, and irresistible grace.
So at all cost they must pull off a literary sleight of hand–and they do.
In John 6:44 there is a third class condition, which has IF (ean m?) + a verb in the subjunctive or conditional mood. This class expresses potential, probability, not the absolute.
But the Five Point Calvinist needs, must have, the absolute here as key support for the decree. So this passage is regularly translated as a first class condition, if (ean) + a verb in the indicative mood. The sleight of hand is this: While claiming that the construction is in fact third class, at the same time, they argue that the translation should be draw, not may draw!
Here the calvinistic theory has swallowed up the normal expression of the text.
We should serve the text not a particular assume theory (e.g., Tulip).
Other texts should not be brought to reading something that is just NOT there in John 6–which is to negate the clear subjunctive mood in there.
A clear text should not be clouded by other text(s) just to prove the man made theory of irresistible grace based on inability.
lu ba bi, thanks for taking time to clarify the Word with diligence. I, for one, appreciate it. selahV
lu ba bi,
You said – “There is no predestination toward a forced grace here.”
Is prevenient grace ‘forced grace’?
Mark,
How would you show prevenient grace from Scripture?
lu ba bi,
I’m not making a case for prevenient grace. I figured, based on your comment against irresistible grace that you held to prevenient grace. If you don’t hold to prevenient grace either then my question does not make sense. I would then wonder what your position on God’s grace is.
“There is thus no greater enemy of the cross than LIMITED ATONEMENT.”
Then why do you limit it?
Mr. Fox,
Can you show some samples of what, how and why Calvin and Kimball said what in their writings on this area of doctrine?
Lu Ba Bi,
You are my hero. I think you have just made a valid argument – based upon the original texts, mind you – that suggests the Calvinistic doctrine from John 6 isn’t monergistic in effect. It is monergistic in origin, but synergistic in effect.
Marvin,
Do go on…
My understanding is that regeneration precedes faith. Both Calvinists and non-Calvinist believe that we are saved through faith in Christ. The question is why some put their faith in Christ and others do not? What is the inherent difference? How does someone go from hating God to loving God? How does someone with a heart of stone suddenly have a heart of flesh? Even at this point both groups would say that it is a work of God, of His spirit. So we go back even further. Why does the work of the Spirit “work” on some people and not on others? Ultimately, what is the difference? Is God “trying” to save some, but failing? In fact, failing most of the time?
Calvinists come under fire for believing that God chooses to same some, but not others. But non-Calvinists are really no better off, for hell will still be filled with people whom God allowed to be born, die, and be damned, knowing from all eternity that they would not accept Him and be saved.
The Doctrines of Sovereign Grace (Calvinism) do in no way dismiss or do violence to human choice. Please, please, everyone get a copy of “The Bondage and Liberation of the Will – A Defence of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius” by John Calvin and read it.
YES, Calvin wrote a book defending the doctrine of Human Choice!!! I am just amazed at how many of those engaged on both sides of this debate today do not actually know what Calvin believed concerning this topic.
Here is link to my blog post on this topic: http://gritsgrace.blogspot.com/2009/01/bondage-and-liberation-of-will.html
A copy of the Book can be purchased at: http://www.monergismbooks.com/The-Bondage-and-Liberation-of-the-Will-p-16201.html
Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power… (Psalms 110:3)
Grace Always,
Greg
Wow. In a few short paragraphs, I (and a whole slew of others) have been accused of:
1. Believing in imaginary creatures
2. Believing doctrinal error
3. Believing alien teachings
4. Altering and reversing biblical teaching
5. Beleiving meaningless. nonsensical rhetoric
6. Believing man made teachings
7. Quoting Bible texts out of context to support said man made teaching
And they call Calvinists divisive!
Glad I know where I stand.
But more than that, I’m now confused – I thought that God tells me that I can cast all my cares upon him, but evidently there are exceptions. My main “care” at this point in my life is that my children come to know him and follow him. But, evidently he is already drawing everybody to himself and is doing all he can for them and has left it up to them to decide for themselves if they want to follow him or not. I guess its not his job anymore?
How then should I evangelize my children? Should I say “Kids, I really want you to be in heaven with me, but God has given you the freedom to reject him. He is drawing you, just as he draws everyone, but you can still refuse him. I can pray all I want that God would save you, but since he loves you and wants you to come to him he won’t. But he’ll keep trying and trying, and giving you opportunity after opportunity until you die. In the end, it is really up to you, so you had better start reading your bibles and hoping beyond hope that you’re blind eyes will see and your deaf ears will hear, and your dead hearts will beat again. I’m gonna stop praying for your salvation now since God is already doing all he can – I sure hope you make the right choice.”
And don’t think I’m *only* being snarky. I had a friend once who basically believed that, and he was not alone.
On a side note, imagine if I believed in an age of accountability on top of that! My evangelism to them, coupled with the fact that God refuses to save them would be interesting. You see, my eldest daughter just turned 13 and she’s getting close to (if she hasn’t passed it already) that age where she could possibly go to hell if she doesn’t die “real soon.”
I can see it now – at the judgement seat where all these people exist who say things like “Why didn’t you tell me about Jesus? I wouldn’t be going to hell if you had just told me about Jesus!” My daughter could possibly be there saying “Daddy, I know you told me about Jesus, but I never accepted him and died after I became accountable for my sin. If only I had died sooner, I would not be going to hell! You knew that! Why did you let me live?”
And I would have to say “Honey, I loved you too much to prevent you from making the wrong choices. I gave you many chances all throughout your life, but you never quite got it. I’m really sorry I’ll never see you agian. But remember, I love you.”
Huh…evidently, that’s what God would say to her too.
Jeff: This really resonates with me, and was one of the primary factors in my becoming a Calvinist. When we pray for someone to be saved (our children, in this case), what precisely are we asking God to DO? If God can’t really DO anything in that regard, why are we praying? If man’s pre-faith nature is fixed, and his free will inviolate, what do we expect from God?
The Gospel of John – Chapter 1
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehendeda it not.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he powerb to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born , not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
In verse 13 we find that Salvation (new birth) is:
a) Not by or according to our Heritage
b) Not by or according to our Goodness
c) Not by or according to our Will
d) But solely by and according to the Sovereign Will of God
Jesus said in John 6:65 that “no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”
It would take some extreme exegetical gymnastics in order to deny that these verses teaches anything less than that in salvation “the unwilling are made willing” by the Sovereign power of God alone.
Grace Always
Greg
Greg,
It is good to have a great conviction based on the content of a text of Scripture. But in a certain case when the text does NOT say what you believe, it does not matter how strongly you hold to it–I deem that your conviction of John 6:44-45 does not make it says what you wanted it to teach.
Listen to a linguist on this text:
Jerome H. Smith is the author of Nelson’s The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Revised and Expanded, says this of John 6:44-45: “Logically, Calvinism cannot base absolute sovereignty and absolute predestination or the doctrine of irresistibility upon (or in the face of) the ‘MAY of the subjunctive mood in the PROBABLE FUTURE THIRD CLASS CONDITION in John 6:44, 65. That would be an absolute contradiction in terms. ‘May’ expresses CONTINGENCY; the ‘third class condition’ expresses probability, but NOT certainty, because of the contingency. The ‘third class condition’ asserts that if a condition is met, a certain result will follow. Thus, the Calvinistic position is proven absolutely untenable according to the grammar of Scripture.” [Capitalization mine; Jerome H. Smith].
You have to reconsider that the calvinistic position on drawing as regeneration is based on their theory of the decree, but NOT specifically based the content of the text.
lu ba bi,
With all due respect, I neither know Jerome H. Smith’s credentials as a linguist, nor do I find his attempt to explain away the clear and historical understanding of this verse very convincing. There are many “linguist” in the world that I would not trust to interpret the news paper for me, much less the Word of God.
All the “linguist” throughout church history who have worked on the KJV, NIV, NAS, CJB, ASV, CSB, NAS, NRS, RSV, etc. translations have “ALL” translated this verse to say the same thing “no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”
I do not know what liberal version of the Bible Mr. Smith is reading from but all the ones I have ever read say “can” and not “may”… So I think I will trust those “linguist” who have actually engaged in the work of Biblical translation through the centuries, and whose work was subjected to intense peer review before being accepted, and has withstood the scrutiny of time.
Grace Always
Be careful, Greg. I’ve known of staunch anti-Calvinists who side with the JW’s New World Translation in order to find the wording they like.
This is the Young Literal Greek translation that incorporates the subjunctive mood of John 6:44:
“no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day.”
Thanks for the advice Darby… I am trying to be careful with Lu ba bi, but I may have to get a little reckless here
Darby,
I am a Baptist not a JW.
You may (subjunctive mood) write all Baptist seminaries’ NT scholars and ask them about the phrase “unless . . . draws” him [EAN ME HELKUSE] and they will ALL tell you it is in SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD [contingent/probability mood].
My simple point is, theology can be changed but we are NOT allowed to change what the text actually says. There is NO way the translations will capture the whole nuances of the originals. The Amplified Bible tried it. And remember the inspiration of the Bible pertains to the original text and not the translations.
We need to respect the text here, not to put theology above Scriptures.
lu ba bi,
I agree that we all need to respect the text here, and not to put theology above Scriptures.
However I think you need to also respect the fact that our understanding/interpretation of even the Original text is subject to our own predispositions. The original text may certainly add color to our understanding, but simply saying I am using the original text and you are not will hardly settle this debate. History is replete with Calvinist Scholars of the highest learning in the original languages who were Calvinist because of what they read in the original languages and not because Calvin wrote a Systematic Theology.
Now, I am off to have a steak with my wife… have a great night and an even better weekend…
Greg,
You may call all of SBC Greek teachers in all the SBC seminaries re. John 6:44 and they will tell you and me that if the Scripture wants to argue from FACT such as IF . . . THEN, it will use EI = BECAUSE OR SINCE.
But when Scripture wants to state a conditional IF . . . THEN here it is EAN ME it will ALWAYS use EIS = IF [conditional/contingent].
John 6:44 used EAN ME, hence Young Literal translation correctly put: “no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me MAY NOT draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day.”
Calvinists can’t use THIS construction of contingent IF to establish irresistible call. IT is just NOT there in the text.
I understand theology a little bit. But here it is not about theology or logic. It is about whether the text is talking of irresistible call or not. It is NOT!
Lu ba bi,
Ok… we may be talking by one another here???
John 6:45/65 speaks of the absolute inability of every man to come to faith in the Son without the Father granting them this ability… I do not see how Young’s Literal Greek translation changes this at all???
When I die, I want two verses on my tombstone, Rev.3:20 and Acts 16:14. The night of Dec.7,1957, when I was full-fleged, practicing atheist, I saw Jesus standing about 15-20 feet in front of me, facing me, looking at me, with His hand raised like He was knocking at a door. My response was, “Let me out of here.” I left that Youth for Christ meeting in the Lindell Blvd Bible Church in St. Louis, Mo., determined to tell no one what had happened as it was too embarrassing (I mean, after all, when your atheist and God shows up, it is, you know, embarrassing to say the least). Two blocks from my home something moved me to decide to tell my mother and that led to my conversion. It took me several years to realize that as He says concerning Lydia in Acts 16:14, “whose heart the Lord opened,” that He opened my heart so that I opened my heart to Him. As to drawing and irresistible grace, a lady said to my friend, Dr. Gene Spurgeon in 1965, when he asked her why she responded so readily to his soul winning effort, “Oh! It was so wonderful that I could not resist it.” He said when she said that, what I had said about salvation being irresistible popped into his mind. I asked him, if he had changed his mind, and he said, no, but hewas thinking about it. Aound 2003 he was still thinking about it. By 2007 he had changed his mind. By that time he had found out from some amy researcher that he was kin to C.H. Spurgeon the great preacher of Sovereign Irresistible Grace. It is just grace, so wonderful that one can’t resist it, and before this world ends it will very likely take the whole earth ad every soul in it for a bout 1001 generations in order to literally fulfill the promises to Abraham of seed as innumerable as the stars of Heaven, the sand by the seashores, and the dust of the earth. My Hebrew professor asked me in class one day why I believed in unconditional election and irresistible grace, and I answered, “Well, I believe if you will look at Ps.65:4 you will find the verb is in he Hiphil.” That is the causative verb. He looked in his Hebrew Bible and said, “You are right.” He never again said another word to me on the issue. He had a D.Phil in Hebrew from Oxford U., and he had signed the Abstract of Principles which spells out the doctrine of “Election as God’s eternal choice of some persons unto eternal life — not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ — in consequence of which choice they are called, justified an gorified.”(Article V). God chooses and causes the person to respond. He gives new life which responds to the preaching of the word, to the knock of Christ. Anagennao is also the term for conception (Birth in Jn.3 and conception in the angel’ anouncemet to Mary, Luke 2). Anakueo is the delivery of a child at birth, used by James 1:18 to describe how the Lord brings us forth with His word. All of this goes back to Sandy Creek and Philadelphia Associations. TULIP, every doctrine represented in that acrostic along with Predestination and Reprobation is an invitation, indeed, the most intensely evangelistic invitations from the hot heart of Jesus on Calvary. And he preached them as you all will find in Mt.15:21-28 & Luke 4:16-30. You folks ever hear of paradoxical interventions? Surely, you know Jesus used paradoxes in His preaching? How do you explain the First and Second Great Awakenings and the Launching of the Great Century of Missions, when the theology was pure calvinism/sovereign grace, when it came to soteriology? It is, really, the only theology that is absolutely the most dramatic, gripping, thrilling, soul-stirring, motivating, inspiring dreaming the impossible dream, winsome beyond the power of words to tell, charming, utterly attractive, compelling, magnetic. Take the idea of being spiritually dead, that truth is to be preached as something to awaken and call forth people from their deadness. Jesus thought it was hot stuff, for He said, Jn.5:25, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.”
Dr. Willingham,
I appreciate your anecdotes. But on the other hand, our faith is based on the clear and solid teaching of the text(s) and not on fine & true stories (I enjoy your stories though).
You know better than most of us re.: the grammar and syntax of these biblical texts pertaining to the calvinistic doctrine of irresistible grace.
The doctrine of irresistible grace CANNOT be affirmed based on the construction of the text(s) in SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD = the mood of contingency/or probability, or the mood of VOLITION.
“The subjunctive is the mood of mild contingency; the mood of probability. While the indicative assumes reality, the subjunctive assumes unreality” (Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 163).
The great Baptist NT scholar, A. T. Robertson is in total agreement with this rule of grammar (you all know of his synergistic explanation of Eps 2:8-9, as an example).
IT IS SAD TO SAY THAT ALL TEXTS USED BY CALVINISTS TO PROVE IRRESISTIBLE GRACE CALL ARE NOT IN INDICATIVE MOOD (MOOD OF REALITY) BUT IN SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.
For example: these texts employ the subjunctive mood to call people to faith (includes John 3:16 & 6:44-45):
“And it will be, whosoever may call on the name of Jehovah will be saved…” (Joel 2:32).
“for, Whosoever may call upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13).
“I have not come to call righteous people, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32).
“…an hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God: and those (the dead) having heard will live” (Jn 5:25).
“And it will be, whosoever may call (subjunctive mood) on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21).
These passages cannot be brought into accord with the doctrine of two calls (general call & efficacious call). Note that the persons that may call and the ones having heard are lost sinners who are acting. Further, it is spiritually dead sinners that are called, that respond actively, volitionally, conditionally?not irresistibly.
This is the manner of the Scriptural call; this is the grace of Scripture. Any call of the Holy Spirit is free of doubletalk and deception and is a genuine manifestation of grace, a bona fide, clean-cut, plain-spoken call!
Note that the Scriptures speak of a call, not two calls; of grace, not irresistible grace.
It can be said textually, that the Scriptures are clear that the call to salvation is for all men, and conditional. The term call (kalew) occurs in the New Testament nearly 150 times; and call upon (epikalew) about 30 times. Of all these occurrences, the Calvinist has never shown EVEN ONE INSTANCE in which it may be said: This is a Scriptural call given by the Holy Spirit to which it is impossible for the sinner to respond; a call that cannot save. Although the Calvinists collect long lists of Scripture to prove their point, with this one [subjunctive texts] there is a marked absence of a single passage. On this issue they are without appeal; Calvinists have been unable to adduce a single Scripture in support of their claim.
If it is solely the Holy Spirit Who causes a person to be born again, then what does it matter if one holds to regeneration preceding faith or faith preceding regeneration?
Because some claim it is the Holy Spirit who causes new birth without ever giving a word to describe what exactly the Spirit does to cause it. I say the Spirit regenerates a person, thereby causing him to put faith in Christ for salvation. Regeneration is the silent work of God to cause a Christian to come into being. This concept won’t work for those who think faith precedes regeneration. So they’re stuck with some kind of “prevenient grace” doctrine that seeks to give God some credit for saving while keeping the decisive factor with man. The second a non-Calvinist says that God works effectually rather than generally in the heart of an individual person, he really starts sounding Calvinist.
Darby,
Can you give explicit textual basis of this regeneration>believe theory of your?
Thank You
You could start with the entire conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus that points to it. 2 Corinthians 4:1-6 and 1 Peter 1 also point to it. I fear that your adjective “explicit” above might be your attempt to preempt any text I give by saying the examples I’ve given aren’t clearly saying that regeneration>believe “theory.”
lu ba bi, you ask for an explicit textual basis, here’s one: 1 John 5:1–”Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God…”
Now I know you’re probably thinking: well that says by coming to faith we are born of God (regenerated)…or something like that.
So… let’s consider the Greek construct that John uses and the context. For this is just one of five statements that John makes concerning “born of God” or new birth/regeneration in his letter. All five have a similar grammatical construction, based around the perfect passive verb/participle of “born of God.”
The other four:
1. 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. (3:9)
2. Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. (4:7)
3. For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world- our faith. (5:4)
4. We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him. (5:18)
So here are four statements: the one who has been born of God (perfect passive), does not make a practice of sin, truly loves others, overcomes the world, and does not keep on sinning.
With these four statements, if we are to ask the question: what comes first, regeneration or the statement describing the person it would be regeneration/the new birth. No one in their right mind would argue otherwise and have a biblical case to stand on given what scripture says about those who are lost vs. those who are saved.
5:1 has the same basic grammar to it, and the exact same statement in reference to regeneration, but deals with faith. If we are to take it in the normal sense of the context of how John wrote and his phrasing, then it must fit with the others: regeneration then faith.
If you want to turn it so that it says faith then regeneration then you have to put the others before regeneration as well.
That’s about as explicit as they come…
Hi Mike,
Please be specific: what is in these texts that supports the irresistible grace/call? These are great texts but not re. irresistible grace. We can go into 1 John though.
Later Mike, I have to go now. I will be back.
Thanks
lu ba bi, you asked in this part of the thread for an explicit textual example for regeneration prior to faith. In a normal (at least normal greek) reading of 1 John, that’s what you get w/ 1 John 5:1 when compared to his other regneration texts. That is unless we are able to quit practicing sin and also overcome the world before we are regenerated.
If you want something more about the effectual call… see around post #37 and my response to your John 12/John 6 argument.
Darby,
That’s just it, if it is the Holy Spirit’s work in regeneration is not caused by faith then I would assume that no one should object to regeneration preceding faith.
However, some might argue that regeneration is contingent upon faith which is not a causal relationship. I.e. faith must be present for regeneration to occur yet it is not the cause of regeneration.
Right on Mark.
Billy Mac: Observations on praying for stuff;
We pray because God says to. Philippians 4:6 says to bring our petitions to God, with thanksgiving. Romans 8:26 says we don’t even know what to pray for, but it’s OK, as the Holy Ghost will intercede with us .. or as I envision it .. interpret our prayers for us, in light of what He knows of the mind of God.
Couple those two thoughts, and, to me, you have the key to bringing your burdens to God and really leaving them there.
Bob: I don’t disagree. But let’s face it. When we pray for someone’s salvation, we are praying for God to save them. If He is unable to do so, then why do we pray such prayers? And now of course many of the non-Calvinists reading this are shaking their heads and lunging for the keyboard because they would say that is a mischaracterization of their view. It seems to me that there is a one word difference between the Calvinist and non-Calvinist. The Calvinist says salvation is all of God. The non-Calvinist says salvation is all of God if……
Maybe we should look at it this way: Does God try? Can God fail?
It is my belief that Calvinists would answer no and no. It would also seem to me that the non-Calvinist answer must be yes and yes.
But I could be wrong.
Article IV. Salvation (BFM2000)
A.) Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit…
According to the statement of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention “Regeneration, is a [change of heart]” and this change is “wrought by the Holy Spirit”.
According to Wikipedia; “the term [Change of Heart] refers to changing ones opinion, belief or decision.”
“Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power…” (Psalms 110:3)
Grace Always,
Greg
There is a saying among those who follow in the rabbinic tradition:
“G-d made Man in His image, and Man returned Him the favor.”
The teaching is simply that, if we say we understand all there is about the Creator, we have envisioned Him in our own image, which of course, we may not do.
To try to explain how God is Perfect Justice AND Perfect Mercy AND the Master of the Universe AND yet, permits choice;
that we can never understand well enough to form an ‘explanation’.
We frame things according to our own ability to frame them
and we cannot put God into our own ‘box’.
The closest we may come to understanding God, is in the Person of Jesus Christ. In Him, we see the Face of God.
I meant to write, ‘In Him, we may see the Face of God, and live.”
Matt,
“I have never seen a dead person make a decision, have you?”
Actually, I have never seen a dead person have you? I have seen dead bodies, but not dead persons. Dead people go to Hell when their body dies.
Can you explain how the rich man of Luke 16 could see, hear, speak, feel, taste and have a spiritual concern for his lost brothers? Keep in mind the rich man was spiritually dead. Do the spiritually dead receive “ability” after the die physically or did they have it all along?
Don Johnson, very interesting point of reference. Your question is a good one to ponder a bit. “Ability” to do something only a living person can do, after one is dead. And it was a “spiritual” decision ta boot. Very interesting, indeed. I think Jesus told that story, too, didn’t He? selahV
Mike Bergman…I really love your illustration. To me, it speaks of an all-loving, compassionate, caring, kind, and merciful God. He is so full of grace He will go to any lengths to find a child, accept it as it was–a dirty little thing and adopts it as His own. Such a picture of God’s marvelous grace. Thanks for sharing. selahV
Exactly Harriette.
The Old Broadman Song, the Ninety and Nine.
Ought to be in every edition of the Baptist Hymnal and sung at least twice a year in the Card Carrying Calvinist SBC Churches.
Here are the Words:
The Ninety and Nine on page 99 of the Old Broadman:
There were ninety and nine that safely lay
in the shelter of the fold.
but one was out on the hills away,
far off from the gates of gold.
away on the mountains wild and bare.
away from the tender Shepherd’s care.
away from the tender Shepherd’s care.
“Lord, thou hast here thy ninety and nine;
are they not enough for thee?”
But the Shepherd made answer: “this of mine
has wandered away from me;
and although the road be rough and steep,
I go to the desert to find my sheep,
I go to the desert to find my sheep.”
But none of the ransomed ever knew
how deep were the waters crossed;
nor how dark was the night the Lord passed through
ere he found his sheep that was lost.
out in the desert he heard its cry,
sick and helpless and ready to die;
sick and helpless and ready to die.
“Lord, whence are those blood drops all the way
that mark out the mountain’s track?”
“they were shed for one who had gone astray
ere the Shepherd could bring him back.”
“Lord, whence are thy hands so rent and torn?”
“They are pierced tonight by many a thorn;
they are pierced tonight by many a thorn.”
And all through the mountains, thunder riven
and up from the rocky steep,
there arose a glad cry to the gate of heaven,
“Rejoice! I have found My sheep!”
and the angels echoed around the throne,
“Rejoice, for the Lord brings back his own!
rejoice, for the Lord brings back his own!”
Stephen, that is beautiful. I use to have an old Broadman in my husband’s library. I need to see if I can find that. Jesus also shares the story of going out to find that lost sheep even though the shepherd has the rest of his sheep.
Did you know that I’ve heard it said that the wandering sheep, if it continues to wander off, the shepherd with break its legs to keep it safe within the fold? Not quite sure how that goes. Guess I need to google it, huh?
selahV
It reminds me of this poem:
“Seek You the Hundredth?
Where are the cattle of a thousand hills?
Like sheep without a shepherd is this sheep.
Where is Your flock? And will You now me keep?
For though I knew Your Word and works and will,
still waters were not where I would be still,
and wild was fruit I sowed, which now I reap
and eat with bitter bleating while I weep
so far afield the fold that You would fill.
Seek You the hundredth? Ninety-nine abound,
yet You seek prints pressed by my little hoof
across the scattered sands of stony ground
and, lo, You find Your little lamb aloof
of joy in heaven. Have I now been found?
Yet laid upon Your shoulders is the proof.”
~ by Michael Rew
Hi Mike,
I like your adoption analogy a lot. In fact, I am an adoptive father twice-over and working on #3. I do have one teensy problem with it, though.
If I had the means and ability, I’d bring ‘em all home. :0)
I’m not weighing in on the Calvinism debate. I’m just saying what I would do if I could at the orphanage. And I am a very imperfect father. :0)
Jim G.
Darby,
You are correct in saying men don’t seek God. However, that is the reason Jesus told the Church to go into the world. He did not command the world to go to church.
While it is true the world does not understand, the Bible does not say they “cannot” understand. Why would Paul “reason” with the Jews of Thessalonica (Acts 17:2) if they “cannot” understand? On other occasions Paul “reasoned and persuaded” the people. What exactly was it that Paul was doing if he knew they could not understand what he was saying?
Could you tell me what Paul had in mind in (1 Cor. 9:19-22) if people cannot understand?
Don,
Simple, it’s call ‘means’. I don’t know of non-Calvinists who would say that pure natural reasoning without the power of the Holy Spirit can convince an unbeliever.
In 1 Thessalonians, we can see one example of God using people as the means to spread the gospel yet it was only effective because of the Holy Spirit.
[4] For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, [5] because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 ESV)
Bill,
It’s not that God cannot save them. It’s that He will not. Those who die lost never wanted it, had no use for it, didn’t like it, and couldn’t understand it. Like natural man cannot.
We don’t pray because we think we know what God wants to, or will, do. we pray because He lovingly tells us to, and trust Him with the outcome. No lesson, no prayer, no sermon, ever did anything in itself. Any results are what God does with those things.
He gives the increase. And what a privilege it is to pray for something that He wants to do .. that He knew eons ago He would do. What a privilege!
Mike,
Do you consider yourself to be one of the sheep in John 10?
If yes, when do you feel you became one of Christ’s sheep?
Mark,
I’m not discounting the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe the work of the Spirit is what brings conviction in the lost John 16:8-11.
My point was Paul was “reasoning and persuading” with “dead” people. If the Calvinist position is correct, should not Paul know better than to try such a thing?
Don,
The opposite is true- it is through that that God brings them to life. Why do people insist on misrepresenting Calvinism? That is Calvinism 101- it isnt hard to understand.
Matt: You most likely know more about Calvinism than I do, but I contend you and even Mohler and Ascol are not the authorities they think they are until they can master a working conversation of Marilynne Robinson’s insights into the matter.
Here is something I’d like you to explore for us.
Is there any such thing as a Calvinist who is not an Inerrantist?
I would guess the answer is Yes,else there would be No PCUSA
Stephen, Many of the PCUSA pastor’s are know are not calvinists. In fact a friend ask a pcusa pastor if he was a calvinist? The pcusa pastor’s response—What’s that?
Jeff
Jeff T:
I guess your answer to the question do you know Marilynne Robinson would be: Who’s She?
Not to taunt, but serious; in your circle of Calvinists how many of them have discussed Marilynne Robinson with you when the chat comes to Calvin.
Don: Paul certainly uses reason and persuasion. From the Calvinist perspective, it is God’s quickening of the lost person that makes them “persuadable.” We don’t know who will respond to reason and persuasion because we don’t know where and when God is working. So we offer the Gospel to all.
I’ll go back to the question I keep asking. Is God trying to save people and failing most of the time?
My point was Paul was “reasoning and persuading” with “dead” people. If the Calvinist position is correct, should not Paul know better than to try such a thing?
This is the same kind of non-reasoning that says “Calvinism kills evangelism”. Why would Paul do what he did? Why do Calvinists preach the gospel even though we know that God did not elect everyone to salvation?
Could it have something to do with the fact that God has commanded it? Isn’t that a sufficient reason?
Don,
Building upon Joe’s answer to your inquiry here. Your assertions would be like me inferring that you, as a non-Calvinist, must believe that you are the one doing the saving if someone repents and believes through your persuasion and reasoning. Would that be a fair charge towards you?
It’s not an either/or situation.
Mark,
No, I am not the one doing the saving. God and God alone does the saving. The Holy Spirit brings conviction through the message of the Gospel everytime it is presented. Many times the Gospel is resisted. Which is why some people need to hear or be reasoned with many times before receiving Christ.
While it is true that God is the only one who does the saving, it is also true that anyone who becomes saved did so with the help of somesone else. Not with the saving but by pointing them in the right direction.
Matt,
Not sure what you mean. I flunked Calvinism 101.
It is through what that God brings them life?
Al Mohler, Calvinism and Evolution.
Does Calvinism have an official view of Darwin and Evolution, or is that a secondary or Tertiary Concern.
I think there is a consensus in SBC Life of the SBC Seminaries and Mid America and Liberty where several SBC Presidents have been trustees and send their children, of these Concerns Mohler and SBTS is the Most Calvinist in its Administration.
With Mohler’s Official Statement on Darwin
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5635/53/
You see Mohler has gotten 44 passionate comments just a few days out with this story.
Will it become a part of the Next BFM 2000 rewrite; and what role does Evolution play in Calvinism or is Mohler a lone gunner in the Calvinist community with his emphasis on Evolution.
I know Adrian Rogers spoke against it, Evolution, in 1979 in his Tower of Babel and Secular Humanism Sermon that he used when he came to Jerry Vines church at West Rome and other places across the Convention campaigning for the SBC Presidency.
But how strong an element is Evolution in Calvinism as you fellows understand it.
There is no relationship between Calvinism and evolution. Mohler can speak for himself, but I doubt his objection to evolution is based in any way upon his Calvinism. Most likely the better question is whether Calvinism has an official position on YEC vs OEC. The answer is still no. I am a Calvinist and not a young earther. I know several of the Calvinists here are young earthers. I know inerrantists fall into both camps, so that is not a boundary either. It appears to be an unrelated issue.
Thanks for the specific answer. In your opinion Bill Mac, is it safe to say 90% of Calvinists in your experience are inerrantists.
Do you know any passionate Calvinists in SBC life who are not inerrantists?
Stephen: I have no way of assigning a percentage. Most of the SBC Calvinists I “know” are blog posters. I know few Calvinists in the flesh. I suspect most of them are inerrantists but I can’t say for sure. I do not favor the term inerrantist myself, although I am not an errantist. I have no quarrel with inerrantists until they elevate their interpretation to inerrancy, as some are prone to do. But we are digressing.
I am an inerrantist. It’s why I believe we cannot add to what the passages is saying, that scripture is the final authority, and scripture interprets scripture. The Bible never contradicts itself. If a passage seemingly contradicts itself as many who use John 3:16 for example, or a verse that is not meant for unbelievers, Revelation 3:20, which was written for believers, it’s the interpretation that is faulty and must be looked at again in light of other scripture.
There is an element of ‘determinism’
in both Calvinist-related thinking and in the
theories of evolution as presented by Darwin.
Take a good look at ‘determinism’ and you can see some connections there.
‘Determinism’ from another perspective:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3017/jewish/Question-1-Determinism.htm
Back to Calvinism…
I don’t think we will help bridge the gap between Calvinists and non-Calvinists by disagreeing over particulars (e.g. when regeneration occurs, the meaning of “dead,” etc.).
I think we need to see the five points of Calvinism as a description of God couched in soteriological language. My point is that the main disagreement here is a disagreement over the character of God. The different ways of seeing God lead to the the divergence over regeneration, faith, death/life, human will, etc.
Classic systematic theology divides God’s attributes usually into two classes. One of those is “greatness” attributes, which usually include his infinity and sovereignty (variously expressed). The other class is his “goodness” attributes, which include love, holiness, etc.
It is overly simplistic to apply to all cases, but I would bet that for many Calvinists, the “greatness” attributes resonate more strongly than the “goodness”, and for non-Calvinists, the “goodness” attributes resonate more strongly than the “greatness.” Both are infinite, but we just cannot think “infinitely.” Thus WE gravitate toward one or the other for a variety of reasons.
I think if we would all step back and look at ourselves honestly, I think we could see that the weaknesses of Calvinism seem to revolve around “goodness” issues, while the weaknesses of non-Calvinism revolve around “greatness” issues. I think the views expressed on this thread bear that out, at least.
I think the SBC, and evangelical Christianity in general, would profit from the idea that our two views of looking at God are just that – our views, replete with all of our imperfections and shortcomings. I also think we would be wiser in trying to enrich ourselves with other viewpoints rather than trying to prove our point. Even though I personally am a non-Calvinist (and I have my reasons for being so), I enjoy interacting with Calvinist brothers and sisters, because they are more in tune with the greatness of God than am I. And I think we are all better off for it. To put it this way, a human being has two eyes. Although one eye may be slightly “dominant,” if the eyes are both good, each can see as well as the other. But unless a human has two eyes, he has no real depth perception.
Perhaps the Calvinist eye aids the non-Calvinist eye in its perception of the greatness of God. And perhaps the non-Calvinist eye aids the Calvinist eye in its perception of the goodness of God. Just a thought.
Jim G.
Jim G. I love your eyes and depth perception analogy. Would love to use your comment here in a post. Can we talk via email? I am selahvtoday @ aol.com Please drop me a note. selahV
Bill,
In Acts 28:23 Paul was persuading the people all day long. Why would someone do such a thing if he thought the people were “dead” and could not understand what he was saying?
Paul must have thought, the more he reasoned and persuaded the more would be saved. Which I believe is Paul’s intent in 1 Cor. 9:19-22.
No, God is not failing. Jesus died for the whole world. I would not call that a failure. The problem is the Christians have failed (1 Cor. 15:34).
Don: As I said, we don’t know whom God has prepared to receive the Gospel, so we seek to persuade all. That is what Paul did. Do you really think success in evangelism is founded upon our persuasiveness and ability to reason? Unless God has prepared the soil, nothing we plant will grow. (but we must plant, as we have been commanded).
Lastly, do you really believe that people are in hell because Christians have failed? People who would have come to Christ if only Christians had been more persuasive? Better reasoners? More persistent? Do you think there are people in hell who might have come to Christ if only they had lived a bit longer, or met different people (Christians)?
I will reason with, and seek to persuade anyone who gives me the opportunity. But they will not be saved (or lost) based on my ability, thank God. I would be crushed under that burden. Unless God goes before me, nothing I do or say will matter.
Joe,
If all Paul did was preach the Gospel and leave the results to God, he would not be the Paul we read of in the New Testament.
Paul knew his actions and the way he treated people had a direct correlation with the number who become saved (1 Cor. 9:19-22). It had nothing to do with him hoping he would run into the “elect.”
Reading comprehension skills are somewhat lacking, huh?
I never said, suggeted, or implied that Paul did not exhibit an awareness of the different kinds of people groups he ministered to whne he preached. Your assertion, or rather non-assertion, was that Paul’s preaching to everyone proved that he didn’t believe in election because he wouldn’t have wasted his time preaching to dead people who could not accept the gospel. My point was that Paul preached the gospel everywhere he went because he was commanded to and that it most certainly does not prove that he didn’t believe in election but rather proves that he was obediant.
You’re welcome.
Joe, can you explain Gen. 4:7 to me? Here we have God Himself “witnessing” to Cain to do that which Calvinism says is impossible: resist sin, since God had obviously reprobated him. Yet how can we accuse God Himself of not knowing whether He had reprobated Cain?
Thanks in advance.
Don: Paul would be exactly who he is in the New Testament. It seems you are adding to scripture what isn’t there.
1 Corinthians 3:5-9:
5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
Joe,
Paul believed in election, but not as Calvinists do. Calvinists believe the “elect” will get saved. Paul believed one becomes elect when they get saved.
A Jew becomes physically elect when he is born. Jews or Gentiles become spiritually elect when they are born again.
Because Paul knew people become elect he could then say “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”
No, we are elect “before the foundation of thw world” (Eph 1:4). Therefore, your idea that we become elect when we choose to become elect is, how you say, nonsense.
Joe,
I suggest you read Eph. 1:3,4 again, and believe the exact words that are given.
I have to run, but I’ll comment later.
I have. Thanks. Have a nice day.
Doesn’t being elected after being born again actually void the very meaning of election?
Mark,
So true.
Don: I don’t think anyone, even non-Calvinists, believe we are elected after we are saved. Non-Calvinists believe that God elects based upon His divine foreknowledge of their decision to follow Him. So God chooses those He knows will choose Him, but I would be surprised to learn that people believe God chooses people AFTER they choose Him. Now, in my opinion, both of those are equally backward.
On second thought, Ergun Caner may believe in Election ex post facto, based on something I have seen written by him.
When the Bible talks about “Spiritually dead”, “born into sin”, as a result of the Fall, all were born without the Holy Spirit. As Matt pointed out, it’s not that we don’t think, make decisions, but 1 Corinthians 1:21 says that we are hostile to God and the things of God, we are not able to understand spiritual things. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says we think the words of God are foolish until the Holy Spirit comes from the outside in and does a work of grace in our hearts. This is regeneration or a making spiritually alive, for us to run to Christ and not away from him. It’s this that makes us born again Christians. It seems as if we choose Christ, but in reality according to scripture, he chose us.
Debbie,
You say, “It seems as if we choose Christ” and then you add “but in reality according to scripture, he chose us.”
Why do you say,”it seems as if”
Why can’t the simple reality of the gospel be … God choose us and we freely chose God?
As Dr. Geisler says, “Chosen But Free.”
Because of the reasons I gave earlier Ron. Until God begins a work in us through the Holy Spirit(who we do not have prior to God’s working) we can’t. We don’t. Choose God freely.
Debbie,
Do you believe in regards to regeneration that: it is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ… and …repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace?
Debbie,
I replied to an earlier comment [# 43 & 44]. Any thoughts?
Blessings!
This is what Calvin said re. election/predestination: ““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, 3.21.5.
This is what Calvin says re. the awful decree of election of infants to perdition:
“I inquire again, how it came to pass that the fall of Adam, independent of any remedy, should involve so many nations with their infant children in eternal death, but because such was the will of God. Their tongues, so loquacious on every other point, must here be struck dumb. It is an awful decree, I confess; but no one can deny that God foreknew the future final fate of man before he created him, and that he did foreknow it because it was appointed by his own decree” (Institutes, 3. 23. 7).
This is what Spurgeon says re. that awful decree of election:
“Among the gross falsehoods which have been uttered against the Calvinists proper, is the wicked calumny that we hold the damnation of little infants. A baser lie was never uttered. There may have existed somewhere, in some corner of the earth, a miscreant who would dare to say that there were infants in hell, but I have never met with him, nor have I met with a man who ever saw such a person” (Spurgeon, Doctrines of Grace, page 300).
Lu ba bi,
Aren’t you glad that the eternal divine decree was a figment in Calvin’s imagination? His logic knew that not all would be saved. Therefore he devised this awful concept of an eternal divine decree.
Praise God it’s not in the Bible and that it’s not true.
The awful teaching of double predesination is outrageous.
Ron,
It surely is an awful theology without scriptural basis. I have several friends in our church who are staunch calvinists even before they read Scripture.
I contend that would be impossible to do lu ba bi.
Debbie,
Some of these are very close friends of mine (co workers) so I know experientially that these do not derived their calvinistic position from the Bible. They believe in what men said and not what in fact the Scripture expressed.
Even Calvin’s view of predestination is NOT derived from and NOT formed out of textual exegesis–he swallowed Augustinian philosophy as he himself professed.
Mostly the calvinists affirm this Augustinian philosophy by means of stringing texts as prooftexts in teaching irresistible grace, etc. but in fact they are denying what the text actually expresses.
Let me show you how calvinists deny what is IN John 3:16 by reading things from outside (whether philosophy or imposing texts out of contexts):
Calvinists would read John 3:16 as follows:
• God loved the world of the elect . . . [so limitation]
• Christ did not die for the human race, only the elect
• Every [elect] regenerated, given faith will believe (pisteu?n)
• Security is unconditional . . . (m? apol?tai), potential mood denied
• May have eternal life is unconditional . . . (ech?), potential mood denied
• May be saved is unconditional . . . (s?th?, v. 17), potential mood denied
Whereas the Scriptural Position of John 3:16 is as follows
• God loved (?gap?sen) the world (indivisible monadic construction that can’t be divided into the elect & non-elect world)
• God gave His Son to die for the human race
• Everyone one believing (pisteu?n)
• Conditional nature of may not perish (m? apol?tai)
• Conditional nature of may have (ech?) eternal life
• Conditional nature of may be saved (s?th? ) in (v. 17)
There is no predestination & irresistible grace here. Calvinists change, add, and mangled this great verse. And smuggled their philosophy of predestination & irresistible grace in there.
Otherwise they have to deny John 3:16 by imposing other texts to it as though Jn3:16 needs harmonizing (read rejected first), needs explanation (read: explained away) but NOT expressed.
So what is expressed in predestination & irresistible grace is human point of view spraying with Bible texts but NOT expressing what is IN the text. Affirming Calvinism is NOT the same as expressing text(s) of Scripture–it is expressing Augustinian deterministic philosophy by text-stringing Scripture.
Mark,
One of the best anecdotes I’ve seen. Whether you agree with Calvinism or not, it’s a beautiful description.
lu ba bi, I just want to commend you on the outstanding job you’re doing on this very controversial and never-ending debate. I wish all could both read Greek and have a good grasp of grammar and logic, and spent more time on those things than on simply repeating old arguments.
I’ve “done my time” on this topic and won’t be putting more of it into this particular instance, but will only offer a few short articles I’ve written in the past, and would be honored if you could find some time to comment. (I’ll check my blog settings in case it has comments locked for older posts.)
http://www.fether.net/2009/09/07/the-widows-mite-and-the-atonement/
http://www.fether.net/2008/05/15/dead-wrong/
http://www.fether.net/2009/08/06/theory-vs-reality/
Thanks.
I appreciate your giving me the refs. to your blog.
Lu la bi: The reason I say that it would be hard to follow, explain, believe, any part of Calvinism without scripture is just that. I don’t say it to sound condescending although I know it sounds that way. One cannot even swallow Calvinism in any form by simply reading a piece on it, or hearing it. They have to look at scripture to even say what you have said above, which read John 3:16 and the verses below it. Read John 3. Romans the whole book, Ephesians, the whole book, Galatians, the whole book,etc. etc. Calvinism is not based on one verse here and there. It is taking the whole text, allowing scripture to interpret through other scripture in the Bible. Again, this will sound condescending and it is not. It is however how one comes to the same conclusions that Calvinism does.
Hi Debbie,
I respect your ideas, but I think that one can read the whole text of Scripture differently and come to a different conclusion. I don’t think you sound condescending, by the way.
I think both Calvinism and Arminianism are faithful to the text – as much as either can be. Both systems have weaknesses, and as I posted above, it is deciding which weaknesses you can live with. Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism can fully explain all that Scripture states, even though both try very hard to do so. But I really don’t think either side abuses the text any more than the other.
After thinking about this for some time, I do believe that our theological perception colors our exegesis and interpretation as much as exegesis and interpretation inform our theological perception. I think the two grow up together, not that one causes the other. At least I think it works out that way most of the time. At any rate, we are definitely not “blank slates” in front of the text. We bring our own presuppositions to it even before the process of exegesis starts.
Thanks for commenting. I do see your point.
Jim G.
Jim: My personal opinion and understanding of scripture is it cannot be both. That is possibly peace at any price, and I’m not willing to pay the price of turning away from what I believe to be scripture. It must be either or, it cannot be both. Now, I will agree that it may seem as though we choose Christ, but from what I read in scripture it is not me who chooses Christ, but Christ who chooses me, and why I do not know. He is not a respecter of persons. IOW it’s nothing I have done, it’s not who I am by birth, it’s not because I was good enough to choose, or any other earthly reason. But it does turn all glory off of me for “making a life changing decision or the right decision” and all, all, 100% glory and credit goes to God.
It also takes away any manipulation from a sermon or a minister, person giving the gospel. It makes harassing them with the Gospel useless. We give the Gospel because we have a love for that person that is nothing short of God’s work in our heart, which produces a supernatural love. The love he has for the lost, we now have. We also have the answer and the example has been used that if someone found the cure for cancer, they did it and it worked. They were cured, they wouldn’t hesitate to tell others of it. The same is true for the Gospel, and it was commanded by Christ we give it. It’s obedience to Christ to give the Gospel to every creature.
Hi Debbie,
I missed this the first time I read it. You said that “The love he [God] has for the lost, we now have.” Does God love those he has NOT chosen to save? If he does, you must admit it is a strange sort of love – one that demands that these people be banished from his presence eternally with no hope otherwise. True love reconciles and draws near, rather than unconditionally banishes its recipients away.
I am sure that you desire the salvation of those to whom you witness. But, if Calvinism is true, then it is quite possible that God does not desire the salvation of everyone to whom you witness. You love them enough to want them saved, but God does not? That in my opinion is a question Calvinism does not answer very well.
Jim G.
Hi Debbie,
I agree that the triune God chooses us before we ever “choose” him. I’m right with ya there, and I’m not a “peace at any price” person. :0)
I know why Christ chose you. He chose you because he loves you. :0)
And all of the glory and credit definitely goes to God. We’re not that far apart.
Jim G.
“The reason I say that it would be hard to follow, explain, believe, any part of Calvinism without scripture is just that.”
This is what always confuses me: If it is scripture, then why call it Calvinism. Why not just call it the Gospel? Why give any other than Jesus Christ the credit?
Lydia: For the same reason that we are called Baptists or Methodists or Presbyterians. The argument you give is so old and so contentious that I don’t usually even address it. When the name Calvinist is given, the doctrine that is associated with that name is also a given. Although it seems most are confused as to what Calvinists believe.
To me it is the Gospel, but to you it is not is it? So what would be the purpose of calling it the Gospel? Spurgeon did and the next argument then is that we are elite, arrogant(titles already given to those who hold a Calvinist view), and that argument confuses me most of all.
Don’t you find it curious you can call yourself a Baptist and a Calvinist when you don’t believe in infant baptism, sacraments and the state church as Calvin did? Those are “doctrines”, too.
The age of an argument does not automatically render it moot. I simply do not understand anything that gives a human the credit for what belongs to Christ.
Lydia: In a word no I don’t find it strange at all.
“Lydia: In a word no I don’t find it strange at all.”
You don’t see a disconnect about calling yourself a “Baptist” where our name comes from believers baptism and a Calvinist who believed in infant Baptism? There are some who were drowned by the reformers for believers baptism.
Did you ever wonder how Calvin knew all the infants he baptized were elect? I guess they all were since it was a crime not to baptize your infant in the state church.
)
By the way, Calvin recommended the Geneva city council to kill Michael Servetus because he criticized Calvin’s doctrine of baptism and the Trinity.
lu ba bi,
What exactly did Calvin say to the Geneva Council? Did Calvin have the power to order the Council to stop or go forward with Servetus’ death?
What was Servetus’ position on the death of heretics?
Mark,
Historians tell us of the atrocities of Calvin and that his Geneva was made the Rome of Protestantism.
“In five years, 1542-46, Geneva, with 16,000 inhabitants,
had fifty-seven executions and seventy-six banishments. All
these sentences were sanctioned by Calvin.” [Lars P. Qualben, A History of the Christian Church, New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1942, pp. 268-72].
According to the historian Phillip Schaff (online version available): During his rule in Geneva, Calvin murdered 57 people and banished 76. He was a very violent man.
Re.: Servetus: When Calvin learned that Michael Servetus had purposed to come to Geneva, he said:
“. . . I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety; for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.” [Henry C. Sheldon, History of the Christian Church, 5 Vols., Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988 Reprint, Vol. 3., p. 159].
I don’t want to go further into Servetus; but there are plenty historical materials re. Calvin to say that he was indeed a very violent person.
Just read any scholarly (but not reformed) book on what Geneva was like during those days of Calvin as the little pope. He even had his “little committee” regulating how many courses folks could have at meals!
Mark, How about this:
Calvin wrote this to Farel on Feb 13, 1546 concerning Servetus:
“ Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive (“Si venerit, modo valeat mea autoritas, vivum exire nunquam patiar”).
Lydia: Stick with the doctrine of Calvinism. You twist that enough without twisting details about Calvin’s life. I too have studied Calvin. He was not a “little pope” and I could probably answer a lot more about Luther and Calvin. But that is not the issue. The issue is Calvinism found in scripture. I believe it is, you believe it is not. No one is going to convince you differently, that is fine, no one is going to convince those who hold to Calvinism differently. I think you are wrong. You think Calvinists are wrong. So ask questions, but leave the bios out of it, they are more than likely wrong, Calvin isn’t here to defend himself and for the record I think he and Martin Luther were two of the greatest theologians on the planet. Now back to the actual subject at hand.
Lydia, I know I don’t need to tell you this, but Calvinists desperately want their hero sanitized. They want the spotlight off of him, for good reason. And it’s quite ironic, given that these same people want to discard the evil “doctrine” of the gospel in favor of being nice people. They will never explain why only Calvin gets a pass on behavior, and why they keep an iron grip on his DOCTRINES but cannot stomach any examination of his CHARACTER.
They also want to bark orders at any of us who go off topic in order to challenge their own off-topic rants, then turn around and accuse US of trying to dictate the flow of conversation. And they think they are not biased.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve about had enough of this silly whitewashing and hypocrisy.
Lydia: We call ourselves Christians too. First and foremost Christians. Yet the word Christian denotes all sorts of beliefs. Should I cease to call myself a Christian? Again. No. So no I do not find it strange, puzzling, or any of the other adjectives you choose to use. No, no. Now are you clear on my answer cause I don’t know how to make it any clearer. I am a Calvinist. A Calvinist I am.
Again no I don’t. Spurgeon didn’t, Gill didn’t, I certainly don’t.
But then I’m not a how many angels can fit on the head of a pin type of person.
So Calvin knew that every single infant he baptized was one of the “elect”?
I don’t think that is an angel on a pinhead question. I think it is quite serious.
I don’t. I don’t think it’s serious. I am not a believer in padeobaptism. Therfore the questions is not relevant to me or this discussion. I would however wish that you would stick to the scriptures and try to give an argument based on the scriptures given by those of us who believe in Calvinism. That would be refreshing.
What is the scriptural basis for padeobaptism? What did Calvin say it was?
See, this gives you insight into what this supposedly brilliant theologian was doing with scripture.
What was his scriptural basis for a sacral system? For church state?
This is relevant to what Calvin believed and taught. It is just uncomfortable. Modern day Calvinists don’t like this part of Calvinism. But if folks are going to promote the doctrines of humans they need to delineate the false from the true and make it clear which parts of Calvin they reject.
Lydia: You are now getting into strawman arguments that I simply will not discuss. It goes no where. The answer is no. Absolutely not. He did not believe that. In fact that is a ridiculous statement. See why I won’t get into this with you? It raises my blood pressure. I will not discredit what non-Calvinists believe, and I am not going to defend what I believe. I will state what I believe. Each person can decide for themselves. Believing in Calvinism or not does not determine whether one is saved or not, but it does give a clearer view of the Bible, at least it does for me.
Calvinism is simple: Calvinism simply believes that God saves the sinner. It gives a high view of God in all his power, glory, and attributes, not leaving anyone out. I believe it to be Biblical. It is the one view that does not have contradictions in scripture when viewed properly, it puts all of the scripture into place as one whole Book pointing to Christ beginning in Genesis all the way through until Revelation. That’s how simple this doctrine is.
lu ba bi, I just want to commend you on the outstanding job you’re doing on this very controversial and never-ending debate. I wish all could both read Greek and have a good grasp of grammar and logic, and spent more time on those things than on simply repeating old arguments.
I’ve “done my time” on this topic and won’t be putting more of it into this particular instance, but will only offer a few short articles I’ve written in the past, and would be honored if you could find some time to comment. (I’ll check my blog settings in case it has comments locked for older posts.)
fether DOT net/2009/09/07/the-widows-mite-and-the-atonement/
fether DOT net/2008/05/15/dead-wrong/
fether DOT net/2009/08/06/theory-vs-reality/
“Lydia: You are now getting into strawman arguments that I simply will not discuss. It goes no where. The answer is no. Absolutely not. He did not believe that. In fact that is a ridiculous statement. ”
No Debbie, it is not a strawman. It is quite relevant. Did Calvin believe every infant was “elect”? The answer lies in the fact that Calvin believed in the sacral system. Which is a whole huge other problem.
Finite people who are trying to comprehend the infinite are highly amusing.
Bob:
Lydia,
Many chose to be calvinists because it is ‘fashionable’–so, many are eclectic calvinists, like 1% to 49% calvinists (probably). You have to make a checklist to find out. These are theological mavericks.
Fashionable? That’s a new one. I know of no Calvinist who does it because it’s “fashionable”. That is probably one of the biggest straw men arguments to date.
People become Calvinists for the same reason you are not. They see it in scripture. They believe scripture to be inerrant and the final word. They believe the doctrine of Calvinism. You do not lu ba bi. You don’t see it in scripture but see what you believe to be true. No difference. And guess what? Just like you teach or preach what you believe, so do we. End of story. And all God’s people said…well OK I got carried away in moment.
Now, there is an idea! A Calvin checklist. Everything that Calvin taught (and practised in Geneva) listed. Have folks check which ones with which they concur. Then we calculate the percentage of Calvinistic doctrine and practice they follow.
This could be used by pulpit committees!
(I am sure there will be no checks by burning heretics at the stake. At least I hope! And it is a good thing it is America because it could mean that some pastors would decide how many courses we could have at meals!)
Which is why I don’t like the term “Calvinist.” I do like the phrase “doctrines of grace” because that sums it up well, but I try to make sure that people know what I mean when I say “Calvinist” as that phrase is pretty much used synonymously with “doctrines of grace” even though he believed many other things as well.
I don’t know anybody who says “I’m a Calvinist” who means “I’m a paedobaptist.”
I have a challenge to our calvinistic friends.
Shall we bend the Scriptures to fit Calvinistic irresistible grace or shall we cling to the Scriptures and drop this unscriptural doctrine?
Let us consider these passages: Joel 2:32; Ac 2:21; Rom 10:13; Lk 5:32; Jn 5:24-25.
The grammatical aspects of these texts are as follows:
• Everyone may call, i.e., the human race without exception
• Conditional…subjunctive mood and particle
• Active, not passive or irresistible
• Will be saved, passive voice
My conclusion is: Calvinistic irresistible grace or the world as the elect cannot be brought into harmony with these grammatical aspects.
Here are the textual reasons for the above conclusion:
Joel 2:32 reads [taking into consideration the grammar & syntax]:
“And it will be every conceivable one, whosoever, on the condition that he/she may/might call for himself/herself on the name of the Lord, will be saved…
Also of Acts 2:21 should be read:
“And it will be (estai) everyone (pas) whosoever (hos an), on the condition that he/she may call for himself/herself (epikales?tai) on the name of the Lord will be saved (s?th?setai)…
Rom 10:13 reads essentially the same: “For everyone (pas) whosoever (hos an), on the condition that he/she may call for himself/herself (epikales?tai) on the name of the Lord, will be saved…
These passages cannot be brought into harmony with the Calvinistic doctrines—the world as the elect, irresistible grace, or a call to which response is impossible, inability to respond to the Creator, or that we believe after regeneration.
One has to deny the natural expressions of these texts to affirm Calvinistic irresistible grace doctrine.
Lk 5:32 reads as follows:
“I have not come to call righteous people, but sinners to
repentance…
1) Here it is sinners who are called by the Saviour. The
term sinners express a state of being or condition of the Fall.
There is no descriptive term to divide the state of being described as sinners, into groups known as the ones receiving a call that cannot save and others an irresistible call that must save.
The term sinners is the direct object of to call; as the terminus, end, or object of the call?sinners?cannot be branched off or divided into the elect and damned.
The Fall is universal; accordingly, the call is to as many as have fallen, and so universal in nature. The Calvinistic two call system—efficacious and outward general—is alien to the Scriptures. The call of God to sinners unto salvation is universal in nature.
The famed Baptist NT scholar, A. T. Robertson said: 1) “Jesus has here blazed the path for all soul-winners.” 2) Note that in this passage the Saviour is active in the call to sinners to repentance, but in the Joel, Acts, and Romans passages the sinners were active with respect to themselves as expressed by the middle voice. Thus God and man participate together in the salvation of humankind.
3) The call is stated as unto repentance. This phrase has the meaning unto salvation.
We note as follows: “…joy in heaven will be over one sinner repenting… (Lk 15:7; cf. v.10). “…Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners…(1 Tim 1:15).
Cumulative evidence shows that God calls all sinners to salvation and that sinners act with respect to the call—dead sinners accept or reject.
John 5:24-25
Verse 24: “Verily, verily I say to you that the one hearing
the word of Me and believing on the One having sent Me, has eternal life and does not come unto judgment, but (emphatic) has passed over out of the death into the life…
The one hearing … and believing: Note that both hearing and believing are in the active voice. The active voice shows that the will is engaged.
Irresistibility and passivity cannot be brought into harmony with the Scriptural conditions of this construction.
Further, the same person engages in ?”the one hearing and believing.” Both hearing and believing are connected by and (kai.) and have the same article as the antecedent.
This is a construction used to show the effect of a SINGLE result with respect to hearing and believing: that is…has eternal life.
Eternal life: Life translates zõên—life, living existence; spiritual life, eternal life. Eternal life is the quality of life that is the opposite of spiritual death.
Has passed over: It was the one hearing and believing who passed over. The passing over is described as out of (ek)…into (eis)—out of one condition, death, into another, life.
Hearing, believing and passed over are in the active voice, i.e., the dead sinner acted, action that was in response to the purpose of Christ’s coming: “to call…sinners to repentance” (Lk 5:32).
Thus both God and man acted in the active voice; the Saviour of sinners came to call and the sinner acted by hearing, believing, and so passed over out of one sphere into another.
Metabebêken, has passed over, is an active voice, perfect tense verb of completed action, the completion of which stands as a reality.
Metabebêken may be illustrated as the bridge out of death into life. It is another way of speaking of the transformation from one sphere into another.
Note that death and life are opposite states and these opposites cannot exist together in the same state. Sin and righteousness are opposite states/morals and these opposites cannot exist together in the same life. Sin is death; righteousness is life.
Eternal life and has passed over are the results of hearing and believing.
Metabebhken with the phrases ek [out of] and eis [into].
With this construction metabebhken has the following meanings: Passage out of one sphere into another…out of death into life… (Jn 5:24)
Verse 25: “Verily, verily I say to you that an hour is coming and now is when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those having heard will live…
So according to Jesus this spiritual and moral resurrection is both now is?a present state?and future, i.e., will hear . . . will live, because salvation is both a present provision and an attainment for “those who will hear.”
These constructions can neither be brought into harmony with irresistible grace nor believing after regeneration.
I suggest: it is not a question of different reading & expressing what is in the text. It is either expressing the text or imposing a theology into the text. The Calvinists are doing the imposition of a theology unto these texts. This is what James Barr, the biblical linguist calls a disaster of “total theological transfer.”
Again, excellent points.
People tend to forget that the New Testament was written in the language of the common people– of first century Greek, not much later English! We can’t read any translation and say “This is what God meant” when other translations disagree, because all are interpreting the Greek and imposing some of the bias of the translators. It is the same with commentaries and seminaries and theologians.
But grammar is something that does not change and cannot be lightly dismissed. Granted it’s not always clear (dative case can be tricky) but the Greek leaves little leeway for dispute. And in this particular case, the active nature of our choices is indisputable. Calvinism simply cannot stand unless it ignores the koine (plain!) Greek.
Yet even without that, Calvinism must redefine words on an Orwellian scale, John 3:16 being the most glaring example. They invent unbiblical and intellectual-sounding quips like “It means ‘all without distinction’, not ‘all without exception’”. They try to absolve God of being the author of sin while simultaneously making the reprobate as they are “for his good pleasure” and “by his eternal decree”. They try to make a forced faith a free-will faith by just moving the line; that is, it’s not ‘forcing’ for God to irresistibly change someone’s will so they can ‘choose’ Jesus. And, like many other erroneous systems, they are wholly inconsistent in the application of their own rules.
Paula: You say Calvinists say it is a forced faith. Yes, in a way you are right, it is. When God changes a heart through the hearing of the Gospel, which in turn allows us to see Christ as God sees Him, see ourselves as God sees us, and our sin, all as God sees it, we do see our need for a Savior and run to him not from him. Thankfully he does force it on us. I don’t know of anyone who if they knew what hell was really like would choose to go there. But I don’t know there could be those who would.
BTW Paula, we do know Greek and use it to interpret the passage, oh some of us may not know it as well as those who go in Seminary, but we do know the passage was written in Hebrew in the OT and Greek in the NT. We are a little educmicated. Just a little.
Yet if you know enough Greek to be “a little educmicated”, you can easily see that the arguments against the Calvinistic claims are airtight. The grammar is what it is and can’t be wished away.
So instead of merely claiming that you “know Greek”, show us; take some of the points about grammar made above and refute them with equally qualified grammar authorities. Back up your claim.
A forced “love” is unworthy of the God who is Love. It is not genuine but contrived, the “love” of a robot or puppet. So also a forced “faith”, even if it causes salvation, is unworthy of the God who can be trusted. I would not accept the “love” or “faith” of someone or something I forced to do so, and God would certainly not accept any less.
I gave an “adoption” illustration of my own last year, in one of the links in my previous comment (I won’t repeat it since links tend to hold up comments in the moderation queue). Read that and then explain to me how anyone with a conscience can rejoice that though God had the power to force “faith” on everyone, he did not use it— just as we would be appalled at anyone who had the funds and ability to adopt every child in the orphanage chose not to do so, and then expected the chosen ones to rejoice in their good luck.
“I don’t know of anyone who if they knew what hell was really like would choose to go there. But I don’t know there could be those who would. ”
Debbie, a smiley face at the end of the sentence above is terribly macabre
Agreed. And I’ve met people who really do understand that hell is awful and permanent, and want to go there with all their hearts. They would rather suffer for eternity than bow to God. Right now I can’t recall the name, but one of the famous atheists said this explicitly.
Yes it is Lydia on purpose.
Paula: Then 1) they do not “really know that hell is awful” or believe me they wouldn’t want to go there. EX: The rich man and Lazerus. 2) That shows that God does need to intervene, do a work in the heart, changing if from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh as said in Ezekiel. To want to go to hell with all their heart(the heart that God changes) is a good definition of insanity. Which we all have before Christ enters into our lives. And some say they want to go for affect, because no one willingly wants to go to hell I can pretty well guarantee.
That should be Lazarus.
“Yes it is Lydia on purpose.”
Debbie, I am afraid you have lost me. I don’t do vague very well.
Debbie,
(1) You’re calling me and them liars.
(2) Insanity is not defined by ideology. Do you think all serial killers are insane, even after psychologists judge them sane, just because they kill in spite of knowing they will be executed for it? Is Satan insane for rebelling against God? This is a nonsensical argument.
Or Lu Ba Bi……it could possibly be….that we read the passage, saw what it said. Read another passage, saw what it said, studied it some more….saw that it was compatible with other passages of scripture and believed it. That simple.
Lu ba bi: The Bible was written for us to understand. The Bible also says in the OT that God changes his mind, but does God actually change his mind. A person looks as if he can choose, but according to other passages of scripture, Luke 5 for example, it is God who does the work in the heart to enable a person to come to God, to “choose”. You can’t just pick and choose scripture Lu ba bi. You have to reconcile all scripture together. Both the passages in Ephesians, Romans for example, with the passages you have given. Now my challenge to you is to do that believing as you do that man chooses and God waits for that person to choose.
Debbie,
You might have seen calvinism in all the books of the Bible, but I don’t see it that way. I’d rather check one text at a time if it indeed expresses what the calvinists are claiming. I think it is more fruitful than assuming that calvinism is in all of the Bible (it is a transferred Augustinian determinism).
“When we pray for someone to be saved (our children, in this case), what precisely are we asking God to DO? If God can’t really DO anything in that regard, why are we praying? If man’s pre-faith nature is fixed, and his free will inviolate, what do we expect from God?”
It seems to me that an equally valid question would be, if God has already made up His mind as to who will be saved, what use is there in asking God to save our children?
Jay: That is a fair question, and is a problem for my view, just as my question is a problem for the non-Calvinists. My only answer is that God has also known of our prayers from all eternity past.
In fact, all but open theists have to acknowledge that all of our prayers have been known to God from eternity past and He has always known what his response to those prayers would be.
Here is the awful question. Some people respond to the Gospel message, and some do not. The former will tell you that God softened their hearts, overcame their objections, and opened their eyes to the truth. I have heard variations on that testimony again and again. So now the question: Why does God not do that for everyone? Why does God not soften the heart and open the eyes of everyone? Either He is unable to do so, or He is unwilling to do so.
Those of you with rebellious or lost children think about this: I doubt any of you would drag them back to you kicking, cursing and screaming, even if you had the power to do so. But what if you had the power to change their hearts, and open their eyes to the truth? Would you not use it?
Calvinists believe God can and does do that very thing to sinners, BEFORE they exercise faith. We believe we would never have turned to God had he not done a work on us BEFORE we finally surrendered to Him. Our nature is not changed because we had faith, but rather we had faith because our nature was changed.
Amen.
Yes, God provided perfect salvation BEFORE we come to faith. But the text of John 3:15; 1:12-13; 5:24 etc say that it is WE that come to receive [faith]. God does not believe for us.
God has given the text on Tithing BEFORE Baptistist tithe. But it is the Baptists who tithe (some of them), NOT God who come to tithing but Baptists.
Eps 2:8 We are SAVED.
Saved is in the Perfect Participle = meaning, the process of SAVING has completed perfectly and the STATE of ARE saved resulted from the process remains.
Like you ARE born American: the combination of present tense ARE and the PERFECT tense BORN is to emphasize the STATIC RESULT of the completed work of Salvation, NOT the present processing of salvation.
Same as John 19:30 it is finished in perfect tense (TETELESTHAI), meaning the PROCESS of redemption on the cross has finished. And the STATIC RESULTANT remains forever.
We ARE saved in Eps 2:8 translated the meaning of the perfect correctly emphasizing the static result.
In salvation God has PROVIDED salvation BEFORE we come to faith. But is is us who COME to faith. It is NOT God who comes to faith.
The confusion can be cleared easily if you read the text in the original and not reading theology into the texts of Scripture.
Lu ba bi,
Another great word on the Word! I appreciate your work.
In John 5:25 … Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.”
In the preceding verse … it says in verse 24 “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned.”
Faith and life are connected! The sinner … hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit is working by bringing conviction and convincing.
The sinner listens or heeds [passive], receives the Word and receives by faith. We see redemption here as God quickens men spiritually dead.
The message in these verses is clear … spiriitually dead men can hear and respond. There is no regeneration prior to faith.
Faith and life are connected! The sinner … hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit is working by bringing conviction and convincing.
Where is a scripture that says the Holy Spirit convinces Ron? I agree he brings conviction, but I have not seen where the Holy Spirit convinces in scripture anywhere, could you direct me to that passage?
Lu : I don’t disagree with any of what you just said (I think). I was predestined from eternity past (however you define predestined) to be saved. But I was not saved until I responded in faith to the message of the Gospel. I don’t speak for all Calvinists but I don’t know any who believe other than that. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. All who believe will be saved. Those who do not, will not.
God draws everyone, but not everyone responds positively. Of course everyone who responds positively has been drawn, but so have those who respond negatively. Many can testify to having rejected the clear drawing of God on them before they finally responded positively, but there are also others who testify that they no longer feel God drawing them and are happy He leaves them alone now.
If I had the power to force my children to love me, I would not use it, because a forced will is not truly free, and a forced love is a fake love. Oh it feels genuine to the one being forced, but the one doing the forcing knows it isn’t.
More importantly, if I had the power and will to force anyone to love me, how could I justify not using it on everyone? “Too bad for 99% of you, you don’t deserve my love anyway, but that lucky 1% that I forced to love me are also going to be forced to be happy about it!” Sorry, that just doesn’t cut it. And no, I’m not misrepresenting Calvinist teachings here; this is exactly what it comes down to.
Why do you think that is Paula? Also how many times have you prayed, Lord change so and so’s heart, life, whatever word you use? I am curious.
Also Lydia what is the definition of draws per the definition of the word in the original language?
I’m sorry my question is directed to Paula not Lydia, although Lydia could answer too.
“Why do you think that is Paula? Also how many times have you prayed, Lord change so and so’s heart, life, whatever word you use? I am curious.”
Not sure I understand the first part but the second part is a bit personal and I would think is bad manners to ask even if you are curious. Not even sure the question is “loving” according to your previous posts rebuking Paula.
I suppose there are some organized folks who keep journals on every single person they have prayed for over the span of their life. But to ask someone to share that publicly? That makes me think of Matthew 6
And why is WHAT, Debbie?
@Lydia: tanx.
Paula: If you speak in terms of forcing people to do this or that, no one will disagree with you. Think of it rather as lifting the veil. Can anyone deny that deniers of the faith are blinded to the truth of the Gospel? What if suddenly they were able to see?
2 Cor. 3 says,
“15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.”
(1) When someone turns to the Lord,
(2) The veil is taken away.
One causes two. How do you explain this, since Calvinism teaches the exact opposite? How can this plain scripture be twisted completely backwards?
Paula: Acts 26:18 if you simply want to duel with prooftexts.
I’m going to stick with trusting God to work in the hearts of the lost.
Frankly I’m not sure why any of us go into these exercises time and again. I’ve never seen anyone change their mind. I guess we just like to debate. The whole thing would probably die down if we didn’t continue to see chicken little posts popping up repeatedly warning us that the SBC sky is falling because of the insidious influence the SBCs favorite bogeyman: Calvinists (aka Reformed, aka Founders types, aka aggressive angry 5 pointers, aka YRR).
“But what if you had the power to change their hearts, and open their eyes to the truth? Would you not use it?
Calvinists believe God can and does do that very thing to sinners, BEFORE they exercise faith. We believe we would never have turned to God had he not done a work on us BEFORE we finally surrendered to Him.”
I understand, and I absolutely believe that God MUST “do a work on us” in order for us to come to Him. The question is, what exactly is that “work”? To me “drawing” isn’t the same as “regenerating.” That is where Calvinism breaks down for me…that, and this:
“Why does God not do that for everyone? Why does God not soften the heart and open the eyes of everyone? Either He is unable to do so, or He is unwilling to do so.”
The inescapable conclusion of Calvinism (as far as I can see) is that God in fact DOES REFUSE to “soften the heart and open the eyes of everyone.” Given the choice between a God who is UNABLE to do this or a God who is UNWILLING to do so, I’ll go with unable every time, and not consider God’s glory and power and grace to be diminished one whit as a result. For God to honor the free will He created in mankind is certainly no evidence of some weakness on His part, IMHO.
Jay: “For God to honor the free will He created in mankind is certainly no evidence of some weakness on His part, IMHO.”
God honoring free will is not an example of inability, but unwillingness. You are saying that God is not willing to violate man’s free will, not that He is unable to do so.
By the way, although I don’t believe that God limits Himself at the boundary of man’s free will, I agree with you that if He in fact does limit Himself there it would not indicate a weakness on his part.
Bill, I should clarify what I meant to say.
The God of the New Testament in the Person of Jesus Christ says, I am WILLING that every man, woman and child escape the fires of hell and come to know Me as Lord and Savior. I have come, and I have ordained My Church, to do everything in My power to do to persuade mankind to turn away from sin and come to me. My yoke is easy and My burden is light. I am not willing that any should perish. But because of the free will I gave mankind from the beginning, I am UNABLE to force Myself on any. The choice is theirs, and I have given them the ability to make that choice.”
The God of Calvin says, “I am ABLE to save all. I have the power to regenerate every individual so that they might have faith and then come to Me. But am UNWILLING to do this. With deliberate forethought and determination I decree that billions of human beings born without any choice in the matter are hereby consigned to the fires of hell for all eternity because I will it to be so. Before they were born I damned them, after they were born they remained damned, and throughout their lives they had no hope of escaping damnation because I willed them to be damned. At no time did they ever have hope, because I decreed that they have no hope. Every earnest plea from a devout mother on the damned’s behalf falls on deaf ears, because I have already decided that her child shall suffer unimaginable torment for ever and ever. Not because her child was any worse than any other, and not because her child rejected my offer of salvation, but because it was impossible for him to come to Me. I alone determined that her child would be born, live, and die utterly and completely without hope.”
Jay: I think that Mike takes this up earlier, but I want to point out the same thing. The non-Calvnist’s God, with full foreknowledge of who will accept and who will reject Him, allows to be born untold millions who are destined for hell. They will not repent. They will not believe. In God’s foreknowledge it is written in stone from eternity past. God does not hope they will be saved. He knows they will not be.
How much comfort, truly, can one take from this view?
Bill Mac,
How is the scripture I gave a proof-text when the context does not change the meaning? It clearly and explicitly states the order of events: someone turns to the Lord, and then the veil is taken away. I asked how you would justify Calvinism’s twisting this order backwards, but apparently you are unable. A simple “I can’t” would have sufficed.
You might want to ask Calvinists why we go through this; it’s their hill to die on. All I know is that “faith comes through hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Anybody who wants so badly to make a complicated mess out of that is welcome, but they can’t whine about all the endless debates.
Paula: Congratulations. You have with one verse unraveled centuries of Calvinist theology. Evidently we’ve all missed that verse all this time. I expect we’ll hear that Dr. Mohler is stepping down later today and of the dissolution of the Founders group later in the week.
Fallacy: appeal to authority.
Mockery: apparently a new fruit of the Spirit.
Irony: priceless.
By the way, a proof-text is not a verse or passage that always means something different in and out of context, although it can.
About 45 years or so ago I did the research on draw in Jn.6:44,65; 12:32, and found that the terms were used of draw a sword from its sheath, dragging Paul and Silars through the streets, etc. I actually know, in addition to Saul/Paul being knocked from his horse by the grace of God, of a friend who was knocked from his chair at a dining table. He said he came to his brother’s home (his brother was a Baptist minister) and had sat down to eat dinner, when something/someone knocked him out of his chair. He said he lit on his knees praying. Kind of really irresistible. As to the subjuntive, there is a third class subjunctive of purpose, and what ever God has purposed that He will do. As to infants, I believe with Mr. Spugeon who has a sermon on infant salvation that all infants dying in infancy will be saved. The doctrine of regeneration, the conception work of the Spirit of God, is reason enough to believe this. Calvin and Augustine often overstated their cases and they had other considerations that informed their writings. It is a little too much to expect people of other periods in history to think and reflect as we do. Even our own reflections are flawed flashes from shattered fragments of the mirror that man once was in Adam before the fall. In any case, God is not limited, and man’s sinful, depraved condition vindicates condemnation. The human condition is somewhat like the situation of the fellow who was digging on the Gasconade River near my first pastorate. Seems he go into a mound where the strange little worms bit him, and he wound up in the hospital having to take antivenom for copperhead bites. some of my Ozark members thought it was quite humorous about that city fellow not knowing the difference between baby snakes and earthworms. The Bible is plain: The wicked go astray from the womb as soon as they be born, speaking lies. David said it well, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.” He was referring to his sinful nature received by heredity. He was the same person who spoke of going to his son in eternity, the text upon which Spurgeon based his message on infant salvation (and with good cause I believe). As to human choice, I have no problem with preaching that man can and must choose. Mr. Spurgeon, however, said it well, when pressed to say what he would choose, if the choice were up to him,”I would choose that He should choose for me.” I can appreciate his view, knowing how liable I am to undo choices that I have made, a common, human, failing trait. The theology of the Awakenings, the launching of the Great Century of Missions, the Reformation, and the producing of a nation able to provide freedoms for its citizens like no other is that of Sovereign Grace. And the most inviting, winsome teachings are those that on the surface seem the most disagreeable. When God gets His hook in to the soul of a snner, the result is the same as when a person gets their hook into the mouth of a fish.
“You twist that enough without twisting details about Calvin’s life. I too have studied Calvin. He was not a “little pope” and I could probably answer a lot more about Luther and Calvin.”
What did I twist? I was only citing historical fact that is documented. A lot of it is from Calvin’s own letters and documents that are available to any researcher.
I do find the stance of your comment strange considering that you are defending niceness over doctrine as the true test of Christianity on another thread.
There’s been a lot of comments (too many to follow), so I want to add some of my final thoughts (since I’m the one who started the thread!
)…
1. This is about soteriology not a calvinistic system as a whole. Baptists who hold to the 5 points readily acknowledge the fact that in his reformation theology, Calvin did not reform enough. There were some areas such as infant baptism and his views of communion where he held onto his traditions over scripture. In different areas to different degrees, we all do the same. But just b/c calvin got some parts wrong doesn’t mean he got everything wrong.
2. With the above, Calvin also didn’t do much for the “separation of church and state” thus the condemnation and physical punishment of some “heretics” while he was in Geneva. The church and state were too closely aligned especially in this regards. We’re not trying to sanitize Calvin, we recognize his faults, we recognize his sin, we also recognize politics and society were a heck of a lot different then, so we’re not going to demonize him either. Again: just b/c he was wrong in some areas doesn’t mean he was wrong in all.
Which brings us to 3. Let’s keep this focused on the Bible. The adoption analogy was a defense of irresistible grace and unconditional election. Yes the thought of such doctrines horrify some and cause others to say that those who hold to such things don’t really know their Bible.
Yes, we all know: for God so loved the world…and it says world not elect. I agree. But the kosmos isn’t just people either, it’s creation: the earth, the animals, etc. Jesus died to redeem creation as a whole and his people in particular. Maybe we shouldn’t limit “world” to just people, either!
But that was beside the point. Perhaps, IMO, the greatest biblical reason for the doctrines of grace: the analogy of sheep and goats.
Matt 25: When Jesus returns and judges, he will separate the sheep and the goats. The sheep inherit the eternal kingdom, the goats are cast into the eternal fire. All people ultimately belong to one of these two categories.
John 10: Jesus spoke about how he is the good shepherd, and when his sheep hear his voice they listen and follow (and he makes it clear that not all his sheep had heard his voice at that time). A group of Jews then accost Jesus and say: tell us plainly if you are the messiah. Jesus replies that it’s not a matter of plain speech, it’s a matter of their heart: I told you and you do not believe…you do not believe because you are not a part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice and follow me and I give them eternal life.
He doesn’t say: believe and become my sheep. Nor does he say: you are not my sheep because you do not believe. He clearly says in both English and the Greek in which John wrote: you do not believe because/since you are not my sheep.
Someone in this thread asked earlier in response to this idea: “When did you become his sheep?” Well, I’d say: technically when my name was written in the book of life from before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8 & 17:8). It’s just that for a time before I came to faith I was wondering around as a lost sheep, presently dead in my sins, ready to be devoured by the wolf, not knowing I was lost, and not seeking to be found…
Which leads to a final passage:
Luke 15:3-7 where Jesus tells a parable of a shepherd who has 100 sheep–99 are safe in the fold, one is lost and wandering. The shepherd leaves the 99 to go find the one and bring it back to be part of the fold. In verse 7, Jesus clearly states this is a parable of salvation because when 1 lost person repents there is more joy in heaven than there is over 99 righteous people who need no repentance. All 100 are the shepherd’s sheep, however…
All together: there are basically three types of people in the world: sheep, lost sheep, and goats.
The goats are like the Jews in John 10–they might hear the gospel, but they continually reject Christ in their sins. They do not believe because they are not of the flock.
The sheep are those who have heard and do follow. The lost sheep are the ones who are off in their sin and without Jesus, but when they hear they will follow. They might resist for a while, as dumb sheep are prone to do, but eventually, if nothing else, the shepherd will pick them up and carry them home where they belong. This is irresistible grace: that Jesus knows his sheep, and his sheep ultimately will hear his voice and know him…then they will turn, that veil over their hearts and minds is lifted, and they experience the growth of true faith…
My Dad believed and Preached everything you said in the last four or so paragraphs about the Sheep the Goats, and the Shepherd and Sheep knowing his Voice.
But he stood with Randall Lolley over James Deloach and Jerry Vines.
So how do you explain that?
How can a person who knows the Shepherd’s Voice disagree with the Words he hears from Vines, and Deloach; and if the Shepherd’s Voice is all there is, is the First Thing; then all this fuss about about the First Eleven Chapters of Jesus, and wasn’t Pressler’s trip to Waco to chastise Jack Flanders a wasted Trip after all.
As the Catholic Friar tells his Jewish friend when the Jew in the Movie Revolt of Job brings his Adopted Gentile Boy to the Friar so the Friar can tell him about the Lamb of God who came into the World to save the People from their Sins, the Friar says: “That’s All There Is.”
Amen
Hi Mike,
As I said somewhere up this long chain of comments, I really like the orphanage analogy. I also know what it is like to not have the means and ability to adopt every child in the orphanage.
I am right on board with Jesus’ work to redeem all of creation. I think the new heavens and new earth bears this out biblically. But the Achilles heel of Calvinism, in my opinion, is to reconcile the love of God with unconditional election and irresistible grace.
The rich young ruler came to Jesus seeking what he must do to obtain eternal life. Jesus, perceiving the idol in the young man’s heart, told him to sell all he had and give the money away. The young man could not bring himself to do this, and walked away without eternal life. I have a question: was the offer of grace (assuming it occurred here) genuine?
If yes, the young man clearly resisted it at this time.
If no, it goes against the clear narrative presentation, as the gospel author could have said that Jesus was not sincere.
Furthermore, Jesus was sorrowful at the young man’s rejection of Jesus’ offer of life. If unconditional election (as Reformed theology understands it) were true, why would Jesus (as God) be sorrowful? Wouldn’t the young man’s rejection of Jesus’ words be unconditional election (the will of God) playing itself out in space-time? If this is what God ordained in eternity, why express sorrow? Shouldn’t Jesus (as fully God) be “glorified” at the rejection of his words, rather than heartbroken?
In my two-cent opinion, the full revelation of God in Christ reveals the depth of the Father’s (and the Son’s and the Spirit’s) love for his creation. The fact that Jesus wept over the “goats” of Jerusalem and their failure to believe: “Would I like a hen gather you like chicks under my wings time and again, but YOU WOULD NOT” (my paraphrase) does not sound like unconditional election from all eternity to me. Rather it sounds like the genuine love of God for his people who refused to acknowledge or return that love. So he leaves them to the consequences of their actions, but he did not arrange it so. He sent prophet after prophet to them to warn them. The OT records his pleas for their repentance. He prayed for the forgiveness of the evil men that crucified him.
I think there are other ways to see the work of God than the Reformed way, but I still welcome those of the Reformed persuasion as brothers and sisters with whom I disagree but still love.
Jim G.
Jim,
I think in the love and the will of God we see a complexity that we cannot even begin to understand… God is perfect love based on who he is by nature: before anything else existed to be the object of his love, he perfectly loved himself among the members of the trinity, what love we receive is a blessing that flows out from this.
The ideas of irresistible grace, unconditional election, limited atonement, etc, fully acknowledge that though God is glorified in all things, including the eternal judgment of sinners, such judgment also grieves God. Yet, for his reasons God chose to show his loving grace to some while grieving others in his plan and in his glory… why? The Bible doesn’t say and I’m not going to render a guess.
But one thing I have thought about when it comes to this idea of love in relation to the offer of grace and God’s grief at sin and judgment has to do with the angels; and it’s something I’ve rarely ever seen used in conversations about election.
Elect isn’t a word used only in terms of human beings… 1 Tim 5:21 calls some of the angels “elect.” From what we know about angels there are some who rebelled (sin), fell, and face judgment (Jude 6, Matt 25:41). But the angels have no experience of salvation (1 Pet 1:10-12). I have heard reasoned guesses as to why the angels had no offer of salvation (for example: they have a fuller experience of God’s glory than we ever had on earth), but they’re just guesses. The Bible doesn’t tell us why God chose not to offer salvation to fallen angels. Yet no one argues that this goes against the love of God: to let some of his creatures be judged without ever at least offering grace.
Whatever they are, God had his reasons with the angels; and God has his reasons as to why some people are not elect. Sin and lostness still grieve God. And God is still perfect love.
Hi Mike,
Neither do I understand about the angels.
No disrespect meant, but I cannot see how God can grieve over the condemnation of the reprobate when it is his will that guarantees they will be reprobate in the first place. It is HIS choice for them to be reprobate. Otherwise, he could irresistibly impose his grace upon them and save them. But he does not, so they eternally die. How can God grieve over that? It’s (in the system) exactly as he wants it.
But you raise a great point about God’s love toward the elect flowing from who he is in his triune self. If unconditional election (as the Reformed position understands it) were true, where does God’s passing over some to reprobate them come from? Does it come from some sort of rejection within the Godhead? Is there something in the triune nature that causes eternal rejection? If election is truly unconditional, then only God’s good pleasure drives it. If the choice to reprobate comes from within God himself, does that imply some sort of disharmony within God? It would seem so, else we have an outside influence, and thus a conditional election.
I have never seen any Calvinist (and I’ve read a few) do complete biblical justice to the universal love of God and hold to unconditional election at the same time. I don’t think there is any way around it. It is also very difficult for a Calvinist to avoid pinning the cause of evil onto God. These are just the difficulties of the system.
Jim G.
Jim,
I’ll freely admit, I don’t have the answers, but I think the universal love of God is difficult in all striving-to-be-biblical systems.
B/c even with non-open-theist, non-calvinistic thought, God had to at least know when he created many would reject him. So by creating in the first place, he essentially willed them to judgment and others to glory even though it flowed from their choice. Thus he willed it and grieves… it’s the same issue for both we just approach it different ways!
(and of course, this is where some have made the philosophcial arugments: it is better to create than not to create)…
Yes. It would be nice if we could focus solely on irresistible grace, but unfortunately from the same Source of irresistible grace must also proceed irrevocable damnation–intentional, determined, thought-out, coldly implacable consignment of billions to eternal torment, with no hope of salvation. God forbid!
My feeble attempt at the “why” question:
fether.net/2008/11/24/cosmic-q-and-a/
Hi Mike,
The “reply” button seems to be missing on your post, so I am replying here. I don’t know if it will show up above or below your post, but it is to reply to your post on 8/30 at 7:41 PM.
I agree that the universal love of God is hard to maintain. I hope you see that the unconditional election of God is as equally hard to maintain, if not harder.
I also agree that God could foresee the rejection of his love by many. (I am not an open theist) But human beings freely rejecting his love is much different than God unconditionally choosing to pass them over. In the former, at least some semblance of human responsibility for his own reprobation is maintained. In the latter, the human is guaranteed to be reprobate, even if he thinks he believes.
Finally, I don’t have all the answers either. I am aware of the weaknesses of my own position – painfully aware. I just think that we will make no progress in this debate until both sides express the humility to see their own weaknesses. I have heard talk that the debate over Calvinism is dividing the SBC. I don’t know if that is true or not, but the pride behind that debate might.
I was thinking that maybe the absence of a comment button means we are done talking. I hope not. You have been a gracious debate partner. I wish all were as you!
Peace,
Jim G.
Calvinistic irresistible grace is predicated upon “dead” theology as no ability or total inability to believe the Gospel–hence: regeneration first and then faith in Christ.
This inability is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Eph2 has been used and abused but this passage can’t be forced to say inability to believe.
How one understands the phrase “who were dead in trespasses and sins” in Ephesians 2:1 is crucial.
Many presuppose dead means unable to respond to spiritual things.
Thus spiritual death would be tantamount to being like an inanimate rock without spiritual sensitivity. To prove this Markus Barth cites a number of biblical passages (Ps 30:3; 33:19; Jonah 2:6; Job 5:20; Luke 15:24, 32; 1 John 3:14; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22; Eph 2:1, 5: Col. 2:13; Rev 1:8; 3:1-2).
Upon careful inspection of each of these passages not one of them teach what he claims. They teach either one of two things: (1) literal physical death or (2) spiritual separation from the quality of life that comes only from a relationship with God. Both of these qualities are what man lost at the fall.
Nowhere does Scripture teach the inability of man to respond to God’s drawing. In fact one finds the opposite (see John 7:37; Rev 22:17). Or else how could God blame people for not acknowledging Him (1:18-32) or believing in Christ (John 5:40)?
Further, how could God talk to Adam after the fall, or was he granted an instantaneous faith gift?
Second, advocates who advance this point make illogical leaps to prove mankind’s inability to respond to God.
For example, MacArthur says, “Because we were dead to God, we were dead to truth, righteousness, peace, happiness, and every other good thing, no more capable to respond to God than a cadaver.” [John F. MacArthur, Jr., Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1993), 64.]
He further intensifies the severity of mankind’s state by calling people, “Unregenerate sinners . . have no life…[cannot respond] to spiritual stimuli… [and are]ungrateful dead, spiritual zombies, death-walkers, unable even to understand the gravity of their situation. They are lifeless.” p65
He makes a logical fallacy. The fact that unbelievers lack the spiritual qualities inherent in eternal life—to be enjoyed only by believers—does not prove that people are cadavers unable to respond.
Ephesians 2:1does speak of unbelievers as being ‘dead’ in their trespasses and sins. Yet, that in no way means that they are incapable of any spiritual activity and are no more able to respond to God than a cadaver.
On numerous occasions the Bible shows that people are not like rocks without spiritual stimuli. For example, in Acts 10:31-32 the unbeliever’s prayers of Cornelius were heard by God, and Peter was sent so that he could get saved.
Hence Peter says in Acts 10:34b-35, “In truth I perceived that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.’”
Peter was talking about unbelievers like Cornelius! Unbelievers can and sometimes do fear God and even work righteousness. Of course, such righteous deeds (cf. 10:31 re almsgiving) are incapable of meriting favor with God: ‘All our righteousnesses are like filthy rags’ (Isa 64:4).
Yet unbelievers can and do seek God, as Cornelius obviously did. Cornelius was not a believer but was seeking God.
Obviously, Cornelius must have had special revelation since he was a “devout man …who feared God with all of his household.” Technically, however, because he had been enlightened through special revelation God sought him first. Nevertheless nowhere in the text is there any trace of God endowing Cornelius with faith in order to respond to His drawing.
In the final analysis Cornelius upon hearing Peter’s message of the gospel of Jesus Christ believed and was saved (10:44-48).
In addition to Cornelius, a lady called Lydia also responds to God’s drawing when, “The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14b).
In showing that people are not spiritual cadavers two elements are key in Lydia’s account. First, like Cornelius, Lydia was a God seeker who assembled to pray and worship God (16:13-14).
Similar to Cornelius God drew Lydia through special revelation.
Second, while she was hearing the gospel (16:11, 14), “The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.” One must note, however, that before the Lord opened her heart, vv 13-14 show she was already seeking God just like Cornelius. The meaning of the “opened” refers to opening of the eyes to make understanding possible and enable perception.[ W. Bauer et al., A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and ed., Frederick William Danker, 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 234.]
The majority of occurrences of the Greek term heart in the Bible refers to the mind as it does here; God opened Lydia’s “eyes of the heart” like removing a mental veil (2 Cor 4:3-4) so she would understand and “heed the things spoken by Paul.”
God miraculously gave her understanding by allowing her to perceive what Paul was saying so that she could believe and be saved.
Lydia is another example of a “dead” seeker. This opening of the heart that took place should not be understood as God coercing her will or imparting the gift of faith. This is in fact a gift, but the gift is one of enabling her to understand what Paul was saying not of faith.
A Roman centurion serves as another example of a dead seeker who had faith in Jesus’ ability to heal his servant (Matt 8:5-13). It was because of this centurion’s personal faith that Jesus marveled and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel” (v 10).
Yet, some could object by posing that God could have given the centurion faith.
Though probable, this is an impossible interpretation for several reasons. First, Christ refers to the degree of the centurion’s faith (“great faith”) and not faith itself. Second, since Christ admires the degree of Gentile faith above Jewish faith, it only makes sense if that faith came from the centurion and not God. For, why would Christ emphasize the centurion’s degree of faith if it came from God? Surely, if this faith came from God would that really surprise Christ—knowing that the Father can do all things (John 3:35; 6:65; 13:3)?
Discoveries of all civilizations also prove that people are not spiritually insensitive. Evidence shows mankind is not devoid of a god-conscience or from seeking a deity, which is why Romans 1:18-32 condemns people for ignoring natural revelation that testifies about a supreme deity. Indigenous people might seek the wrong god unless they possess special revelation (the Word of God), but the fact that they seek shows they are spiritually sensitive, or else they would be indifferent about “religious or spiritual things” (whether true or false).
People are not like rocks or cadavers. A starving and homeless person can be invited to eat at one’s home. One can furnish the invitation and the means to arrive. One can even provide the food for him to eat. In fact, to a certain degree one can even predict almost to perfection the outcome of the event. He will eat. However, because one understands the circumstances and with a certain degree of accuracy predict the probable outcome—even by providing all of the necessary ingredients to accomplish the task—this does not mean that one can also eat for him. He still has to make his own choice whether he wants to eat or not. People do have spiritual sensitivity and are not inanimate rocks!
Calvinistic irresistible grace is predicated upon “dead” theology as no ability or total inability to believe the Gospel–hence: regeneration first and then faith in Christ.
This inability is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Yes and no to both the first statement and the second.
IMO, the best biblical understanding of death is not inability, but separation for the human experience.
Physical death: separation of spirit from body, yes body cease to function but soul lives on.
Spiritual death: separation of person from a good relationship with God, making us his enemies and under his wrath and judgment.
Second death: spiritual death, except at final judgment, incorporating body and spirit in the eternal fire.
In terms of inability, one could argue that the John 10 passage shows an inability; but let’s go with something that is more clear: unwillingness. Romans 3:10-11 “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.”
The complete depth of our depravity means that no one will chose or seek God under their own volition. Whether we’re able or not doesn’t matter, because we never will. That’s how much we love sin and are hardened in heart. In regeneration it is God changing our heart/will… “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.” He takes that which is stone-hardened and completely unwilling and makes it willing.
And when God changes a heart, the result is belief (as I stated somewhere above w/ 1 John 5:1)…
Acts 17:27 says that God has granted to all men “that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him.” God wants us to seek Him. Romans 3:10 is looking at what we do on our own initiative. No one seeks God on his own initiative. God must initiate the process by seeking us. And that is exactly what He does. He is drawing all to faith in Christ (John 12:32; 16:9-11; Rom. 1:18-21; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). Most reject His drawing; but all are drawn.
See somewhere above… the “all” in John 12:32 is by itself and open-ended… all what? Men? Nations? Guys named Pete? We have to supply the interpretation, and coming in the context of some Greeks now being brought to Jesus it is a good interpretation to say Jesus is talking about all nations. It doesn’t have to go in the direction of all individuals as you try to force it.
John 16 simply says that the Spirit will convict the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. The word for conviction is broad enough to be positive: as in convict them and lead them to repentance, and negative as in convict them in that they truly are guilty. There’s nothing in the context that says how this plays out individually and certainly nothing to connect it with supposedly drawing all to faith.
Romans 1–do you read these before you suggest them. 1:18ff has nothing to do with drawing people to faith but showing why the faithless are guilty and w/o excuse.
1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 simply say that God desires all to come to repentance and salvation, drawing from Ezekiel where God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Conversely, though, that doesn’t mean God draws all people, if he has some greater purpose/reason for not drawing them.
You know, Romans 10 says that faith comes by hearing and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved…but how do they call on the one they don’t believe, how do they believe in the one they’ve never heard of, and how do they hear w/o a preacher. A person cannot be saved apart from the gospel message. Thousands of people die every day w/o the gospel anywhere near them. Why would God draw them only to leave them with nothing to be attracted to since he didn’t supply them with the gospel?
And what about John 10 that I’ve mentioned several times?
DRAW in John 6:44-45 does not teach regeneration in order to impart faith to dead unbelievers = total inability.
John 6:44-45 states: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
Many interpret v 44 as showing man’s inability to come (i.e., “believe,” see vv 35-37, 39-40, 47) to Christ unless the Father does a special work.
Though faith is not mentioned here many argue from this verse man’s inability to believe that logically concludes God’s granting of a gift allowing man to believe in Christ.
Much of the argument here centers on the meaning of the term draw defined as “compel” or “drag” a person against their will.
Evidence clearly shows the Greek word helko to carry “a semantic range that includes the idea of coercion” (see Jas 2:6 and Acts 16:19).
However, John’s five uses of the term do not include the notion of coercion (cf. John 6:44; 12:32; 18:10; 21:6, 11).
John 21:6, 11 refers to Peter dragging his fishing net that could not be understood as coercing since nets do not have volitional ability to resist.
A similar situation occurs in 18:10 when Peter draws his sword that is also devoid of volitional ability to resist.
John’s use of the word drae [helko] in 12:32 refers to Christ’s resurrection that will draw literally everyone to him. All people clearly include even the unbelievers mentioned in 12:37-40.
Hence the meaning of drawing here cannot mean God will coerce everyone in the world to believe or impart faith to believe, which is obviously not the case since the majority of humanity have died without believing in Christ.
A similar conclusion appears in 6:44. Unfortunately some have missed v 45 in illuminating v 44. Jesus quotes Isaiah 54:13, “And they shall all be taught by God.” This phrase clarifies how the Father draws people to Him. Through God’s present revelation stemming through Christ people are brought near or attracted to Christ. Thus it is God’s Word that allows people to be drawn to Christ according to the immediate context.
Thus, ‘taught’ clarifies or answers the question ‘how does the Father draw people?’ He draws through the teaching of His Word.
Moreover, Jesus builds on the Isaiah quotation, saying, everyone who heard and learned from the Father comes to Me (6:45b). Then continuing through 6:58, Jesus works to teach and persuade all of them—to make them hear and learn—even though some are not elect (cf.6:64).
That some degree of ability exists to respond here as in 12:32 appears unquestionable. Thus, God’s drawing here cannot refer to regeneration or a divinely imparting gift of faith or coercion.
It is sad to see many read irresistible grace unto such texts. We suppose to express what is in the text and not using texts to bolster ideas alien to the texts.
Yet even still more excellent material, lu ba bi. I would also note that grace is not a force at all, but only favor bestowed from the greater to the lesser. As it is used in the NT, it seems to convey not only the favor of God to his creatures, but also the element of pity. This is wholly consistent with the love of God. In contrast, Calvinism tends to see God’s sovereignty as practically all that matters, and thus that this grace must also be a matter of power instead of love.
Seriously, I have never understood the need for people to argue for or against Calvinism. I seriously don’t.
I’m a big time 5 pointer. I mean, I won’t let my wife plant anything in our garden but TULIPs. If I’m making a list with and I only have four points I find a reason to add another one. Love me some McArthur, Piper, Sproul, and Together for the Gospel. But I don’t care in the least to defend Calvinism because I know people who are not 5 pointers (Lydia, Paula) who have the gospel right and 5 poniters like Cough-man who don’t.
The issue, for me anyway, is not whether you believe that a person was elected before the foundation of the world or whether they become elect when they choose to accept Christ, but do you proclaim that salvation is found only in Christ. Can a man, woman, boy or girl child be right with God only by repentance from sin and faith in Christ Jesus alone? Was Christ’s death on the cross the only thing that satified the wrath of a holy God who has been offended by our sin? Will God condemn to hell anyone who does not repent of their sin and place their faith in Christ? If you answer those three questions with three Yes’s, then you have the gospel right. Whatever other disagreements I may have with you (Paula, Lydia, you know I’m talking at you….don’t front like you don’t know) I can affirm that you have the gospel right and proclaim the right gospel. I don’t care if you’re a 5 pointer, 4 pointer, or what. You have the gospel right.
Now go proclaim it.
That’s exactly what I was talking about when I told someone that Calvinism is their hill to die on. I don’t know either why it’s so vital to them. But I do know that studying its flaws can help when I encounter an atheist who has rejected God on the basis of Calvinist theology. That’s why I have studied it. I may be “pointless” (as some here would gleefully take literally) when it comes to TULIPs, but “I know whom I have believed”, and won’t hide him in shame in the presence of those who need him most.
But I did have to LOL at this: “I mean, I won’t let my wife plant anything in our garden but TULIPs. If I’m making a list with and I only have four points I find a reason to add another one.”
Paula: Atheists reject the Gospel because of Non-Calvinists too, so that argument is a dirty one and I would contend not true. Deal with the beliefs which are the issue not your anecdotes which may or may not be true. People reject the Gospel Paula, and it’s not Calvinism’s fault. Deal with the texts Paula which is something you seem to have a hard time doing and it’s why no one can debate you, you keep weaving off into insults and left field. Again.
For example Paula deal with comment #243. That would be refreshing.
Sorry that’s comment #244.
What would REALLY be refreshing is Debbie explaining how her sarcasm and mockery is “love”. I’ll be the lurking Muslims are just feeling the love right through teh internetz right now, eh Debbie?
Paula: Another cheap shot. It seems you cannot deal with the questions I have asked. I am not mocking you, I am telling it as I see it. That’s not mocking, that’s confronting you with what you are doing and trying to get you to look at the text and answer questions. But….you seem to want to change the subject. Let me know when you want to seriously look at the text, tell honestly and deal with what Calvinists actually believe. You know where to find me when you decide to get serious.
Oh boy… “that would be refreshing” isn’t mockery or a cheap shot but “confronting”. Lulz.
Many of us have tried to get YOU to look at the text and answer questions Debbie, but you continue to evade, misunderstand, and exercise your signature double standard. And I’m not even hoping at this point that someday YOU will “get serious”. It’s been a complete waste of effort.
So if Calvinism is bad for evangelism, explain why the SBC is in decline, when most of its members are not calvinistic.
To answer the question I asked, the word draw as used in scripture in the original language is helkuo which means to drag.
When Christ raised Lazarus is was more than just the raising of a friend, it is also an illustration of what happens to us when we are born again, coming from death to life by Jesus’ mere command to “Come forth.”
Where did Paul choose Christ in his conversion? Who in the NT or OT “chose” Christ. Even the parable of the Prodigal Son is showing how God sometimes allows us to go our own way, and we always end up coming back to Him.
Debbie,
Paul chose Christ in Damascus.
Anyone who receives Christ, “chose” Christ.
But what happened before that Don? That is important to the whole scheme of things. Paul looked as if he chose Christ in Damascus what events occurred from beginning to end Don?
There is also the verse that is quoted a lot but it bears repeating again.
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
Debbie,
Not sure what looking for, give me some help.
Debbie,
My help statement was for your Paul question.
Why would think Acts 16:14 helps the Calvinists position?
That should be:
Why would you think Acts 16:14 helps the Calvinist’ position?
In Acts 16:14, all the work was God. None of Lydia choosing or making a decision. All God doing the opening of Lydia’s heart. Perfect example of how God works in salvation. Lydia heard the message, God opened her heart to understand and receive it as truth.
The snatching of one verse out of its context just might show several things: 1) the forced grace was assumed no matter what the context says–since meaning in determined by usage in context; 2) the conclusion is not based on an inductive study of the text in context but based on the assumed or presumed absoluteness of TULIP.; Hence 3) the text is bent to say the pre-assumed TULIP, and not what actually is there.
13On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.
Who was Lydia? a “dealer” from “Thyatira”
She “was a worshiper of God”
v14 “One of those listening was a woman named Lydia”
Those were BEFORE the phrase “The Lord opened her heart TO RESPOND to Paul’s message.”
It is a BAD exegesis to assume that Lydia was regenerated and given faith then she responded to Paul’s message. That is what James Barr called the tragedy of “total theological transfer” of [in this case] TULIP into Acts 16:14.
This text just does not prove forced grace at all. The context shows the contrary: 1) Lydia was a God seeker BEFORE Paul came; 2) probably a proselyte Gentile grouping with Jewish worshipers. This passage and Acts 10; 17 among others totally disprove the calvinists’ notion of total inability.; 3) Lydia was called a worshipper of God BEFORE she responded to Paul’s message.
The Spirit’s initiative in opening of the sinner’s heart to the Gospel message is not questioned, but it is by the conviction of the Holy Spirit (Jn16:8-11), which is neither irresistible nor immediate.
In the case of Lydia, she was already “one of those listening” BEFORE the opening of her heart to RESPOND to the message of Paul. Whether she was a proselyte or devout Gentile is not stated, but she was ALREADY in association with the Jewish women who had gathered to pray on the Sabbath (16:13).
And don’t forget that God uses instruments to open the hearts of unbelievers: the messenger and the message (Rom 10:13-15). As a case in point in Acts 26:17-18 it says “17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18TO OPEN THEIR EYES and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, SO THAT they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
So, to foist the notion of irresistible grace upon this ‘Lydian passage’ is theological extrapolation, NOT contextual exegesis.
The forced grace theology is just impossible to maintain in light of the textual expressions of Scriptures.
One should not violate the context to snatch a phrase out of it. Also it is best not to negate the obvious to absolutize the not so obvious (i.e., opening of heart equals regeneration, etc).
In essence, don’t allow any theology to kill a text.
lu ba bi,
You are Correct
Lu la bi: The snatching of verses out of context? You have yet to show in your long dissertation where that is true, at least it has not convinced me. I have shown you the context and the original language.
Grace is more than unmerited favor. The best illustration I have heard is this. Someone comes up behind you, robs you and beats you up. You find that person, go to him and give him more money. More than he took. That is the Biblical definition of grace.
Lu la bi: The one problem that I see you doing is rewriting the entire passage, you are giving much more than the passage does. I suggest staying with the text only. You are adding to the Bible that which is not there in order to prove your point. I read the passage, check the original text language, and interpret it with other scripture. Simple.
I’ll probably regret this.
Non-Calvinists: What exactly do you want? What is it that you fear from Calvinists? What do you hope will happen?
Do you want us to stop being Calvinists? Why? Because you think we are killing evangelism? Prove that and we’ll consider it. Because we can be overbearing and obnoxious? I plead guilty. Your turn. I’ve heard many say it is ok for us to be Calvinists as long as we don’t teach it. The idea is idiotic. You don’t want us to teach what we think is true? Are you willing to do that?
You want us to stop trying to take over the SBC? I hereby renounce and cease all my SBC takeover activities.
You want us to apologize to the descendants of Servetus? Find them and I will.
If you ran the SBC and had the power, what would you do with Calvinists? Honest question.
Now, many of you may just be here to engage in honest discourse, enjoying the dialog. I do too. If so, carry on. This thread was started from the Calvinist perspective after all.
You know, sometimes I wonder that same thing. There are plenty non-Calvinists who are gracious (we’ve seen some in this thread); and plenty of Calvinists who seem out to get everyone to repent and become 5-pointers, for the kingdom is near…they can be much overbearing (heck, I admit I can be argumentative myself if the moment is right…though I hope that’s not how I am all the time or even most of the time).
But we have seen in this thread, and some other blogs started based off this thread/comments (for example, http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/ post on young calvinist) that basically decry calvinists as being proof-texting, weak exegetes who focus on pet doctrines as opposed to the whole council of God. And if that were characteristically true, then yeah we probably do need to stop being calvinists, shut up, and go away. But funny how those characterizations seem based off of blogging and small samples.
I know in my life/ministry… I hold to the 5 points, but I don’t go with the flow of the founder’s movement; I’ve not read much of Piper and what I have read I’ve not enjoyed all that much. I did go to SBTS, but I didn’t come to my conviction from my professors (if I did, at least from the small number of classes where the subject was addressed, I wouldn’t be a 5-pointer)… I developed them through the process of study/research/exegesis/and wrestling with the texts in english and greek.
In 10 years of preaching and 6 years of pastoring, I mainly go through books of the Bible…I’ve never had a sermon that was 5 points and spelled TULIP…I’ve never preached on Romans 9-11 and am just now getting to Ephesians…I only mention the words “elect” “chosen” or “predestined” when my text does.
I’m more interested in teaching people that the Gospel is Jesus and urging them to repent and believe, than I am trying to figure out who God unconditionally elected and Jesus limitedly atoned for as the Holy Spirit irresistibly drew them. While I believe the 5 points and am obviously willing to discuss them among brethren, when it comes to the pulpit and the street, they take a very low priority in the light of exalting Jesus as the crucified, risen, and ascended Savior and Lord.
The blog world is one thing, but when it comes to life, I’ve found most of my self-identifying-calvinist friends fit my description better than the strawmen tossed up on-line. (Though I will admit there are a couple…I can count their numbers on one hand…who are on steroids for the Founders movement and fit the 5-points-or-you’re-a-heritic description).
“Non-Calvinists: What exactly do you want? What is it that you fear from Calvinists? What do you hope will happen?”
My fear is that many Calvinists talk more about Calvin than Jesus Christ. Around the spiritually immature, this is dangerous. We all know folks who will run out and read everything but the Word.
I was neutral concerning Calvinism until I started studying church history indepth. Then I was incredulous that such a tyrant would be so idolized by so many. I do not buy into a “man of his time” argument. There were too many being drowned by the reformers for believers baptism for me to buy into that strawman. Calvin liked his “position”. And if he was so brilliant a theologian then why the sacral system? There were many who were not buying into it who were running for their lives.
Yet, I tend to agree with some of the doctrines that he gets credit for but are clearly from our Lord. But I know I am still free to CHOOSE to sin!
)
I also note that God CHOSE the Jews. But that certainly did not guarantee their salvation nor obedience. And we see throughout the OT God saying He would only save a remnant. And of course, they were saved by Faith, too.
Lydia: Look in this comment section. You were the one who brought up Calvin, not anyone else. We were talking about our doctrine. You and Paula brought up Calvin. That is usually the case. It’s not the Calvinists who talk incessantly about Calvin. It is the non-Calvinist when they can’t quite throw a wrench in the theology of Calvinism.
By the way I would change my source of history, it seems your sources have steered you wrong concerning John Calvin,was he perfect? No. Neither was Moses, who murdered, David who committed adultery and murdered(technically), Adam, Noah, Abraham etc. God uses the imperfect Lydia. He uses you and me, imperfect to give the perfect who is Jesus Christ.
You also have to take into consideration the times of these events, but most are just stories that have no validity. It’s the doctrine I embrace because it is what I see scripture, which is the final authority, teaching. You don’t. So why not argue your point from scripture because Calvinists have a very high view of scripture only. Books are good and helpful, men are good and helpful, but the Bible for us is the only thing which we will take as proof we are wrong. And then we must be convinced.
Lydia: God chose the Jews to eventually give salvation to both Jew and Gentile. It was a vehicle he chose, just like preaching the Word of God is the vehicle he chose. He didn’t need to. Christ and the Cross were not an afterthought of God when all else failed. It was to be in the beginning. Do you really think the Fall was a surprise to God?
Doing a page search on “Calvin” reveals the following facts, as opposed to baseless accusations:
The first instance is in the post itself.
The second instance is in the first comment, by Matt.
The third instance in in the third comment, by Christiane. And so on…
Lydia’s first mention of the word is in comment 164.
My first mention of the word is in comment 175.
Search again Paula, not quite accurate enough.
Debbie, show us the first mention of “Calvin” in this page.
“You also have to take into consideration the times of these events, but most are just stories that have no validity”
I guess those original letters of Calvin and Farel in the historical archives in Europe are fakes. Someone really must do something about that.
)
Lydia: I would like to see what you have been reading to justify your fears. Calvinists admittedly talk a lot about Calvinism. I’ve been reading about and discussing Calvinism for years, and Calvinists seldom talk about Calvin.
And Idolize? Are you joking? Are you mistaking the fact the doctrine we hold to is called Calvinism with idol worship?
You know, Martin Luther was not a paragon of virtue either. At one point I seem to recall he wanted the Jews exterminated. And yet I don’t see anyone ashamed of being protestant.
“Lydia: God chose the Jews to eventually give salvation to both Jew and Gentile. It was a vehicle he chose, just like preaching the Word of God is the vehicle he chose. He didn’t need to. Christ and the Cross were not an afterthought of God when all else failed. It was to be in the beginning. Do you really think the Fall was a surprise to God?”
I am sorry Debbie, I have no clue what point you are trying to make with the above. Perhaps I was not clear enough. My point was in jest…as in God “chose” the Jews but they certainly did not obey Him, although “chosen”. (I do understand the overarching principle of the OT…in case you were worried. And I do not think the fall was a surprise to God)
Can we stop with the school marm impressions?
“You know, Martin Luther was not a paragon of virtue either. At one point I seem to recall he wanted the Jews exterminated. And yet I don’t see anyone ashamed of being protestant.”
Yes, embarassingly enough, the Nazi’s used Luther quotes early on to justify their encroaching laws against Jews.
However, Luther wanted to “reform” the Catholic church. He was still in the sacral system and went right along with a “Protestant” state church. He did write once that he dreamed of a true Body of Christ consisting of the true elect along side the mandatory state church. So, seems he knew better. But he needed political protection, too. So, it is understandable.
I have a challenge for Calvinists. Try describing your beliefs without ever using the “C” word or even referring to his writings. I think some here have done a pretty good job with that, btw.
It’s just killing you to not talk about Calvinism but about Calvin and Luther isn’t it Lydia. The two greatest theologians of all time. OK, let’s talk. I’d hate for you to have this in your craw, which it is.
Nazi’s used Baptist sayings too Lydia. In fact for awhile Baptists and that includes Southern Baptists thought Hitler was good, great and why? Because of his morals. He was implementing morals into Germany. Baptists loved it.
You need to read the history in it’s context, just as you are to read the Bible in it’s historical context. The times were much different than now Lydia. And….this has nothing to do with the Bible or the doctrine of Calvinism. As I said, God uses men, even flawed ones, who were not all that wrong in those times Lydia. Quit reading history as if it was done in modern times. That is why it is history. Calvin is blamed for many things that frankly he didn’t have the power to commit. He was first and foremost a preacher, teacher, theologian. If they were alive today I am sure they would be quite different in their ways and methods. But you tell me your version of Calvin and Luther, I will tell you the true story.
Anything to get you back on topic which is not Calvin or Luther. But I’m willing, ready and able. Very able.
“I have a challenge for Calvinists. Try describing your beliefs without ever using the “C” word or even referring to his writings. I think some here have done a pretty good job with that, btw.”
That is easily done. In fact, I seldom read any of these Calvinism discussions that invoke Calvin’s writing, although they admittedly use the word Calvinism. It isn’t challenging at all. TULIP, the Doctrines of Grace, the 5 Solas. They all describe {c word } doctrine without invoking Calvin or the Institutes.
Hi Bill,
I’ll bite – for no other reason than to keep the discussion going. And because I think yours is an incredibly valid question.
I’m not worried that Calvinists will take over the SBC. I’m worried that stubborn, short-sighted pride might, but both Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike are quite capable of that. :0)
I don’t think Calvinists are worse evangelists than non-Calvinists. Statistics I’ve seen seem to show that both sides are roughly equally effective at evangelism, with neither side being able to claim high ground over the other in effectiveness. Hyper-Calvinists tend to make lousy evangelists for the truth, but so do Pelagians. It’s a wash.
I would (and do) welcome Calvinists as brothers and sisters in Christ (although I believe them to be mistaken). One thing I ask of Calvinists is to be honest about the difficulties of their system. It has real difficulties in a handful of areas which I have pointed out throughout this thread. I am aware of and freely acknowledge where my views fall short of the full biblical picture.
I would ask Calvinists to join with me (and others) and argue TOWARD the truth, rather than mistakenly think we argue FROM the truth on the issue of God’s foreknowledge and election. I want to see some critical self-reflection and humility on both sides of the fence, so that we will be able to draw closer to the full counsel of Scripture together.
Finally, I would ask that we all (C’s and non-C’s alike) stop talking past each other. It’s as if we don’t want to hear the other side. I think the greatest culprits that are to blame are our pride in thinking we are right and our insecurity that the other side may have a point. We are brothers and sisters in Christ, and the least we ought to do is walk a mile in the other guy’s shoes, just to see how he sees it. The rhetoric just hardens the other side; and it does absolutely no good. Even some of the ways Calvinists (and I’ll pick on Calvinists here) describe what they believe are a little inflammatory. Case in point: “the doctrines of grace.” All classical and Wesleyan Arminians, for example, fully affirm the grace of God. Their doctrines are “doctrines of grace” too. They just see grace operating differently. To me, it seems that one side saying their teachings are “the doctrines of grace” may imply that the other side teaches something other than grace. I just personally think that is an area where we could be a little more sensitive to the non-C’s.
I think this is a sad divide in the SBC and other places. I also think that pride is a bigger problem than Calvinism or Arminianism. I would rather find common ground (and there is LOTS of it) with my Calvinist brothers than divide the body. But I think that we all need to see that being prideful on this issue is worse than being wrong.
I hope this makes some sense.
Jim G.
Jesus said, “No one can come to me.” One thing I learned in grade school early on is that can refers to ability and may to permission. As the teacher said, “The question is not Can I go get a drink. You have the ability. The issue is permission, May I go get a drink?” So when the Etenal Son of God says, no one can come, I take it that He means exactly what He said, “NO ONE IS ABLE TO COME TO ME.” And some one said, “Inbility is not in the Bible”? As to Lydia’s case, does God waste words? Why bother to say, “Whose heart the Lord opened?” I took it as the explanation for my change of mind two blocks from my house, when I decided I would tell my mother about what had happened at tha Youth For Christ Meeting (namely seeing Jesus standing in front of me, looking at me, with one arm raised like He was knocking.Can’t figure out how I could see Him or even know Him, yet I did and felt so intimidated, I didn’t want to go forward then. I just wanted out of there). O yes, as to faith, The Bible says, Acts 13:48, “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” The active voice verb is ordained, and the passive voice verb is believed. That means ordained or destined (as the word can be and has been translated) is the cause and believed is the effect, the result, the consequence. Dr. B.H. Carroll declared in his commentary on the verse that when he was a young man, he wanted that verse to read, “as many as believed were ordained to eternal life, but it doesn’t say that.” He also said we are to let the Bible say what it means and not read our opinions in to it. And that verse seems to have been decisive with him for coming to believe in Sovereign Grace. To Dr. Carroll we might add what Dr. Truett said at the Spurgeon Centennial celebration in London (the person who introduced Dr. Truett – if memory serves correctly – was the Prime Minister of England), “He that sneers at Calvinism might as well sneer at Mont Blanc (one great snow capped mountains of the Alps in Switzerland).” And I know where Dr. Truett got that quote. From Dr. John A. Broadus in his commentary on Matthew. I reaffirm that the most soul-winning, intensely evangelistic and invitational theology in all of the Christian Faith is Sovereign Grace or perjoratively (sp.?) calvinism/augustinianism/paulinism. It is the theology of the First and Second Great Awakenings and of the launching of the Great Century of Missions. William Carey, as Dr. Danny Akins, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, pointed out, “was a five point calvinist.” So was Luther Rice, the man who got Southern Baptists to enlist in the cause of missions. I will close with some information from Luther Rice himself. His biographer, James B. Taylor, writing in his Memoir of Rev. Luther Rice. Baltimore, Md.: Armstrong and Berry, 1840, stated concerning Rice: “He was a decided believer in the doctrine of divine soveeignty.” He proceeds to quote a letter written by Rice to a friend: “Why should it not be the very joy of our bosoms, that he has ‘fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass?’” Rice also wrote: “How absurd it is, therefore, to contend against te doctrne of election, or decrees, or divine sovereigty. Let us not, however, become bitter against those who view this matter in a different light, nor treat them in a supercilious manner; rather let us be gentle towards all men. For who has made us to differ from what we once were? Who has removed the scales from our eyes? or who has disposed us to embrace the truth?” (pp.326,327,332,333),
O yes, Taylor also tells us that: “No man, prhaps, felt more sincere rejoicing at the convesion of a sinner, than he did; yet he never suffered the interest excited, in any particular case, to abstract his attention from the great plans of benevolence which had been adopted, to promote the general extension of the Redeemer’s kingdom.”(p318)
And Rice suffered for his efforts. He once baptized a lady of highly respectable connections at her request, but it was not agreeable to her friends. Her brother violently assaulted Rev. Rice, giving him many blows. Rev. Rice walked back to the place in which he was staying while the blows continued to fall. There he turned around and said with mild a gentle spirit, “May the best of heaven’s blesings rest upon you.”(316,317)
I could quote more, but let me sum it up in one succinct statement which I made to the Director of Missions who told me I ought to quit preaching predestination. I pointed to Rice’s Memoir by Taylor which was on his book shelf and said, “He says it is in the Bible and you had better preach it.” Over twenty years later, retired, that DOM gave me his book on Luther Rice. It is a collector’s item for two reasons, the date of its publication, 1840, and because of what is written in side the covers. In ink appropriate to the period and appearing to be of that era are the following words: PRIVATE JOHN A. McMURRY CO A. 3RD GEOGIA BATTALLION SHARPSHOTERS, WOFFORDS BRIGADE, KERSHAWS DIVISION, LONGSTREET’S CORPS, ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA. Also written on the blank pages before the title are the names of various soldiers and their outfits. I suppose I might be identified as a historian and am therefore quite touched to have such a valuable work, I am even more moved by the exemplary conduct and theology of Luther Rice. I praise God for what the work discloses of this man who was the father of missions among the Baptists of America. This is the result of the haystack meetings where Rice and Judson prayed and of the Second Great Awakenng. What has once been, will surely come again. After all, we are told in Ps.72:19: “let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen.” That verse led Spurgeon the five point calvinist to pray for the conversion of the whole earth and every soul upon it. Check his evening devotion for August 6. Strange is it not? The calvinists pray for the conversion of the whole earth, and then they set out to win the elect, the church to Christ, and we find that involves the whole earth!
“Nazi’s used Baptist sayings too Lydia. In fact for awhile Baptists and that includes Southern Baptists thought Hitler was good, great and why? Because of his morals. He was implementing morals into Germany. Baptists loved it.”
Are you sure the Baptist quotes used by the Nazi’s on the Germans were as influential as Luthers? As a lover of history, I would love to know the source for those quotes.
But you got my curiosity up. So I pulled out Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (not the only source but one of the best, most comprehensive and he was there) and looked to see if Baptists or even Methodists are mentioned. They aren’t, but I will keep looking. I did read once that Baptists were a very tiny minority in Germany and were sort of looked down upon by the ‘high church’ Lutherans.
Lydia: Here is a history lesson for you. A group of Southern Baptist journalists toured Germany with Hitler. What they saw was this. Some saw the truth. They saw that Baptists in Germany could not serve Hitler and God. They knew they would have to make a choice. A choice that would not be easy. John W. Bradbury, Boston pastor and delegate wrote:
Crossing the border was a dreaded experience. After all I had read in American and foreign newspapers I was prepared for a tense atmosphere. The impression lingered around me that police would be everywhere; spies would be listening to our talk; danger lurked around the corner; and many similar kinds of bogies. Then, besides, it was the day following the assassination of Chancellor Dollfuss in Vienna. Really I dreaded a repetition of August 1914 [Watchman. Examiner XXII 34 (August 23, 1934)].
As he entered the hall he saw a painting of Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, JG Onkean standing at the foot of the cross. Next to this painting was the German Third Reich flag.
John R. Sampey, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, wrote:
While everywhere the Baptists from other lands were treated with marked courtesy, some of us felt that our German Baptist brethren were uncertain and disturbed concerning their future. They talked little, but the atmosphere seemed to some of us charged with uneasiness and fear. . . . Our Baptist brethren in Germany face a very grave crisis. They will find it difficult to be loyal both to Hitler and the Lord Jesus [Western Recorder CVIII 34 (September 6, 1934)].
Other journalists saw something different. They saw Hitler forbidding German women to smoke cigarettes, certain books with sexual references were banned from being read, Hitler himself abstained from liquor or cigarettes, at least in the journalists eyes. Many changed their minds about the Nazis. Dr. Bradbury did. He wrote:
Why the about-face? Knowing now the depth of the violence which was beginning to grip Berlin in 1934, we wonder why some Baptists, particularly Americans, were susceptible to Hitler’s propaganda. What in their appraisal of foreign affairs allowed them to be seduced by Nazism? How could they support a regime so incompatible with peace and justice?
No, it’s true history Lydia. As I said, you might question your sources. I do.
Sorry, Dr. Bradbury who had changed his mind about Nazis wrote:
It was a great relief to be in a country where salacious sex literature cannot be sold; where putrid motion pictures and gangster films cannot be shown. The new Germany has burned great masses of corrupting books and magazines along with its bonfires of Jewish and communistic libraries (Watchman-Examiner XXII 37 (September 13, 1934).
I posted the wrong quote for Dr. Bradbury. This is his actual writing.
Many Southern Baptist journalists agreed with Dr. Bradbury, more so than those who saw Hitler for who he was. The rest of the story you know. The minority was right, the majority was wrong. Hitler used Christians, and SB’s among them to get the the height of power. Does that make what we preach wrong. No. It is right as rain. Does that make them bad people? I don’t think so. They judged by what they saw, knew, and Hitler fooled a great many Christians until it was too late. But their message was still Biblical, they were still born again, they were going by the times and what they saw. Morals being high on their list. Same with Luther and Calvin.
“That is easily done. In fact, I seldom read any of these Calvinism discussions that invoke Calvin’s writing, although they admittedly use the word Calvinism. It isn’t challenging at all. TULIP, the Doctrines of Grace, the 5 Solas. They all describe {c word } doctrine without invoking Calvin or the Institutes”
Isn’t that cheating?
) Most know (right?) where those monikers come from. But I do love it…. the “C” word.
In all the discussion about ‘what comes first’, I think about the Gospel of St. Luke, Chapter 24
“45 Then He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. ”
The Disciples ‘knew’ the Old Testament Scriptures: the words, yes.
But something happened as recorded in Luke 24:45.
Whatever that ‘something’ was, we know that it originated from Lord Christ, is described as ‘opening their minds’, and the result was to enable the Disciples to ‘understand’ the Holy Writings, as they pertained to Lord Christ.
So, I suppose ‘knowing’ is not the same as ‘understanding’,
and it once happened that Our Lord first ‘opened’ minds to understanding that which was previous only ‘known’.
Now some will debate sequences and want to come with the ‘labels’ and the ‘terms’ so that it works for them.
As to what happened in Luke 24, I lwill leave any debating to others, as the image of Christ ‘opening to understanding ‘ that which was closed, is for me something of a ‘keeper’.
I think it is the idea of insight; lot of folks who can quote chapter and verse till the chickens come home to roost, fly upside down and then come back again, miss the point.
That was what Ken Chafin was trying to get Paige Patterson to understand when he talked about the Bible in the hands of a Believer who will not submit it to rational means of investigation being a dangerous thing.
The idea of ‘letter’ and ‘spirit’ requires that the Holy Scriptures honor a certain hierarchy that places Our Lord and His commandments above all else.
Sometimes, Stephen, in the minutiae of ‘doctrine’, men take their eyes off of Our Lord and, in their pride, place their own pet doctrines ABOVE the supreme laws of Our Lord. And example would be bringing hardship and suffering to an innocent person in the service of a ‘doctrine’ that women professors may not teach men Greek.
There is something in honoring the supreme Law of Christ,
that helps people to see the scriptures with perspective,
so that no doctrines can be acted out in a way
that brings pain and harm to innocent people.
Debbie,
I assume, though you haven’t said as such, that you take the usual Calvinistic position on Lydia. Namely, God regenerated her, thereby allowing her to be receptive to Paul’s message.
I have two questions for you or any of the Calvinists on this thread who believes in “irresistible grace.”
1. How is what the Lord did to Lydia in Acts 16:14 any different then what He did to the disciples in Luke 24:45? Was He regenerating the disciples so they could believe?
2. Luke tells us that Lydia worshiped God. Now remember it was God who wanted us to know that Lydia already worshiped Him before hearing Paul. My question, for those who believe regeneration precedes faith: How is it possible for Lydia to worship God (which also must mean she believed God) before she was “regenerated?”
Don Johnson,
I need to ask you a couple of questions before attempting to answer the two questions you have posted…
1) In your opinion, what takes place in “Regeneration”? In this question I am asking; what is the condition of man’s nature, heart, and will before and after Regeneration?
2) In your opinion who or what effects “Regeneration” in man? In this question I am not asking who chose whom; what I am asking is by what power is a man “Regenerated”?
Grace Always,
Greg
Greg,
1. Before regeneration a person is dead in his sins. After, man’s nature and heart is made anew 2 Cor. 5:17.
2. Man is regenerated by the power of God. Man does not regenerate himself.
Don: 1. Worshiping God doesn’t mean they worshiped, believed in Jesus Christ which is the only way to salvation. 2. Yes I do believe the disciples were being regenerated, were regenerated. When Christ approached them they knew exactly who he was. 3. This was a whole new message to the world, to the Jews. Their reliance was always on the OT and the OT law. This was a brand new message. One they had never heard before.
The clarity of Scripture is a given of the Holy Spirit (2Tim 3:16-17).
By affirming irresistible grace the calvinists have consistently REVERSED the order Condition & Consequence of Salvation as clearly expressed in the Bible. This system always doing violence to Bible text(s) for the purpose of affirming irresistible grace
The purpose sentence of John’s Gospel states that: “30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you MAY BELIEVE [condition] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you MAY HAVE LIFE [consequence] in his name.” Calvinists affirming TULIP MUST deny this order by a lot of theological gymnastics.
John 3:16 clearly says “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever BELIEVES [condition] in him shall not perish but have ETERNAL LIFE [consequence].” Those who affirm Tulip MUST smuggled regeneration before believing!
Jesus said in John 6:47, “He who BELIEVES in Me [the condition] has EVERLASTIN LIFE [the consequence].” The calvinists must revised and modify Christ’s order of salvation here too!
Acts 16:31 clearly expresses the condition [faith] before the consequence [salvation]: “”Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” The Bible is consistent re. this ordering of Condition & Consequence of salvation; whereas the calvinists consistently REVERSING this order and establish their own!
Under pressure to affirm the theory of irresistible grace, Calvinists MUST reverse the simple and clear order of Scripture to fit into the frame of the TULIP. Just look at the following:
Loraine Boettner says: “A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved.” [Loraine Boettner, Predestination, p. 101].
Arthur W. Pink says: “A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, but he believes in Christ because he has been regenerated.” [Arthur W. Pink, The Holy Spirit, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978, p.55]
R. C. Sproul says: “We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order that we may believe.” [R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, p. 73].
A primary principle of determine what the texts teach is: Scripture doesn’t contradict Scripture (The Analogy of Faith).
The Bible NEVER present & NEVER expressed that Believing in Christ as the Consequence of Having Everlasting Life [Regeneration].
The Bible ALWAYS & EXPRESSLY AFFIRM that Believing in Christ Is the Condition and Everlasting Life Is the Consequence.
The Calvinistic reversal of the consequence as the condition is a blatant denial of the simplicity of the Scripture.
I really love Lorraine Boettner’s response. That is exactly right.
It is not going against scripture Lu la bi when you allow scripture to interpret scripture. Remember the Bible was written for us to understand. To human beings. That is why God chose human beings to write it in their own style, personalities yet it was God writing it through the Holy Spirit. All the quotes you have are exactly correct. It is scripture. It may seem that we are the ones who choose Christ, but in fact, it is Christ who chose us for no reason. None. God does love all the world, and but not all are saved. Why? If John 3:16 would mean that all would be saved, God is God, all would be saved, which is why I do not believe all can mean every single person. Every single person would be saved. I love the quotes above. I agree with them. God does the work from beginning to end.
They do twist everything backwards, that’s for sure, and the silence on this particular airtight argument against such twisting on the ordu salutis is deafening. Another rebuttal from the angle of simple logic:
“We conclude that there is zero biblical support for placing regeneration before faith in the ordo salutis. And to say it takes logical priority without taking temporal priority is contradictory. The very word priority in this context speaks of time. It is a “temporal” word. Unless one switches the meaning of priority to “first in importance” (which is obviously not intended), then a statement about logical priority without temporal priority is nonsensical. And certainly in Historical Theology regeneration was seen to have temporal priority over faith, since infants were thought to be regenerated when water baptized. It was not until Reformed theologians realized how little biblical support there is for infant baptism that they began arguing for logical priority instead of temporal priority.”
— http://www.fether.net/2004/10/10/2004-10-01-the-crux-of-calvinism/
Debbie,
Its good to see you don’t believe in “irresistible grace.”
What does “were being regenerated, were regenerated” mean?
I do believe in irresistible grace. very much so.
Regenerated: Made alive. The plants were regenerated in the spring. Made new. Made alive.
were and was. Sometimes it happens bam. One moment dead. One moment alive. Quick. Sometimes it takes time. It’s all up to God.
I am always amazed at how often everyone just sidesteps the truth, pays no mind to the facts. That is one thing about atheists: they like substantial cases, cases based on evidence, built on facts. Tell me, some one, what do you think of Luther Rice and William Carey and Jonathan Edwards and the fact that such people with very theology of regneration/conversion, of TULIP doctrines, being the persons responsible for the launching of the Great Century of Missions? What do you think of Basil Manly, Sr., and Jr., and J.P. Boyce and the Furmans and the Mercers, the Daggs, the Carrolls, and a multitude of others that I could name. In fact I could give you a list so long that probably no one would read it. They were as enthusiastic for missions and as sweet and as gentle as anyone could desire about their views on Sovereign Grace. You folks ever hear of paradoxical interventions? Do suppose Go might intend His highest good for us by coming at us by opposites? Did you know He once sent a preacher to lead a bunch of people to a better hope, when the preacher hated and despised those people. I hesitate to name him, but Jonah wouldn’t mind now, I think. A preacher with a unconditional message of judgment. 40 days and that is all she wrote, an even the preacher though he wanted to see that judgment fall and set down to look for it, did not expect it. A paradoxical intervention. And how about the possibility of a Calvinist like Spurgeon praying for the conversion of the whole earth in one generation? O well, dear hearts, God in His Sovereignty is must kinder and more magnanimous than we imagine. He is also more liberal, why He even uses Arminians like Wesley. He will even use someone like Mr. Fox or Mr. Scarborough – though feel terribly offended by them at times. Tsk! Tsk! God has such a great sense of humor.
Many calvinists are mission-minded indeed. So are many Lutherans, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, etc. These all are mission minded because of the obedience to the great commission. As as see it, it has nothing to do with the TULIP. John Piper is a case in point.
On the other hand, many who are logically consistent TULIP holders (i.e., Hoeksema, etc) have never been evangelistic at all.
As you know, many evangelists have been of the arminian persuasion (e.g., Moody, Billy Graham, etc).
As far as I know, Baptist seminaries’ missions’ textbooks do not relate missions to the TULIP at all.
You may think that TULIP promotes missions. But MOST scholars DO NOT think so at all. Please read Mark Noll’s and George Marsden’s works for example.
I believe TULIP promotes missions. It’s who we are, those new creations Paul speaks of. We do not know who will respond and who will not. It is no different than the reason you give the gospel to everyone. Christ commanded it, and we can’t help it. We have the answer which is Jesus Christ. Wow! Who wouldn’t want to tell that great news.
In Gen.4 God Himself tells Cain that he must not let sin master him. Was God lying to Cain, since He obviously knew that He had reprobated him? Can anyone claim God didn’t remember that He had reprobated Cain?
So God tells us to witness to everyone anyway, even though He has already chosen the “elect” and everyone else gets preached to for nothing. Sounds more like a giant and cruel hoax than what a just and loving God would do.
No, but he was telling Cain something he could not do without the power of God. He couldn’t just muster enough good to do this on his own. None of us can according to the scripture. Just as the law was given to show our need of a Savior, our sin, so God told Cain this to show him a need that Cain could not do in and of himself.
Wow! I just read Debbie’s post blaming S. Baptists for “Hitler!” One thing for sure, she doesn’t suffer from the sin of pride. Anybody saying something that stupid could never do so if they were proud.
Normally, I try not to attack people, but here I am making an exception. She used the words “many S. Baptists.” REally, I wonder just how many S. Baptists were in Germany in the mid 1900′s.
You know someone really despises you when they connect you with “Hitler!” Anytime SBC haters can find ANYone claiming to be a Southern Baptist who says or does something stupid, the haters get their big brush out and sling the paint where ever they will.
A small group of Baptists does not make a statement for Baptists.
wait a minute, wait a minute, WAIT A MINUTE,
before you misinterpret what Debbie meant !
In hind-sight, we all know Hitler was a MONSTER.
However, in the beginning, he was not known by American people for what he was, and since he advocated a strict conformity on certain ‘moral’ issues, Hitler was admired by many who thought he was someone who was a godly man. That was THEN.
If these people had known then, what we know now, they would not have said things like this:
“John Sampey, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, cautioned against hasty judgment of a leader (Hitler) who had stopped German women from smoking cigarettes and wearing red lipstick in public. ”
This was in 1934, before people knew the truth about Hitler.
So back down, and take another read at Debbie’s comment.
The SBC never supported a monster knowingly. But there was support in the beginning for a ‘leader’ who seemed to advocate for certain moral principles, and deceived many, many good people.
That is the lesson in Debbie’s comment, as I see it.
I cannot speak for her, of course, but I hope you will read her comment again in a different light.
SSBN: Oh good grief. Don’t get your shorts in a twist. I didn’t and don’t blame Southern Baptists for Hitler. Christiane read it and got it. Why in the world can’t you, an educated man?
They sure bend over backwards to gloss over and deny, eh SSBN? I would remind them of this:
“In fact for awhile Baptists and that includes Southern Baptists thought Hitler was good, great and why? Because of his morals. He was implementing morals into Germany. Baptists loved it.”
Which is comically ironic, given that “niceness” is their mantra for determining who is saved. By their own admission then, whether they thought through their own argument or not, Hitler was saved!
(Listen for the screams of denial… “We did NOT say Hitler was saved! How dare you!). But when people continually hammer the point that “niceness” is the mark of a Christian, they can’t cry ‘foul’ when we connect the dots they draw. Since they argue:
– Baptists thought Hitler was good.
– This is what’s wrong with Baptists (per the context of the quote)
… and they also argue:
– Goodness (niceness, morality) is the mark of a Christian
… then the inescapable conclusion is not only that Hitler must have been a Christian, but that this is a BAD thing. Which, in turn, leads to the conclusion that being a Christian is a bad thing!
(more screams)
People just don’t think through to the logical conclusions of their arguments, much less concern themselves with how they contradict themselves. Such fallaciousness is why communication is nigh impossible.