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!).
Dave Miller (75)
Debbie Kaufman (63)
Rick Patrick (41)
Chris Roberts (37)
Bob Hadley (33)
Frank (33)
Greg Harvey (31)
Bart Barber (30)
dr. james willingham (30)
cb scott (29)
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.
Paula,
Re: “Goodness (niceness, morality) is the mark of a Christian”
That phrase succinctly summarized the calvinistic soteriology: works-based assurance.
They think exactly like the non C’s (the arminians): The arminians think: if not nice (holy) till the end then salvation will be revoked then; whereas the Cs think essentially the same: not nice (holy) till the end means not saved from the start.
Don Carson’s conclusion re. these two works-based soteriology is as follows: “Thus at their worst, the two approaches meet in strange and sad ways.” “Reflections on Christian Assurance,” Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992).
Good connection, lu ba bi. And I always wonder how it is that everyone who supports Calvinism presumes to be among the elect, even though technically they will say they can’t know till they die.
Another thing I always wonder is why Calvinists argue at all. If there is no free will, then we who are obviously reprobate can’t help ourselves. By arguing with us they actually show by their actions that we must have a choice in the matter!
The calvies based their assurance on works & experience. They baptized their works with phrases such as “all of God’s; and/or all are “God’s works.” This rhetoric leads to work-based assurance of salvation.
John Gerstner, wrote: “The question is not whether good works are necessary to salvation, but in what way they are necessary. As the inevitable outworking of saving faith, they are necessary for salvation.” [Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), 210].
John Owen said “…but yet our own diligent endeavor is such an indispensable means for that end, as that without it, it will not be brought about…If we are in Christ, God hath given us the lives of our souls, and hath taken upon Himself, in His covenant, the preservation of them. But yet we may say, with reference unto the means that He hath appointed, when storms and trials arise, unless we use our diligent endeavors, we cannot be saved” in [Arthur Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968, p600)].
This kind of effort/works salvation is standard among the calvies–we can read it clearly in Jonathan Edwards’, John Piper’s works, etc. In fact I have a book here of Edward’s sermons. He clearly said: holy or hell. Exactly as the arminians.
This is precisely the reason why Francis Beckwith (when he joined the Catholic Church) said that there is no longer essential difference between the reformation theology of justification and the catholic’s.
On works-based assurance, the calvies and the arminians’ are two sides of a coin theology.
That’s exactly right, lu. They all wind up at the same point. But the key is timing: first comes faith, and then comes action. Since it is only the perfect righteousness of Jesus that saves us and not our own, then our works simply cannot have any bearing on our salvation. But birth is the beginning, not the end, and the many exhortations in the NT about holy living would be unnecessary if we had a “licence to sin”. So once saved, we are to “work OUT our salvation” by striving for the best, not seeing what we can get away with.
I think it’s really all about attitude.
Paula,
It is just a pious double-talk. The so called paradox, mystery, paradigm, etc.–talking from both sides of the mouth. Such as “once-saved always saved” and/but also “no perseverance till the end = not saved from the start.”
Yep.
But “reprobate” though I am, I do hold to Eternal Security.
SSBN, I do not know if you noticed but Debbie actually changed the premise of what I said earlier about Luther’s quotes being used early on by the Nazi’s to influence Germans about limiting the Jew’s freedoms to operate in society.
That is a documented, established fact or I would not have dared to say it. It is a sad thing. And these things only remind us not to put mere men on pedestals.
I was speaking of what was sloganeered in Germany during in the early days of Nazi party gaining seats in the Rietchstag and the beginning of the Riech. Not what folks thought who lived in America in the EARLY days of the Reich. They certainly did not have mass communications and many in the US did not even own a radio! Not to mention that Baptists had virtually NO influence over the average German.
But Debbie felt is necessary to mention that Baptists in the US supported Hitler? I was scratching my head trying to figure out how that related to what I said originally.
It is like someone saying in an debate: Well your mother wears combat boots!
This is what it is like to try and communicate with Debbie and L’s. I should have known better!
That too.
Paula,
Believers and unbelievers sin because they posses old sin nature & their volition. It has nothing to do with their status as believers or non believers.
Remember Eps2:8 “saved” in the perfect tense with the static result (not the process) IS in the present: ARE saved! That is the emphasis of the perfect tense–saving process perfected with present static result.
Now believers do NOT need licence to sin. They have the old sin nature until resurrection day. Sin nature provides temptations and volition provides the decision to sin. Don’t fall into the trap of calvinism here: Believers who sin has not been saved–false professor with ungenuine faith. They read 1John wrongly. Be consistent here.
Since saved believers posses sin nature and volition they will ‘fall’ into sin. It has nothing to do with their status as saved; nor anythign to do with licence. Believers and non believers do not need licence to sin.
The biblical view here is neither calvinistic nor arminian’s because it has been in the Book centuries before the reformation.
Lu, let me try and clarify.
Yes, saved people sin. But if they love their sin they have not died to it, and we have to seriously question their understanding of salvation. Since salvation is about reconciling with God on His terms, we would expect people to act reconciled; that is, even among ourselves, we would doubt the claim of anyone who says they’ve reconciled with their spouse if they go around irritating them or badmouthing them or ignoring them.
So just as the healthy married couple patches up occasional differences, the truly saved sinner hates it when they fall and repents of it. They struggle with sin because they hate it, and they freely admit that it is sin. In contrast, the person who either denies something is sin or clings to it anyway is denying by their actions that they have reconciled with God.
What I meant by “license to sin” is the anti-ES claim that such security gives people the right and motivation to sin with impunity. But when we remember the many clear scriptures about dying to sin, this charge is proven false. If we are reconciled with God, we will at least try to please Him, and quickly repent when we don’t.
Hope that helps!
Paula,
Let God worry about Christians who sin. Romans 8 is part of the answer. But the “wretched man that I am” in Rom7:24 was a saved person. Saved is in the perfect tense. So it is settled. By God that is. Not by many theologians and pastors. They want those ‘unholy’ believers to go to hell.
You are trapped in the calvinistic-arminian paradigm: unholy live shows unsaved state. The Bible sees it differently.
Salvation is settled as per believing. Period.
As long as you are in calinistic-arminian paradigm of unholy = unsaved you will continue to manggle the perfect tense of Eps 2:8; Rom 4:5 justification APART from works. In the c-a paradigm you must smuggle in works as “fruits” or “proof” or “outcome” or “offshoot” etc of salvation.
The calvinists such as Piper, Pink, Gersner, Edwards clearly emphasize works as INTEGRAL as INHERENT, as CONDITION of final salvation.
Yours is a ‘mild’ one but essentially the same nevertheless.
You have to resolve it somehow.
Lu,
I agree that when someone is truly saved it is a done deal; they can never be lost. The question is how we carry out the command of Paul in 1 Cor. 5 to “judge the inside” and keep the fellowship pure. We have to expel anyone who wants to keep their sin and “walk in ungodliness”. Otherwise we wind up calling practicing perverts Christians.
This is why it’s so vital to know the gospel, both the need for faith in the right Jesus and the desire to be reconciled with God.
I’m not talking about either extreme here (the ‘holiness’ extreme or the ‘license to sin’ extreme), but about keeping the fellowship pure as a witness to the world to show them what a Christian is, and is not. We’re not claiming individual perfection but doing our duty as a congregation to portray the holiness, love, and justice of God.
Paula,
I think you all operate from within the same calminian paradigm (assurance by works).
What kind & how much works would you establish as proof of salvation? Can you determine some measurable absolutes? Your calminian paradigm demands that kind of assurance of salvation.
I hate to mention Calvin again. But early Calvin DID have a biblical view of once saved always saved (justification based as per moment of believing). Early Calvin separates justification and sanctification.
But later Calvin (under pressure from the Catholics) reverts back to justification-sanctification or linear view; meaning no sanctification = no justification.
Modern calvies such as Piper, etc. follow this paradigm (including Arminians). As you know Arminius was a Reformed guy too. He just made the demands MORE explicit. Namely, no holiness no justification. Just read or listen to John Piper online. He is so true and consistent to this paradigm: no sanctification = no final justification.
These all was started when Augustine changed his view of Mat24:13. Early Augustine believed that whoever endures until the end shall be “saved” meaning salvation from tribulation or eschatological/physical salvation. But later Augustine changed it to mean salvation from hell. Hence, persevering in holiness is the way to avoid hell.
Most teachers and pastors are trapped within this paradigm.
I got to go.
Lu,
I’ve often asked “Lordship Salvation” proponents where this line is drawn as well. But you still don’t seem to see what I’m saying.
The Bible tells us that in order to be saved, a person must place their faith in the Jesus who is God in the flesh, died for our sins, and rose again, and that they must want to be reconciled to God. After all, as James says, even the demons believe the right facts; but reconciliation is the farthest thing from their minds. Conversely, many want to be reconciled with God but refuse His terms, and they are lost. Yet the one who is saved is kept safe by God Himself, with the Spirit as “the deposit that guarantees our inheritance”.
And as I explained already, as a group we must throw out of our fellowship anyone who either denies their sin or refuses to give it up. This is not about “works” but attitude; do we “walk in the light” with an occasional stumble, or do we “wallow in the mud” and spit in God’s eye? Surely you would agree that the latter is, at the very least, one who by Paul’s teaching must not be kept in the fellowship.
Paula,
Let me show you how the Bible exhorts saved believers to advance spiritually in life toward the fulness of Christ (Eps4:13).
These EXHORTATIONS are based on REALITY. Realities are marked by ARE…….. It is BAD logic and bad exegesis to say: THEY ARE SAVED YES! BUT!
These realities ARE based on accomplished salvation. Irrevocables are they.
Do continue by zeal and passion to exhort SAVED BELIEVERS to live holy lives; BUT please don’t insert the calvie-arminian threat-trick: if you don’t then you are not saved paradigm. IT is bad theology and bad logic.
1. You are salt so be salty (Mt 5:13)
2. You are light so shine (Mt 5:14-16)
3. You are forgiven so be forgiving (Mt 18:22-23)
4. You are your Father’s Child so come home (Lk 15:17-24)
5. You are your Father heir so be forgiving and rejoice (Lk 15:17-24)
6. Your are the branches in Me so abide in Me and bear fruit (Jn 15:3-5)
7. You are dead to sin so don’t live in it (Rm 6:1-2)
8. You are dead to sin so do not obey it (Rm 6:11-13
9. You are sanctified so be sanctified in your behavior (1 Cor 6:9-11)
10. You are joined to Christ so do not be joined to a harlot (1Cor 6:15-20)
11. You are a Temple of God so glorify God in your body (1Cor 6:15-20)
12. You are free so do not be slaves (1Cor 7:23)
13. You are reconciled so be reconciled (2Cor 5:20)
14. You are believers so do not be bound with unbelievers (2Cor 6:14-16)
15. You are righteous so do not be partners with darkness (2Cor 6:14-16)
16. You are light so do not have fellowship with darkness (2Cor 6:14-16)
17. You are the temple of God so do not participate in idolatry (2Cor 6:14-16)
18. You are born of the Spirit so do not seek perfection through the flesh (Gal 3:3)
19. You are sons of God so do not turn back to legalism (Gal 4:7-9)
20. You are free so do not turn back to legalism (Gal 5:1)
21. You are His workmanship so do good works (Eps 2:20)
22. You are called so walk in a manner worthy of your calling (Eps 4:1)
23. You are sealed by the Spirit so do not grieve the Spirit (Eps 4:30)
24. You are forgiven so be forgiving (Eps 4:32)
25. You are light so walk as children of light (Eps 5:8)
26. You are forgiven so be forgiving (Eps 4:32)
27. You are light so walk as children of light (Eps 5:8)
28. You are light so become blameless children of God (Phil 2:15)
28. You have received the Lord so walk in Him (Col 2:6)
29. Since Christ has triumphed over them, do not let them triumph over you (Col 2:15-17)
30. Since you have died to the world, do not submit to wordly decrees (Col 2:20)
31. Since you have been raised with Christ, set your mind on the risen Christ (Col 3:1-3)
32. Since you have been crucified with Christ, consider your body as dead to sin (Col 3:3-10)
33. Since you have been crucified with Christ and raised with Christ, do not lie (Col 3:3-10)
34. Since you are called by God, live like it (1Thes 2:3-7)
35. You are in moral darkness so do not sleep morally (1Thess 5:4-6)
36. You are all sons of light so be alert and morally sober (1Thess 5:4-6)
37. You are all sons of light so be alert and morally sober (1Thess 5:8)
38. You are called and chosen so live accordingly (2Thess 2:13-15)
39. You are called so fight the good fight (1Tim 6:12)
40. You do not receive the spirit of timidity so do not be timid (2Tim 1:7-8)
41. You are redeemed so conduct yourselves accordingly (1Pet1:17-19)
42. Since you have been born again, love one another (1Pet 1:22-23)
43. You are holy, so be holy (1 Pet 2:9-12)
44. Since you are gifted, serve one another (1Pet 4:10)
45. Since God has demonstrated His love for you, love one another (1Jn 4:10-11)
46. Let him who is righteous be righteous (Rev 22:11)
47. Let him who is holy be holy (Rev 22:11)
Almost all of them could be read literally as: BECAUSE YOU ARE . . .then . . .; or SINCE YOU ARE . . .then . . .
I hope you will work yourselves out of calv-arminian paradigm by means of the Holy Spirit through His word. I know you can shake it off. It is a useless paradigm.
Hi Lu ba bi,
You said, ‘Saved’ is in the ‘perfect tense’.
There is this to think about also:
As the Bible says, we already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8),
but we also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12),
and we have the hope that we will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15).
Like the apostle Paul, we are ‘working out’ our salvation ‘in fear and trembling’ (Phil. 2:12),
with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ
(Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”
The Scriptures open up to us the nature of Salvation more fully
when we consider the many verses about ‘salvation’
taken in the context of our entire journey ‘in Christ the Lord’.
My point was that Hilter attempted to use Christians, Christian phrases(such as Luther and Calvin) to get people to accept him and what he was supposedly doing.
Just like Mormons and Muslims?
Just like Mormons. Mohammad never passed himself off as a Christian and he was telling the truth. It was Christians who were lying. Now again, I have allowed you both to get off topic. How about dealing with the doctrine?
Once again you completely missed the point. ::sigh::
You said that Hitler used Christians and Christian terminology for the purpose of getting them to go along with his plans.
This is what Mormons and Muslims do as well.
So if Hitler was fooling Christians, so also Mormons and Muslims are fooling Christians.
The Muslim religion teaches it is ok to lie to unbelievers.
The Conservative Resurgence Leadership taught Southern Baptists in the View that it was okay to Lie about what was being taught in the Seminaries.
Some Muslims are Better Christians and don’t know it, than some of the leadership of the fundamentalist Takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention.
The point JeffT is under the leadership of the Holy Spirit which far as I know all Baptists share and have some Common Ground; the point for you JeffT is open your heart to the good will of the clip of Sayyid Syeed at http://www.differentbookscommonword.com and see if you can’t join Denzel Washington of the Book of Eli, like me the son of a Baptist Minister himself, and see the promise and Christlikeness of civil conversation with Grand People of Faith Like Himself.
I’ll go on The View with Baba WAHWah and Whoopi and say the same thing again to paraphrase Paris Trout; but please let me correct typo above and Say Baptists in the PEW and the Few who make it to The View.
Well in the case of my working with a Muslim, he told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It was some Christians who lied and continue to lie to a Muslim and other Christians.
The subject here is what again? Adoption, Irresistable Grace and Unconditional Election. Let’s talk about that.
Thank-you, Debbie, And: EXACTLY THE pOINT
This line is better for The Mosque thread for sure; but again let me appeal to you to extend to your Muslim friend an invitation to join here this conversation on The Mosque.
He can indentify himself as SSBN3 of another affiliation or some such if he doesn’t want to use his name; at least that is the way I understand the Policy here; or he can call himself a VolFan with a different Head Dress or a better shade of Orange.
Saying this with sense of humor I hope my detractors here will understand before Joe B convolutes it into another opportunity to tell me I resisted Grace and for the 100th time in about as many days am going Straight to Hell.
Oh, I see… only YOU are allowed to go off-topic, and only YOU can tell other people what to post. Let’s talk about that, shall we?
I gave my view on the adoption scenario with a link to that very same kind of analogy, showing the absurdity of it. But that wasn’t good enough for you.
I also showed that grace is not a force at all, but the bestowing of favor from the greater to the lesser, which is motivated by the love of God for all the people He created. But that wasn’t good enough for you.
And the “condition” scripture tells us is necessary for salvation is faith, which no scripture ever says must be planted in dead people. But that isn’t good enough for you either.
As someone who has shown repeatedly her inability to follow anyone’s point, I find your high horse to be made of wood.
Yes, I am trying to get back on topic. Good grief, the lesson? Don’t attempt to please everybody by answering off topic questions cause it gets turned onto me. OK I’ve learned that lesson. With all the comments on here Paula I did not see that link, but will. If I do will you deal with the point I put down that in the original language draw means to drag?
Good grief is right. Sheesh.
Ron answered your “drag” question in comment 52, and lu ba bi in 54. I would only add that the underlying Greek word is not exclusively literal; it can be used metaphorically as well, e.g. “wooing” or enticing or luring or even inviting. Brute force is not at all demanded by any context about salvation. And Jesus expressly stated that He would draw ALL to Himself, without any fine print about “all the elect” which Calvinism wants to add to scripture.
Have you never heard the expression, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”? Even with your “brute force” definiton there is nothing to force a person to accept what they’ve been dragged to. And once again, if the person is as literally dead as Calvinism insists, then we can no more blame them for sin than we could blame a literal dead body of doing deliberate harm. Dead is dead is dead; you can’t have the corps “only mostly dead” (movie line).
Mike Bergman in post 57 tried to counter by making “pantas” so open-ended that it can mean whatever he wants, but that is not demanded by the context. “Could be” and “may include” are not exactly good substitutes for “must be” and “can only mean”.
Everyone in the world is drawn, but not everyone responds positively; not every horse dragged to the water will choose to drink of it.
I don’t expect any change in either your understanding or your negative, bossy attitude, but nobody can say I didn’t try. And BTW, you are as guilty of making this about people as anyone.
To Lu Ba Bi is that Lu Babe? As to Paradox being pious double talk, are you totally ignorant of the reality of paradoxes in counseling and how they work? Tsk! Tsk! and you seem so learned by quoting Owen by way of Pink. Ever observe that Can means ability? So when Jesus said, “No one can come to me,” He was saying, in essence, “no one has the ability to come to me.” But People do ignore the facts, and the facts are that the Five Point Calvinists launched the Great Century of Missions. The Arminians, Wesleyans, and others just got a later start, and before the mission launch the General Baptists whom I happened to like for many reasons were just as unevangelistic and unmission minded as any Primitive Baptists. Your arguments won’t hold water. And try cultivating assurance for your self, when your life lacks evidence of real commitment. One can have presumption while lacking evidence, but assurance is like being married. There ain’t much to it, if there ain’t no evidence of loving commitment. Note, this isn’t the same as working for salvation. That is an insult to God’s plan of salvation alone by faith alone in Christ alone.
Have you never heard the expression, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”
Where is that in scripture Paula? Is that right next to the passage of God helps those who help themselves? And I might add I might not get that horse to drink but from my understanding of scripture and btw I do think the word draw to be literal, God can.
It’s an illustration, Debbie.
Where is the “dead like Lazarus” in scripture? Where does it connect a literal dead body with the lost? Show me the reference.
Among things God CAN do, does that include violating his nature in favor of the raw sovereignty Calvinism holds above everything else?
Paula: Dead spiritually, is dead. In the very sense of the definition we all know. That occurred when Adam and Eve fell. It does not go against the nature of God to go against our free will any more than it would go against the nature of a person who was drowning that you would go out and save.
The story of Lazarus is a great illustration. The Bible doesn’t ever put anything in without a reason. To show that Christ was who he said he was, to show his power as God and to beautifully illustrate what happens to us in regeneration and salvation. Romans 5:12, Ephesians 2:1-5, Mark 4:11.
GEN 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.(physical and spiritual death)
EPH 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.
TIT 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
ROM 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
ROM 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.(Spiritual and Physical)
EPH 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.
ROM 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope
You gave me your opinion, your insertion of meaning where the words did not go. I asked for scriptural connections between the artificial “dead like a corps” idea and figurative spiritual deadness, and all you did was repeat the standard assertion. That is not argument or rebuttal.
I don’t see “spiritual death” stated anywhere in Genesis; I see only that the Tree of Life would have been the antidote, which would mean that Calvinists believe spiritual life can come from a tree. Likewise, “defiled” and “condemned” are not literal deadness either. Physical, literal death is simply mortality, and you can’t just pick the meaning you want depending on whether it supports Calvinism or not.
Understand here. I am simply saying what I believe from my study and understanding of scripture. I am among those who believe Calvinist or non-Calvinist. It’s faith in Christ not believing or not believing in Calvinism that brings one to salvation. As we grow in the word however, I do think it important to understand who God fully is, but it’s not a criteria for me, just a deep hope. Do I think I am right? Well of course or I wouldn’t believe it.
JOH 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father
PH 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;).
John 12:32
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.
Amen Paula. All people. Not every single person. That is universalism and it just doesn’t happen. All again meaning all those who hear his voice, are made alive in Christ. Scripture interpreting scripture.
No Debbie, “all” means “all”. You can’t add “all without distinction” just because it makes Calvinism work.
And no Debbie, this is not Universalism. All are drawn but not all are saved; I’ve said this many times. Universal opportunity is NOT universal results.
But since I view the whole Calvinism debate as no better than debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, especially since both sides preach the gospel (at least SOME know what that is) to everyone, I must leave further debates on those angels to others and get back to defining the gospel in Christian venues, great mission fields ripe for harvest.
Paula: The gospel is for all, it is for all who believe. I can when the scripture dictates it which using scripture sola and scripture interpreting scripture I can and do. Christ’s blood is effective for all who believe. Not those who do not. You believe this or else all,ever single person in the world past and present would be saved. That is not the case. God is not sitting back waiting. He is involved. Deeply involved. The Bible is clear.I can’t go further than the Bible does.
I think DebbieK makes a great point when she says she can’t go further than the Bible Does, a similar point Pinnock and Noll tried to get Adrian Rogers and Paige Patterson to see at Ridgecrest in 87; Don’t say more about the Bible than the Bible says for itself.
That was the arrogance of SBC Fundamentalist and their misuse of the feeble rubric of Inerrancy
Gifts of grace
I love the imagery that comes from God’s first act towards Adam and Eve, after they left the Garden:
In His great mercy compassion, the first thing He did
was to cover their shame:
He clothed them.
I am reminded of the words of Therese of Lisieux who wrote in her journal, this:
“In the evening of this life, I shall appear before You with empty hands, for I do not ask You, Lord, to count my works.
All our justice is blemished in Your Eyes.
I wish, then,
to be clothed in Your own justice . . . ” Therese of Lisieux
I’m okay with Therese, but Dorothy Day and Oscar Romero headline my list of Catholic Christian Saints.
Lottie Moon, Corrie Ten Boom, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are some at the top of my list for non-Catholic Christian saints. I also think that my mother’s cousin, who was a Protestant missionary, was a saintly man. He stayed overseas to care for his people, out of love for Christ, even when his health began to fail. By the time they got him home, it was too late to save him. I met him once, before he died. I won’t forget him.
Good point L’s and this despite their sin. Grace.
Christiane, as I’ve suggested before, save your Money for the Charles Marsh bio of Bonhoeffer coming out next year. You can read Metaxas if you like, but save your money for Marsh which promises to be much better than Metaxas and get the word out to your friends.
Steve,
Have you read the book written by Eric Metaxas on Bonhoeffer?
I have read large segments of his effort and the Reviews in World Magazine and Christianity Today.
Marsh, with with his History with Fanny Lou Hamer, Doug Hudgins, Sam Bowers, ClevelandSellers as his lecture from Berlin in March of this year projects, promises to be a much deeper and substantive work.
Metaxas has been embraced by suspect folks. The discussion that follows Marsh Publication of the DB biorgraphy should among other things hold Timothy George’s use of the Barmen Declaration up to the light, and most likely will find it wanting.
God works with people as He pleases. He can make his Gospel so wonderful that one cannot resist it. When a person is drowning, the person who rescues him usually waits for the person to give up the struggle, coming up behind that individual and then taking hold to draw the helpless person to safety. The Lord uses what ever He considers appropriate. With me an atheist, He appeared, knocking at my door. My response was to run. Then He did what He did to Lydia: He opened my heart to seek His salvation. One of the techniques of brainwashing and of repudiation of some concept or idea or movement is to demonize it – which Paula is attempting to do, and yet she never addresses the reality of the believers in Sovereign Grace such as Edwards, Carey, Rice, and others as the people responsible for the launching of the Great Century of Missions or that that theology produced the First and Second Great Awakenings as well as the Calvinistic Republic which we call the United States, a form of government built upon dealing with the reality of Man’s Total Depravity and how to maximize freedom in view of such problem (answer: Checks and Balances) ( A Presbyterian Preacher, Dr. John Witherspoon, was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He was alos a professor at Princeton and taught people like James Madison). It was surely this that the pastor of the Pilgrims, John Robinson must have felt in his saying, “Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God’s word.” How sad it is when people let prejudice blind their eyes to reality. And that is definitely one reason why only a Sovereign Supernatural work of Grace can deliver a person from the madness that is in his or her heart (Eccles.9:3). Imagine what it must be to awaken in eternity with that madness never dealt with due to one’s hatred of the truth. Even so the Sovereign God often chooses to labor with the perishing. That He should deliver any at all, even if it was just one, is a marvel of grace, but that He should and will deliver a number that no one can number is a marvel of marvels, well expressed by John Newton in the most popular of all hymns, Amazing Grace, which is Sovereign Grace. I wonder if Paula ever thinks of the fact that that hymn is a praise of God for His Sovereign Amazing Grace which saved a wretched, wicked captain of a slave ship, one who took advantage of his poor captives, and one who would later repent of such evil for the rest of his life. One of his church members would be one of the great poets of England and would write two hymns, There is a Fountain filled with Blood, and God moves in a Mysterious Way His wonders to perform. I refer to William Cowper whose hymns are in praise of that same irresistible grace, that same wonderfully compelling, thrilling, exciting, attractive, magnetic, drawing, charming, fascinating, alluring, winsome, overwhelming in the most pleasing manner,grace beyond all human means and desires to resist it.
Coming in to this conversation late, I realize, nonetheless… Just curious – particularly in regard to statements made by Ron and Matt. Would you agree or disagree with this statement?
Regeneration is a change of heart worked by the Holy Spirit through the conviction of sin, and the sinner responds to this in repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ.
Dr. Galyon,
There is support for your sequence here, in that the Spirit is ‘poured out’ on those who then look upon ‘Him’ Who was pierced (Our Lord), and then weeping:
Zechariah 12:10
“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication,
so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced;
and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son,
and they will weep bitterly over Him
like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.”
Dr. Gaylon,
Regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit after repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ. Regeneration always follows faith, it never precedes it.
Dr. Galyon,
Sorry for spelling your name incorrectly.
Don,
Are you a Southern Baptist? If so then you are not in agreement with the BFM2000… If not well then perhaps that is why you are all messed up
FTR: I am not in accord with the BFM 2000 and I am a Baptist
Dr. Willingham,
As I read your superlong paragraphs of posts ttrying to grasp what you are really saying, I see a kind of manipulation of texts to affirm irresistible grace (no matter what).
Under the pressure to affirm irresistible grace, the calvinists have often read irresistible grace unto John 3:16-17 as follows:
“16 For God so loved the world of the elect that He gave
His only Son, for the purpose that every one of the elect who
believes in Him irresistibly cannot perish, but has eternal life
unconditionally. 17 For God did not send the Son to the elect
to judge the elect, but that the elect be unconditionally saved
through Him.”
That is in essence what Dr. Willingham is saying in his posts; except that is NOT what the text teaches. Good anecdotes peppered with some big Calvinist’s names are very appealing, but that does not expressed what is in the text at all–instead it confuses many who are prone to anecdotal type of belief, rather than textual base belief.
Greg,
I thought you were going to reply to my questions.
Don, actually I got a little busy and it looked like the discussion had moved on…
Here is my response to your questions…
1) Regeneration (regardless if you believe it happens before or after a decision) is a work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was not given unto believers until after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus… Therefore we find that the Disciples (while followers and worshipers of Jesus) were not “Regenerated” until the Holy Spirit came upon them in the upper room. Knowing this helps us to better understand the struggles of the disciples prior to and following the death of Jesus (Peter in particular). So it is that we find that any comparison between Lydia in Acts 16:14 and the disciples in Luke 24:45 is not comparing apples to apples.
2) Belief in God never saved anyone… “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” (James 2:19) And the Muslims worship God, but I dare say they are not regenerate.
Grace Always,
Greg
So was Bob Tenery of the Southern Baptist a Regenerate Christian or an UN
Greg,
1. I agree with most of your first answer. The only part I disagree with is your last sentence. Carparing the disciples and Lydia is in fact comparing apples with apples.
2. I did not say belief in God saved anyone. God did not have Luke write that Lydia had a befief in God. God had Luke write that Lydia worshiped God. Did she or did she not worship God? A Muslim may worship, but they do not worship God.
3. Why was it OK for the disciples to worship God before being regenerated, but not Lydia? Now we both know why Calvinists cannot have Lydia “really” worshipping God. Which if true, would destroy “irresistible grace.”
4. BTW, Lydia is only one of several texts which point out the errors of “irresistible grace” and regeneration preceding faith.
Dear calvinist friends,
If any of you have ever read any calvinist’s exegetical presentation of the TULIP I would like to know it.
I am looking (but so far, in vain) for a serious calvinistic exegetical work presenting the TULIP. If you know of any it would help us non calvinists here in this blog. Next will I find James White’s on TULIP. This one I have not read yet.
I just checked Beck p41, Steele & Thomas, p51,56; Spencer, TULIP, p46; Keener, p. 212 and some others. But they all just use cliches by parroting each other and the Confession, but none present any exegetical data for the affirmed irresistible grace.
Maybe Dr. Willingham can help here.
Also I was shocked as I am now reading the Baptist NT scholar, Shank’s exegetical book, ELECT IN THE SON. I think he uses his exegetical expertise to demolish calvinistic TULIP. It is my personal assesment.
As far as I know, no calvinist has ever answer this book (yet). I googled to seek an answer to Shank’s but was not able to find a serious one yet.
After his serious exegetical demolition of the TULIP one will feel like the TULIP has been thriving by means of cliches, and text-stringing, and not by valid exegetical works.
Try reading John Piper, “The Justification of God”
Don,
1) Apples to Apples or not… Did Christ choose his disciples or did they choose him? Did Lydia wake up one morning and decide today is the day I will be saved, or did God send the Apostle Paul to her? How many people have lived their lives upon this earth and never once heard the Gospel? Why did Lydia hear the Gospel on this day… and not them? Perhaps it was just dumb luck, but I do not think so.
2) I think the Muslim would disagree with you, but that’s not my point… My point is that worshiping God does not necessarily mean that someone is saved, or regenerate, so for you to read into the text because Lydia worshiped God therefore she must have been regenerate simply does not hold up under close examination.
3) Nothing you or I say will ever destroy the doctrine of “Irresistible Grace”… Doctrines either stand up under the careful examination of Scripture or not… And the Scripture evidence (much of which has been presented in the comments here) is undeniable… Including the account of the regeneration leading to the salvation of Lydia.
4) Your repeating this comment time and time again will not make it true… nor will it convince anyone on this blog that you are correct… You will have to satisfactorily explain why the many text you have been presented with on this blog are wrong in order to do that.
Irresistible – Grace Always
Greg
Greg,
1. I assume you are referring to John 15:16, if not please give the reference. Also when Christ chose the twelve, were they believers already or did they become believers or worshipers after Christ chose them?
2. A Muslim would disagree with me, but God would not. Many may have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge (Rom. 10:2). Note that Paul didn’t say they worshiped God. I did not say Lydia was regenerate before hearing Paul. That is my point. Lydia worshiped God before being regenerated. Just as the disciples worshiped before being regenerated, so to did Lydia.
3. Unless you or someone else can show how the disciples and Lydia did not really worship God before they were regenerated; then “total inability” and “irresistible grace” remain destroyed. All 5 pointers “know” one cannot believe and worship God without first being regenerated, and yet people did.
4. What are the many texts I’ve been presented with on this thread. The story of Lydia was a text that was presented. I simply pointed out it hurts the Calvinist’ position, not helps it.
Don,
1) I don’t understand what you are getting at with your response to this point, but you have not answered any of my questions? I am not asking them to try and win points in this debate… really I could care less about that kind of stuff, I am asking them to get you to consider a line of thought you may not have pursued before.
2) You said “I did not say Lydia was regenerate before hearing Paul. That is my point. Lydia worshiped God before being regenerated. Just as the disciples worshiped before being regenerated, so to did Lydia.” I do not see how this helps your position at all… So are you saying that regeneration is not necessary? Or that Salvation precedes Regeneration, in which case you make regeneration unnecessary? If Lydia was already saved before Paul arrived with the Gospel they why was Paul even there?
3) You keep using Lydia as if her conversion story disproves “Irresistible Grace” when in fact it proves Irresistible Grace… note the text actually says of Lydia “whose heart the Lord opened”… it does not say ”who made the choose to believe without any influence of the HOLY SPIRIT”
4) Read the comments… lots of text posted that confirm Irresistible Grace…
I think you misunderstand the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace which you are far from destroying… The Calvinist actually believe that man does always resist the Grace of God until after the Holy Spirit opens their heart as he did Lydia’s… that is until after regeneration.
By the way, you did not answer my question… are you a Southern Baptist or not?
Irresistible – Grace Always
Greg
Greg,
I’ll try a different approach.
You had said earlier (and I agree with) that the disciples were not regenerated until after the resurrection. Were the disciples Hell bound lost sinners before the resurrection? If one of them died (not Judus) before the resurrection, would he join the rich man of Luke 16 or Lazarus?
How is it the disciples could believe, obey and worship Jesus before they were regenerated? You keep avoiding this question. According to “irresistible grace” all of those actions would be impossible. Until you can give some sort of Scriptural answer to the above question, we must assume “IG” is a man made tradition.
One needs to be regenerated in order to go to Heaven (John 3:5). People who were believers went to Abraham’s Bosom before the resurrection, waiting to be regenerated (John 5:25).
Don: If I may. I believe the disciples were regenerated the very moment they saw Christ approach them. That is what regeneration is. The minute they saw Christ, each one recognized him as the Son of God. They believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. If they would have died they would have gone to heaven. God is the same today, yesterday and forever. There was never two plans to go to heaven but always one even in the OT. The OT were saved by believing in Jesus Christ future. The NT the present Jesus Christ and the past. Christ regenerated them. It was his power.
here is a Grand exercise in Regeneration, a Regeneration that challenges the Dogma of BFM 2000
And it raises the question, seems to me, can a Believer be Truly Regenerate and Sign BFM 2000
Somebody please get Russ Moore’s opinion if the Pope is not available
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16613
I think I’ve asked this several times but I don’t think I’ve gotten an answer yet. But I’ve kind of lost track, and the comment threading schema here (no offense to the proprietors) is a bit wonky.
Is God actively trying to save everyone?
John 3:16 says he is to the Point he sent his Only Begotten Son into the World.
Cormac McCarthy, the novelist of No Country for Old Men has his reservations, though their is a strong body of critical work suggesting Scripture pervasively haunts and inflects his writing.
The Disciples said to Whom Shall We Go, Thou hast the Words of Eternal Life; said that to Jesus.
Was the text of the Sermon of my hearing the day after My Mother was buried, in 88 at the Providence Baptist Church.
Providence; Words have Meaning.
And to advance the Notion of the Friar in the Grand Movie The Revolot of Job–one you should Netflix and see, Bill Mac and ifyou don’t have netflix then find a neighbor who does–That’s all there is.
Bill,
If I remember correctly, I think I answered your question earlier in the thread, but I’ll do it again.
Yes, God is trying to save everyone.
Don: Fair enough. It follows then, that although God is trying to save everyone, He is not succeeding.
I don’t believe God tries. I don’t believe He is capable of failing. I believe God accomplishes all His purposes.
Bill,
I suppose God “desires” the salvation of all men would have been a better term to use.
It is not God failing. It is the christians who are failing God, myself included.
Debbie,
You bring up too many topics to discuss at once. For now I keep it on the regenerating of the disciples.
The disciples were not regenerated or born again the moment they saw Christ. There are at least a half-dozen texts which prove otherwise, but I’ll start with just one.
1 Peter 1:3 “…hath begotten US again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.”
Note Peter said “us” which of course means he included himself. How did the lively hope come about, “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” No one was born again or regenerated until after the resurrection, including Peter and the rest of the disciples.
Question, is it possible for one to be regenerated and yet REFUSE to believe in the resurrection. Now keep in mind “irresistible grace” is the regenerating of an unbeliever; thereby enabling him to believe. I said refuse because that is exactly what the disciples did. Jesus “upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after He was risen.”
Don,
How about OT saints? Such as Gen 15:6? This would lead to the question of the required & sufficient content believed to be saved. And/or was Abraham justified and regenerated? or just justified as per 15:6? It has some beaning to the disciples before the resurrection.
lu ba bi,
Abraham was justified, but not regenerated. No OT saint was regenerated until the resurrection of Christ.
Don: I would disagree. Christ’s death on the cross wasn’t an afterthought. You can not be justified first. You either are or are not saved. One plan. Not two. Not one for the OT and one for the NT. Abraham believed in Jesus Christ’s future coming, death, burial, resurrection. There are many instances of Christ appearing in the OT. One plan. One way to heaven. Not two.
Don,
To Abraham God imputed His righteousness (positionally righteous so termed). I see that as regeneration.
But no indwelling of the Holy Spirit could be found in the OT saints.
So, the indwelling was available since the day of Pentecost. This is crucial to the doctrine of the body of Christ, the church. No indwelling in Israel. The indwelling was on the ark in the holy of holies (among them but not in them).
Don,
You whole premise that the belief, worship, and obedience of Lydia and the Disciples before regeneration proves that “Irresistible Grace” is wrong is just… ridiculous! Did you ever once stop and consider that Lydia and the Disciples did indeed become regenerate (saved). That those you are using as an example to disprove the doctrine of “Irresistible Grace” found God’s Grace was after all “Irresistible”. If you are going to argue against the doctrine of “Irresistible Grace” at least use the example of the rich young ruler who turned away from following Christ and not those who did not.
You say “Irresistible Grace is a man made tradition…”
I will say “Resistible Grace is a man made tradition…”
Now we are even…
I will ask you another question here, but I already know you will not answer it… What exactly are you asking God to do when you pray for him to save someone’s soul? Are you asking God to give it a good effort, but not to go too far, as you would not want Him to make his Grace Irresistible after all? And if God does the slightest thing at all and the person you are praying for gets saved because of God’s answer to your prayer has not God overcome that persons “Resistance” to his Grace and made what was once “Resistible” now “Irresistible”?
So tell us Don… “What are you praying for when you ask God to save someone’s soul? What exactly is it you want God to do for that person?”
I take it by your refusal to answer my question three times now that you are NOT a Southern Baptist…
“Irresistible” Grace Always,
Debbie,
One thing we do know for certain about the disciples, they were not looking for Christ’ death, burial and resurrection.
If the disciples were not looking forward to Christ’ death, burial and resurrection, how do you make a case for anyone else. If you have a Scripture please give it.
You are right Don. They loved Christ so much that they did not want or believe it was going to happen. They couldn’t bear for it to happen.
Don: Notice Christ’s prayer however in John 17:12.
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” (John 17:12, NKJV)
I believe the them Christ was speaking of were the disciples. The son of perdition is Judas.
Debbie,
I agree Jesus was speaking of the 11 disciples, but I don’t know the point you’re trying to make.
Debbie,
No, the disciples did not love Christ so much they couldn’t bear for it to happen.
Actually they loved themselves much more than they loved Christ.
Several examples could be given, but for now I’ll give just one. On the very night of the betrayal after Jesus told His disciples He was going to be betrayed, the disciples were arguing about who was the greatest. Nor was this the first time the disciples had the I’m the greatest attitude.
Debbie, if you told your family or friends tonight that you were going to die tomorrow, and an argument broke out among them about who is the greatest; do really think its because they love you so much?
After the resurrection they did in fact love Christ so much that they laid down their lives for Him. But of course that is because they were now regenerated.
Greg,
Did you change your mind as to when the disciples were regenerated?
In post #373 you said it was in the upper room after the resurrection, which I agree with.
Now in post #393 you are saying it was before.
Which position do you hold or did it happen twice?
Knowing your position will help me to properly answer your questions.
I do not know what you are talking about but I have never said that the disciples were regenerated before the resurrection, perhaps you have me confused with someone else? I have no idea how that is going to help you answer my questions concerning what you are praying for when you ask God to save someone, but there you are.
lu ba bi,
Abraham was declared righteous because he believed God. People after the resurrection are regenerated by believing the Gospel (1 Peter 1:22-25). As you already know, they were not regenerated in order to believe the Gospel. But in fact became regenerated when they believed the Gospel.
You are correct, there was no indwelling in the OT.
The church is the body of Christ, which started the day of Christ’ resurrection, when He said to His disciples “receive ye the Holy Ghost” (John 20:22).
I believe OT believers did experience the Holy Spirit. John Piper writes an interesting piece that I agree with:
1. The Spirit as Creator and Sustainer of Life
First, and most basic, the OT believers were conscious of God’s Spirit as the Creator and Sustainer of their natural life. In Job 33:4 Elihu speaks for all faithful Jews when he says, “The Spirit of God has made me and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” Psalm 104 celebrates the wonder and variety of all living things and says (vv. 29-30), “When thou takest away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; and thou renewest the face of the ground.”
I hope you share this world view with the OT saints: namely, that your conception as a person in your mother’s womb was a sovereign act of creation by God’s Spirit and that every breath you take now and every chemical transaction in the cells of your body is sustained every moment by work of the Holy Spirit. The world we grew up in and live in does not see things this way. And we have by and large absorbed their mechanistic view of things. The world sees a mechanical process of evolution and natural selection. But the Christian ought to see the creative, imaginative work of God’s Spirit. And every breath you take ought to be a prayer of thanks that you live and move and have your being in the Spirit of God.
2. New Birth and Indwelling of the Spirit
Second, the OT believers experienced the new birth and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. When Nicodemus was bewildered about Jesus’ demand for new birth by the Spirit, Jesus responded (John 3:10), “Are you a teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand this?” In other words, I’m not teaching or requiring anything new. Any Israelite who has ever been saved had to be born again by God’s Spirit. Otherwise how would they ever overcome their natural hostility to God? How could they have ever submitted to God’s law and pleased him—as many did, like Abel and Noah and Abraham and Moses and Rahab and Ruth and Deborah and David? Paul says in Romans 8:7-9, “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed, it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit if the Spirit of God really dwells in you.” There are two groups of humans: those in the flesh (born of the flesh) and those in the Spirit (born again of the Spirit). Those in the flesh are devoid of the Spirit and cannot submit to God’s law or please God. Those in the Spirit are indwelt by the Spirit and are enabled by him to fulfill the just requirement of the law.
This means that all the saints of the OT who trusted God and followed his ways in the obedience of faith were born again by the Spirit and indwelt by the Spirit. For example, Numbers 14:24 says of Caleb, “My servant Caleb, because he has a different Spirit and has followed me fully, I will bring into this land.” And Numbers 27: 18 says, “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take Joshua the son of Nun, in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him.’” The OT believers were saved the same way we are: they were born of the Spirit, they trusted in God’s promises, and they followed his commandments in the obedience of faith.
3. The Constant Presence of the Spirit
Third, the OT believers enjoyed the constant presence of God’s Spirit. Psalm 139:7-10 says, “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend to heaven, thou art there! If I make my bed in Sheol, thou art there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there thy hand shall lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.” Old Testament believers enjoyed the presence of God’s Spirit wherever they went. It gives me a lot of encouragement, when I am called to go places where I feel insecure, to know that the Spirit is within to give me the words I need and that he is also already in the place where I am going to prepare the way and to hold me when I get there.
4. The Spirit as Counselor and Teacher
Fourth, OT believers experienced the Spirit of God as their Counselor or Teacher. In Nehemiah 9, Ezra gives thanks to God for all his past benefits to Israel and says in verse 20, “Thou gavest thy good Spirit to instruct them and didst not withhold thy manna from their mouth.” Probably the Spirit was their instructor in two senses. It was by God’s Spirit that the prophets spoke to the people God’s Word (Nehemiah 9:30), and it was by the Spirit that the people were enabled to grasp and apply the Word. Today the Spirit still instructs us by the Word of Scripture and we ought to pray earnestly for an outpouring of God’s enlightening Spirit so that the Scriptures really live for us and become intensely personal.
5. The Gifts of Craftsmanship and Artistic Ability
Fifth, the OT saints believed that craftsmanship and artistic ability in the service of God was a gift of the Holy Spirit. God not only designed how he wanted his tabernacle built, he also equipped the craftsmen to do it. Exodus 31:1-5 says, “The Lord said to Moses, ‘See, I have called by name Bezalel . . . and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting stones for setting and in carving wood, for work in every craft.’” In one sense, all craftsmanship and artistic ability is a gift of God, just like our breath is. But the text says that God called Bezalel by name and filled him with his Spirit. And I think there was and is today a special touch or filling of the Holy Spirit that elevates the work of an artist or a musician or a craftsman from mere technical skill to divinely empowered ministry that exalts God and builds faith.
6. Power to Denounce Evil and Declare Righteousness
Sixth, OT believers experienced the filling of the Holy Spirit as a power to be bold in denouncing evil and declaring righteousness. Micah 3:8 says, “As for me, I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin.” It doesn’t lie within man’s own power to risk his life and stand up for the truth of God and denounce sin. The Spirit gives that courage. Luke 1:15 says that John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from his mother’s womb—and he got his head chopped off for denouncing Herod’s unlawful marriage. Surely we have need today of men and women filled by the Spirit to expose and denounce evils in our society that are hardly blinked at any more: the exploitation of women’s bodies and debasement in advertising, the unconscionable destruction of human life through abortion on demand, the maneuvers of our own country to destabilize other governments, the gross waste and gluttony of American life, the cavalier attitude to divorce and remarriage which God hates, and the multi-million dollar promotion of alcohol and cigarettes as anything less than family-destroyers and body-killers. When people are filled with the Holy Spirit, they do not blink at evil.
7. Victory over Fear
Seventh, the saints of old experienced victory over fear by the presence of the Spirit. When God wanted to encourage the people to rebuild the temple after the exile, he said, “Work, for I am with you . . . My Spirit abides among you. Fear not” (Haggai 2:5). Just think, if Jews returning from God’s judgment in Babylonian exile can take heart that God’s Spirit will protect them, how much more fearless should we be who have the overwhelming assurance of God’s love and power in Jesus’ death and resurrection! Old Testament saints knew then and Christians know today that victory over all threats and obstacles belongs to God. Zechariah 4:6 says, “Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit says the Lord of hosts.”
8. Extraordinary Feats of Power to Help God’s People
Eighth, some OT believers were enabled by the Spirit to do extraordinary feats of power to help God’s people. For example, in the life of Samson we read, “The Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him and he tore the lion asunder as one tears a kid” (Judges 14:6). Or: “The Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him and the ropes which were on his arms became as flax” (15:14). It wasn’t a common manifestation of the Spirit, but it was real then and it is today. Every now and then in extraordinary circumstances of need the Spirit enables ordinary Christians to perform amazing feats of rescue far beyond their ordinary capacity—like lifting a car off of a pinned husband or escaping from a raging rapist.
9. The Ability to Interpret God’s Revelation in Dreams
Ninth, the Spirit enabled some OT believers to interpret God’s revelation in dreams. After Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream about the coming famine, Pharaoh says, “Can we find such a man as this in whom is the Spirit of God?” On the day of Pentecost Peter said that in these last days “your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams” (Acts 2:17). If these latter days are to be days of dreams and visions from the Holy Spirit, we had better pray earnestly for gifted Josephs to arise among us who can discern truth and error in such claims.
10. The Gift of Prophecy
Finally, the Holy Spirit gave some in the OT a gift of prophecy. For example, when Moses gathered with the seventy elders of Israel at the tabernacle, it says in Numbers 11:25, “The Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him and took some of the Spirit that was upon him and put it upon the seventy elders; and when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did so no more.” Evidently, God only gave a brief taste of prophetic powers to the seventy elders. It seemed to point to something more that might come in the future. Four verses later Moses says, “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them” (v. 29). Which again points forward to the last days inaugurated at Pentecost. Peter says, “In the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy.” What is this gift of prophecy? Where is it being manifested in the church today? Or is it? At least part of the answer to that is found in the teaching on spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14, which we will soon begin to study in an evening series.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1984/426_How_Believers_Experienced_the_Spirit_Before_Pentecost/
I tried once this afternoon, but the problems of dial up and of the site destroyed an hour’s labor. Reviewing much of what had been written, I had wanted to touch on the issue of draw and the subjunctive in Jn.6:44 & 65. First, the subjunctive relates to God’s drawing, and what it means is rather spelled in verse 65 where our Lord spoke of it being given the individual by God. the given is pasive, implyin the person is the one effected by the giving, that is, the response is predicated on the giving an nothing in the individual. It is soe what analogus to Acts 13:48 where the active verb is ordained or destined and the passive verb is believed. Ordained is the cause, and believed is the effect. B.H. Carroll summed it up well in his Interpretation of the English Bible, saying, when he was a young man, he wanted that to read “as many as believed were ordained to eternal life, but it does not say that. It says as many as were ordained or destined to eternal life, these believed.” (the quote is from memory so please check it out). Since I had a hard time getting this far, I will add some more in another comment.
Excellent Comment Dr. Willingham!!! Let’s see if Don or anyone else will attempt to tell us that this verse really does not say what it clearly says??? Or will they just ignore this text like they have ignored all the others that have been given in order to carry on the conversation they are having with themselves???
Greg,
Could you tell me what Acts 13:48 clearly says? Since this is one of those verses that I just ignore, can you tell me why you feel the verse helps your position. I personally have no problem with the verse, so I was wondering why you thought I would?
Don,
In a word…. NOPE! When you start answering some of the questions I have asked you I might reconsider
I’m guessing he’s referencing the second part of that which says, “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” It is a verse that clearly seems to support the Calvinist of God’s choice preceding our belief.
Dr. Willingham,
As you know better, grammar & syntax must determine meaning and not any presumptions of theology, incl. IR. This passage has been begging to be studied objectively since the reformation. For far too long many have been assuming something that is just not here at all (e.g., dragging, etc.). You are more than able. But the question is are you willing? Since I noticed that you have predetermined to read IR unto any and all texts pertaining to believe.
You have been reading [by design?] IR unto everything you wrote; incl. John 6:44-45 here. You have been establishing your own canon of the subjunctive. Your usage of subj. runs contrary to some standard works on the subj.:
“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, p163).
“It [the subjunctive] is the mood of probability. It is used for doubtful assertions. By the nature of the case the subjunctive deals with the future” (James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, p. 118).
“The subjunctive mode is used for doubtful assertions” (William
Douglas Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 82).
Now, re: Acts 13:48. You know that the word TAGMA has never been a technical word for predestination. Nowhere in the NT. But as you also know this has been a major word to prove IR. It is sad.
Guess who first translated TAGMA as predestination? St. Jerome in his Latin version of Vulgate Bible. Why? To teach Augustinian determinisme.
Tagma was first translated predestined by Jerome, to teach Augustinian determinism. Tagma is nowhere means predestination.
You must know of these different words translated pre——-, and NO TAGMA there at all: PROorizo means to predesign, Rom 8:28-29; Eph 1:5,11; PROtithemi means to predetermine, Rom 3:25; Eph 1:9; PROthesis means a predetermined plan, Rom 8:28, 9:11; Eph 1:1, 3:11; 2 Tim 1:9.; PROginosko means to foreordain, 1 Pet 1:20; Rom 8:29, 11:2.; PROgnosis means foreknowledge or predetermined purpose, Acts 2:23; 1 Pet 1:2.
The near context of v48 is the circumstances in verse 46, which reads in part: “…since YOU rejected (ap?theisthe) it and YOU [SUBJECT] judged (krinete) YOURSELVED (heautous, OBJECT) not worthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles… Note that the Jews rejected the Word: The MIDDLE VOICE shows that they did so by acting in a way that pertained to themselves; in the ACTIVE VOICE they were the objects of THEIR OWN ACTION—“you judged (ACTIVELY) yourselves….” Accordingly, God did not reprobate them; they rejected, they WERE ABLE in the acting of judging themselves unworthy of eternal life.
So the eternal decree of predestination had nothing to do with the outcome here. Neither are the circumstances of verse 48 contingent upon predestination.
The decree, as assumed, exists in concept, but not in fact.
“And the Gentiles hearing these things were rejoicing (echairon) and glorifying (edoxazon) the word of the Lord, and believed (episteusan) — as many as (hosoi) were inclined (h?san TETAGMENOI) to (eis) eternal life…
Gentiles: The SUBJECT of the verbs rejoicing, glorifying, and believed. Rejoicing…glorifying…and believed: Note that the verbs, rejoicing, glorifying, and believed, are all in the ACTIVE VOICE; the SUBJECTS ARE ACTING. In believing they are active & in the saving God is active and they were in the passive (cf. Eps2:8-9; Acts 16:31).
This cannot be brought into harmony with the eternal decree and its irresistibility. But these Gentiles are in harmony with God, rejoicing, not rejecting. And in this atmosphere of God’s presence, they believed.
Thus they were inclined to that eternal life, with respect to which the Jews judged themselves unworthy and believed.
This verb is a part of the successive action of the Gentiles—rejoicing, glorifying, and believed.
Also this verbal string is connected by the CONTINUATIVE KAI (and)—rejoicing KAI glorifying…KAI believed.
Accordingly, Gentiles is the antecedent of all these verbs, not the relative clause.
You handle this statement to mean that because of an appointment to eternal life beforehand these persons believed. But the Bible’s order is: one believes in order to be saved, and not because he is saved by IR. And so “they believed—as many as (hosoi) were inclined (?san tetagmenoi) TO (EIS) eternal life (z??n ai?nion).” You don’t need to make zoe some kind of passive; since zoe is a noun and not a verb.
They DID NOT received eternal life to (eis) believe, but on the contrary. It is in the presumed TULIP, but NOT in the structure of Acts 13:48 sir.
Thus, the absolute decree is not the result of eternal life, but believing results in having eternal life. Thus, believing, not the eternal decree, results in eternal life.
Another issue I wanted to address is the matter of Sovereign Grace being a “Dead theology,” implying, to say the least, that it is dull, trite, poorly exegeted, etc. Baloney. When I was ordained, I did not believe in what is popularly but erroneously called Calvinism even though I had had it preached to me in my childhood in Arkansas. My ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell had also been preaching it. In preparing for the ordination I outline the Systematic Theology works of A.H. Strong, H.C. Thiessen, C.G. Finney and had a course in Christian Doctrine on W.T. Conner’s work by that title at St. Louis Baptist College taught by Dr. W.L. Muncey, Jr., who had taught at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City. I also outline Bledsoe’s Theodicy. About that time I puchased about 5-6 volumes of Puritans, David Clarkson and Richard Sibbes. I had read Arthur Pink’s The Sovereignty of God and John R. Rice’ Predestined For Hell, No! (Now I will tell something that will make ll of the Calvinists (not my favorite word for Sovereign Grace believers due to th persecution angle) feel sick. The Puritans were from a set of Nichols Standard Divines discarded by the Westminster Presbyterian College in Fulton, Mo. and I could have gotten about two stacks each 6 feet high for $2.00 per volume. Even when I think of it now I feel queasy). In any case wihin 18 mos. as a new pastor, reading David Clarkson, especially his sermon on Original Sin brough me to the conclusion that man’s Fall had killed him spiritually and disabled him and that he suffered from a diabolic inability to come to Christ, that he was helpless, a slave of sin, self, and Satan, blind, deaf, and dumb, and that it would take a supernatural work of Almighty God to deliver, save, transform, and rescue the sinner from his or her sin. I was ordained 5-20-62 and in ’63 I preahed my first sermon on Sovereign Grace, titled, Amazing Grace, with my own translation from the Greek of Ephs.1:3-14, and it had 3 points, Immeasurable, Irresistible, and irreversible (not real sure of the last point after some 47years and havng lost the original outline). As time passed, I realized the difficulties of the theology and made the usual mistakes of wanting to pound people over the head with it. Later, I would realize from a study of the representatives of the past, that the ministry had forgotten how to preach these truths. As time passed and my studies continued, I came to realize that the theology of Sovereign Grace was not a “dead theology.” On the contrary, it was a dynamic,dramatic, electrifying, galvanic, stirring, winsome, attractive, inviting, intensely evangelistic, fascinating, compelling, magnetic,creative teaching beyond compare, that there was nothing like it in all the world. When I realized that it was in every point an invitation to receive God who does not think like we do, who does not love like we do, who does not act like we do, it was a crowning moment for truth in my life. This is the theology that produced the First and Second Great Awakenings, the great American Calvinistic Republic, the launching of the Great Century of Missions, the uniting of Separate and Regular Baptists, some of the frst efforts against slavery, the establish of educational institutions, orphanages, the transformation of Protstantism from a Gospel recovery effort, contentious, combative, and conflicted into a more positive mission effort to win the world with such truths by pesuasion alone. All I can say in view of my researches and discoveries is, “GLORIA IN EXCELSIS DEO!”
Three things constitute the elements necessary for a Great Awakening, namely, the right theology, the Heavenly Presence, and humility. When these three elements are present, the effect is quite overwhelmingly glorious and all te beneficiaries of such a visitation know that something unusual has happened. Listen to a writer in the Ketocton Baptist Association in Virginia in 1816 describing the past fifty years:
While we reflect with the highest pleasure on the rich and
sovereign mercy of God and contrast the means employed
with the end accomplished, the conclusion is irresistible,
“It is the Lord’s doing, marvelous indeed in our eyes.”….Our
ministers, with very few exceptions, were called from plough-
ing, or some other laborious employment to proclaim to poor
sinners the glad tidings of salvation through the dear Redeem-
er… the situation of Virginia at the time…required something
of an extraordinary nature to be done, and although nothing
really miraculous did…and we may with almost entire certain-
ty conclude that we shall never see such another set of
preachers…nor is it necessary that we should.
Greg, I can appecite your desire to make a point. This is a discussion debate, and baptists like to argue. After all, it is a sign of being alive and free, but we must be responsible. I want to look ahead to something I have been praying for for 37 years, namely, a Third Great Awakening. What I have written has that goal in mind more than just winning an argument. Besides anyone convinced against his will is unconvinced still. God often sidesteps our defensive mechanisms in order to get across His love to us. And as to study and research, a really good minister will gladly, eagerly do the research. I have literally thousands and thousands of 5×8 notecards. Besdes the 3000 in church history, I have 2000 on I Cors.13, perhaps nearly 2000 on how preach sermons, about 1300-1500 on the first 13 Psalms, a large amount on eschatology, five notebooks on I John, one for each chapter (I had hoped to preach a series of sermons on John’s Epistle on the theme of reality). I did get the first chapter done. I have perhaps 800 5×8 notecards on creation/evolution, many cards on counseling subjects along with papers written in the field. I also have lecture notes for American History, political science, philosophy, etc.I have the materials for teaching courses on Isaiah, Hebrews, Systematic Theology, Preaching, etc. These researces were done, while pastoring, visiting the membership of my churches on a regular basis, and so on. I say these not to brag. Other ministers do as muc, if not a great deal more, This is to help and to encourage ministers to do the work. They will be delighted by what they find.
Dr. Willingham,
I think you are telling me that I am waisting my time on Don, and that it could better be used in study… I fully agree!
Grace Always,
Dr. Willingham,
I also as a fellow Baptist enjoy the debate. In my case probably too much of the flesh comes into play.
I noticed you were converted from atheism. How old were at the time and if you can remember, what made you into an atheist?
You people are going to argue about Calvinism for over 400 comments. You really think it’s that important? I’m a 5 pointer but if someone affirms salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, that Christ does not save anyone without them realizing He is doing the saving, and that Christ’s death on the cross paid the price for sin thereby satifying God’s righteous wrath against sin, then they have the gospel right.
Regardless of whatever other differences I might have with them, I can exhort them to go proclaim the gospel because I know they have the gospel right and would welcome them exhorting me likewise.
Very clear, Joe. Good word.
Debbie,
I agree that the Holy Spirit was present in the OT. Also I believe on rare occasions the Holy Spirit came upon certain individuals to perform particular tasks.
However, there were no OT saints that were born again and they did not have the continual indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
I noticed Mr. Piper did not refer to John 7:39. Because the verse disagrees with many of Mr. Piper comments, I wondering which one I should believe?
Mr. Piper also did not mention John 14:17. Again I’m a bit curious how the Holy Spirit could indwell believers in the OT, but couldn’t indwell the disciples until after the resurrection? Did the OT saints have a special blessing that was not available to the disciples?
Don,
They did it by reading NT into the OT in toto. I think it is the influence of the covenant theology hermeneutics based on the so called replacement theology and/or ONE people of God view: ONE people (Jews & Gentiles = one body of believers in OT & NT).
The church started with Abraham (Louis Berkhof, etc). Hence, what is experienced by NT believers were also experience by OT believers.
Calvinistic Baptists do not hold to the One people view but swallowed the covenant hermeneutics. Otherwise they would lose their jobs in seminaries and churches. They have to be ecclectic to be seen as calvinistic, because they think it is more intellectual and fashionable today in Baptist seminaries, especially Louisville. They adore Piper as SBTS. Just checked SBTS students’ blogs–they are blogging calvinism mostly.
Or Lu la bi: They could see it in scripture. Stick with the scripture and you will be better off in your arguments. Calvinism isn’t spreading because of adoration of Piper. They may hear Piper(remember faith comes by hearing, hearing the Word of God?) and believing. Stick to the scriptures.
Hebrews 11:13, Don, Hebrews 11:13
What is living by Faith if not the pneuma, the God Breathing life force of the Holy Spirit??
Christ perfected, Incarnated most perfectly that Holy Spirit, but who are you or any of Us to limit God’s Breath on Mankind.
The Bible says the Winds blows where it will.
Right, Steven,
Buit since the Bible is errant, we can’t be sure that’s actually scripture. Might as well use the back of a ceeal box or one of your links to try to arrive at the truth. (/sarcasm)
No Joe; you can’t figure it out, but Barbara Dooley can.
I am convinced she is on the way to Heaven and she most likely doesn’t know chicken feed about the Bogus issue of Inerrancy or how Paige Patterson and Vines changed the subject when Noll and Pinnock called their bluff at Ridgecrest in 87.
Should the world stop and all of Jesus work in the world cease just because Taliban Joe doesn’t have the capacity to get a grip on this matter.
You have errors; you are confused and warped and a threat to civilization cause you blunderbuss a one stop nonsense.
I can’t help you.
What’s your wife thinking? (sarcasm)
Hey, since this thread is about Calvinism, why don’t you come to Tennesse. I’ll play Calvin and you can play Servetus.
Cormac McCarthy has been to Tennessee. He left for New Mexico.
Hey Joe, What’s your wife thinking? (sarcasm)
Steve, Can you provide a link to your claim about Liberal Pinnock, and “knock out” Noll. Primary resources please or don’t spread gossip.
JeffTy: Glad you asked.
http://www.sbctakeover.com chapter 13, the one on Inerrancy or maybe chapter 11
Here is what it says in Chapter 13 Jeff; and quoting. You may want to read it to your wife, your church, you Sunday School Members, preachers and leaders in you association and state and Rotary Club and gun hunting club and Crimson Tide Boosters Monday quarterback club and other loved ones:
Are Southern Baptists Inerrantists? Fundamentalists say that most Southern Baptists are inerrantists, but that certain professors are at odds with the people in the pew. Dr. Clark Pinnock, a conservative Baptist who now teaches theology in Canada , makes a convincing argument that moderate Baptist scholars were never far removed from the Biblical theology of the rank-and-file church members.
Pinnock taught at New Orleans Seminary from 1965 until 1969 and was one of Paige Patterson’s favorite seminary professors. He was a fiery advocate of roughly the position now held by SBC Fundamentalists. Although Pinnock shifted his position on inerrancy in the 1970s,[53] leaders of the nondenominational inerrancy movement still claim him as one of their own.
At the 1987 inerrancy conference, Pinnock said he believed Southern Baptists’ typical approach to the Bible is not inerrancy in the strictest sense. Rather, it is what he called “simple Biblicism.” Simple biblicism, he said, is a view that “most evangelicals and Baptists hold, whether scholars or not, because the Spirit teaches it to them.” This approach “views the Scriptures as the only place to go if you want to find the words of everlasting life.”[54]
At the inerrancy conference, Mark Noll, a distinguished historian at Wheaton College,[55] agreed and explained that in the “Baptist” approach, as he called it, the Bible’s truth and authority are known by inward experience, not by rationalistic arguments about the nature of the Bible.”[56] This attitude toward the Bible could be called “inerrantist” in a loose, popular sense of the term.[57] But as Pinnock and Noll suggest, moderate Baptist scholars and many lay persons affirmed a “simple Biblicism” that was always sufficient to unify Baptist churches for missions and evangelism. The “inerrancy controversy” was invented to serve as a political weapon.
Nice links, but there is no proof that Vines or anyone else did what you said they did. Thanks for the unbias links!!! NOT!!
Vines has a blog where he talks about Carlyle Marney and Pinnock. Why don’t you ask him what he did after Ridgecrest and ask him who he met with off campus when the Peace Committee visitted SEBTS later that year.
To be Frank with you Jeffty; I’m watchin some of the Clemson game and the US Open and Riley Dodge, the Coach’s son just went in for North Texas.
That’s where Joe Barnhart taught, and from where Moyers is a graduate.
I had two good roastin ears of corn for lunch, put some butter on em and last night watched Nightline talk about the Religion of BBQ.
That’s about how much you know about Vines and the Inerrancy Conference and the meanin of Scripture.
And Joe Blackmon, if you read this….
What’s your wife thinkin? ( sarcasm)
steve-o Now, I know you problem. You watch a tennis and nightline.
Jeff: your problem is you don’t watch anything, don’t read anything that we know of and think Jerry Vines is the Word, the Truth and the Way and You bought the Inerrancy thing hook line and Sinker far as I can tell.
Have I shared the poem with you about Salley going Downtown.
Bill Moyers seemed to like it a lot.
For a warmup here is Jim Henry’s Daughter on Ezekiel’s Wheel:
wheels within wheels
east texas town
1902
that’s when the witnesses
said that it flew
up to the sky
like a chariot
headed for home
it all started back
a few years before
a vision came knocking
at burrell cannon’s door
writing his sermon down
reading the word
all alone
suddenly
all of the mysteries
made sense
god let him in
on his master blueprints
there was no doubt
in his mind
what he had to do
ezekiel saw wheels within wheels
and burrell seen them too
he went to work
building his dream
raising the cash
and giving it wings
loaded it up
on a train
for the st. louis fair
just out of texas
the wind and the rain
blew burrell’s airship
right off that train
he turned his back
walked away
left it all laying there
everyone asked him
how could you quit
burrell told them
god had a hand in all this
he never meant man to fly
we read him
all wrong
kate campbell / walt aldridge
© 2004 large river music (bmi)
cross key publishing co. inc./waltz time music inc. (ascap)
Don: They did Don. For example look at Luke 24:25, Luke 24:52. What Penecost did was give them power to do the Great commission that Jesus commanded them to do. There is one method of salvation, one Holy Spirit, who is God, to do the work in us, indwell us. That didn’t change from the OT to the NT other than now it was not just for the Saints, but for all who believe.
The Wind Blows where it will
Exactly Stephen.
Let us talk of what is/are in the text exactly, so that what the text(s) expressed in it is grammar and syntas (content) we affirmed.
Let us see what the “wind” is being used in Jn 3 for?
I was using grammar & syntax of Act 13:48 to repudiate Dr. Willingham’s misapplication of the subjunctive mood and the passive voice to affirm predestination.
Acts 13:48 does not have passive voice zoe. Zoe is a noun, not a verb. And Tagma is not a technical word for predestination. Where did Dr. Willingham got IR in 13:48? It is from the TULIP theology.
This is NOT about the wind; this is really about what ARE in the text of 13:48. If you ignore grammar and syntax in your doctrine then you are really talking wind–like hot….
Stephen,
Where in Hebrews 11 is the Holy Spirit mentioned? I can’t seem to find it.
I’m not limiting the work of the Holy Spirit. I’m also not inferring the work of the Holy Spirit into Scripture just to fit my own doctrine.
How do you have Faith without the Holy Spirit.
And if you can’t find Faith in the 13th verse, then no offense, but you can’t read.
Debbie,
Are you sure Luke 24:25 and Luke 24:52 are the verses you wanted to give? If they are I’m not understanding your point.
Stephen,
Maybe you can’t read. I said I could not find the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 11, I said nothing about faith.
The work of the Holy Spirit is to bring conviction, not give faith.
I believe you are narrowing faith, DonJ to fit your argument, not to add meaning to the word or it’s wonderful work in the world.
Check Kathleen Norris’s Vocabulary of Faith if you need further help.
Then of course if you are just trying to win an argument and have no intent to grow toward further Christian maturity, there is something a little blasphemous about our dialogue already, now isn’t there?
I found the HOly Spirit in the 11th Chapter of Hebrews and it convicted me.
Yes, I am sure these are the verses I want to give.
The role of the Holy Spirit is to regenerate, give faith.
Debbie,
Before you proclaim that faith is a gift to enable a person to believe in Christ, you have assumed some errors pertaining to Scripture.
First, you read inability into the phrase “who were dead in trespasses and sins” in Ephesians 2:1 to mean unable to respond to spiritual things. Then you proceed to faith as a gift and believe as the result of regeneration. There are 7 usages of the concept “dead” in the Bible. How do you determine here it must be inability?
Debbie, many have been used these text to teach total inbility: (Pss 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).
If you inspect each of these passages you will find that NOT even one of them teach what they claim. These texts teach either: (1) a literal physical death or (2) spiritual separation from the quality of life that comes only from a relationship with God. None of these teaches inability to respond to Good News of the Gospel.
You conveniently forget how Adam could talk to God AFTER the fall.
The fact that unbelievers lack the spiritual qualities
inherent in eternal life—to be enjoyed only by believers—does not prove that people are unable to respond.
In Acts 10:31-32 you see 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.’”
You see unbelievers can and do seek God, as Cornelius obviously did. And 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).
Like Cornelius, Lydia, 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 word opening of the eyes to make understanding possible and enable perception is just THAT and not IG to impart ability to believe. So, Cornelius and Lydia were examples of “dead” unbelievers seeking God and found Him.
Salvation is a gift (Eps2:8-9), faith is not a gift—it is a passive trust of gift.
Debbie, there is NO text in John’s Gospel that teaches faith as a gift. No even in Eps2:8. Even if that is very clear in your mind do not be hasty to conclude that you have it clearly expressed in the text.
According to Ephesians 4:11&12 his role is also to equip us to do the work God calls us to do. Men and women. He is God. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
Debbie,
If you read Eps 4:11-12 carefully before you typed you sentence, it says that the role of equipping the saints is specifically given by the Spirit to pastors-teachers or pastors & teachers. The text does NOT say that the equipping is the role of the Triune God. Though I am sure it feels good to say what you said. It sound good but not accurate.
lu ba bi,
If you knew anything about her pastor and church, you would realize that exegesis is not one of their strong suits. Biblical facts get a bit muddied when you’re trying to use the word of God to serve an agenda.
Hi Joe,
I have not heard that pastor teach. But from his blog I see a lot of politics and ethics. Might be a postmo type preacher. I’d rather see pastors who stick with the text.
Jesus told Nicodemus:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, “You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3.5-8)
Debbie, I’m going to step in here and come to your defense somewhat, at least.
I believe that this is one of those issues in which we can make a distinction without making a difference.
I don’t know of any single, unambiguous passage that describes salvation with the clinical precision some indicate in their posts.
For example, the matter of the different uses for a particular word, like dead. One person uses this secondary syntax to prove his point. However, he is trapped by his own logic when he asks you, “how can you say it means inability” in a particular passage. While primary syntax is more clinical and precise, secondary syntax and the range of meaning is not.
So, I’m not sure that a prima facie argument can be made against your view of Ephesians 2:1. I think in this particular instance (which comes first) we have to be careful not to go beyond what we actually can determine, at least not to some clinical precision that is unwarranted.
I feel strongly that the Biblical text does indicate that “dead,” as you present it in your argument, does imply an inability, supported by the context of the New Testament as a whole.
Stephen,
I’m not narrowing faith. Anyone who is ever saved is saved by faith.
People with faith go to Heaven. People without faith go to Hell.
So DonJ, I think we can say Barbara Dooley is gonna be okay as long as she doesn’t talk to Joe Blackmon.
By Faith, Abraham, the Bible Says and from there Richard Land says there are four Abrahamic Faiths conceived, so who are the Caner Brothers and Joe Blackmon, Ronnie Floyd and Al Mohler and Joe Blackmon to say who goes to Heaven and who doesn’t.
Thanks, the Bible has already said who goes to heaven. God’s inerrant Bible. All Christians recognize that it is inerrant and no Christians believe that Jesus saves anyone without them realizing He is the one saving them.
You can’t point to one single, solitary bit of scrpture to support your unbiblical position.
And you can’t point to many folks outside your own yard that think you know what you are talking about.
What’s your wife think about all this? (sarcasm)
All indications are on this matter Barbara Dooley thinks you are full of horse waste.
Truth isn’t decided by what folks outside of my yard or Barbara Dooley, whoever the blazes she is, thinks. Truth, all of it, is in the Bible. Since I can support every one of my points with scripture and you can’t support your embarassing, unbiblical assertion that Christ saves people without them know he is dong the saving then I am right and you are wrong.
This is good stuff and I just made myself part of it with a truely inspired & intelligent statement – I hope.
Debbie,
No Debbie, the Holy Spirit’s work is to bring conviction, which sometimes leads to faith, at which time the Holy Spirit then regenerates the person. Except for the regeneration part, the afore mentioned was also true in the OT. Regeneration didn’t happen until after the resurrection.
Jesus said in John 10:10 “I am come that ye might have life.” Why? Because no one had life before He came.
The Holy Spirit came from the Wind in the Desert and Old Testament people of Faith listening to the Wind and observing Fire.
See David Jasper, The Sacred Desert.
Joe B and JeffT won’t get it, cause they are blind and deaf.
But maybe Christiane and DebbieK and Jack will hear and see some things, feel the wind blowing.
QUOTE The Holy Spirit came from the Wind in the Desert and Old Testament people of Faith listening to the Wind and observing Fire. END QUOTE
Because I know this man believes the Bible is errant (that is not inerrant), I cannot assume I’m just not understanding his belief that the “Holy Spirit came” from somehwere (desert or otherwise).
The Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God and clearly teaches God did NOT come from anywhere — desert or otherwise.
I think I read that in the Bible somewhere.
SSBN, John 3:8 “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” selahV
My problem with your Bible is the man to whom you send your CP dollars will most likely be silent on this matter, STick his finger in the Wind, Just like WA Criswell did in his time.
Your Bible and your leadership gets its direction from some nebulous place Gushee and CArey Newman exposed at Mohler’s Southern, and Noll and Pinnock shined light on at Ridgecrest in 87
What is your Bible and your SBC gonna do about this?
http://www.tonycartledge.com/2010/09/when-laws-get-in-way-of-justice.html
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Romans 13:1-NASB
Oh, wait, let me guess…that was just Paul’s opinion, huh?
Joe, I’ll take your Bible over his bible anytime.
Stephen, my bible tells me that the Lord works all things together for good according to His riches in Christ Jesus. My Bible says that I know Whom I am believed that He will keep that which I’ve committed unto Him against that day. It tells me that “The Lord will perfect that which concerneth me. It tells me not to be anxious in anything, but in all things give thanks. It tells me to trust in the Lord with all my heart, lean not unto my own understanding but in all my ways, to acknowledge Him and He will direct my path. I am willing to believe that Hector will see God move mountains for him and soon he will be rejoicing. And I believe the prayers of God’s people will be answered and God will pour out His grace upon Hector. And God will have the glory…not man…God. That’s what my Bible says. selahV
Hariette, I hope so.
Just wait and see. God is good, my friend. So very good. blessings…selahV
SSBN,
Could you respond to my comment #101 with regards to “inability.” Thus far no one has. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Don,
They just assume “dead” = inability and it must be in these passages no matter what.
TULIP is [in practice] far ABOVE the Bible [in terms of authority], like the authority of the Pope in RC. In this respect TULIP is the absolute and the Bible is relative.
Somebody just said in one of the post above that he sees inability in the whole Bible. Meaning: “I am using TULIP to read the Bible.”
In such case(s) the Tulip has become a blinding poison in hermeneutics.
QUOTE Could you respond to my comment #101 with regards to “inability.” Thus far no one has. I’d be interested in your thoughts END QUOTE
Don, i think you point out why this is such a difficult doctrine to pin down with clinical precision. Language, especially translated into another language, simply is not that precise in these kinds of issues.
My answer would be that “inability” is not absolute intellectual zero. As you point out, persons do not “die” in the same sense that the body dies. So, you are right in that account. Obviously, something else is working.
So, the “inability” is measured, not complete. Persons in history who have held a view such as mine, distinguish between absolute intellectual capability and the ability to act in a way that spiritually benefits oneself.
In reference to personhood, it is obvious as you point out that this continues with some measure of intellectual capabilities. I would qualify that inability to say that it does not include the spiritual ability to act on one’s behalf in any way in regard to salvation. That process must involve action from the outside, such as we know is God.
I would say that the spiritual part that can have a relationship with God (in an unsaved person) was dead even when the body was alive. Just like the body was animated before death, the person continues in a similar vein after death. But, nothing changes in regard to the spirit. The spirit in hell is “dead,” that is eternally separated from God, just like a dead person’s body is separated from the spirit.
So, yes there are faculties such as thought and speech even in a dead person who continues into eternity. But, animation such as thought and such does not equal life. So, my distinction in regard to inability goes to the matter of animation versus the ability to act on one’s own behalf for spiritual regeneration. Animation does not equal spiritual life in my understanding.
INABILITY & IRRESISTIBLE GRACE CAN ONLY BE AFFIRMED BY DENYING THE SALVATION COMMANDS GIVEN IN THE IMPERATIVE MOOD.
We argue that the imperative mood in Scripture affirms man’s obligation and ability to respond to his Creator in order to be saved. This is denied by the tulipers.
The imperative mood is of such a nature—a command or entreaty—that it addresses the volition or will, and not simply the reason. The nature of the imperative, then, expresses an appeal from one will to another will in a summons to action. In ordinary communication our appeal is normally from intellect to intellect.
NT scholars remind us of the NATURE of the imperative mood as follows: “The imperative is the mood of command or entreaty—the mood of volition [i.e., the act of using the will]. It is the genius of the imperative to express the APPEAL OF WILL TO WILL . . . in the imperative ONE WILL addresses ANOTHER [WILL]. It expresses neither probability nor possibility, but only intention, and is, therefore, the furthest removed from reality.” (Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p.165).
This universal rule of grammar is rejected by tulipers. Tulipers’ irresistible grace and total depravity CANNOT be brought into harmony with the imperative mood, as it demands the action of the will of sinners! They have to bend, hide and rejected the imperative construction to affirm IG.
The Scriptures shows, sinners are called of God by means of the imperative construction.
Paul says: “. . . you be reconciled to God right now . . . .”
“You be reconciled” is an aorist imperative. The imperative mood is a command from one will to another will in expectation of a response. Neither the doctrine of inability nor total depravity can hold here; both are explicitly ruled out!
God made the provision for salvation and established the conditions upon which a response on man’s part is utterly necessary.
What to do when a theory such as IG does not square with the text? You decide either to affirm Scripture or the tulip.
Imperative/Active/Passive in Acts 2:38 is Contrary to Inability:
“Then Peter said to them, REPENT, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit…
Repent translates metano?sate in the aorist tense and imperative mood. The aorist tense is momentary or instantaneous action.
The imperative mood is a command. Hence, a translation that fully expresses the imperative nuance, then, would be: “You repent! [You] Do it right now!”
The imperative mood is of such a nature that it addresses the volition or will, and not simply the reason. The nature of the imperative, then, expresses an appeal from one will to another
will in a summons to action, which may or may not be carried out. Thus, by command of superior appeal, the will of God through the Apostle Peter summonsed the hearers—“You repent! [You] Do it right now!”
In verse 40 the Holy Spirit through Peter summoned them—“You be saved! Do it right now!”
Here the construction is the same, except we have a PASSIVE VOICE rather than the active. They COULD repent?ACTIVE voice?but they COULD NOT SAVE THEMSELVED?PASSIVE VOICE. Thus, these penitent sinners were instructed to now submit their will to the will and work of the Holy Spirit that they might be saved, NOT submit AFTER being saved…but now.
The tulipers are invited to show just how these active and passive conditions are not synergistic, but rather, monergistic!
Verse 41 says: “. . . they therefore embraced the word for themselves right then… So that historic day might be summed up like this: The will of Almighty God issued forth—“Repent! Be saved!” And the will of man in obedient surrender “embraced the Word.”
That day three thousand souls were saved.
Note that all these persons were dead in sin, and it was dead sinners who responded to God that day!
The occurrences of these verses cannot possibly be construed
as total inability. The tulipers are invited to show from the Greek text of the New Testament just how total inability and the imperative mood can be brought into harmony with respect to man’s
salvation, illustrating that it is all God and none of man.
It is either the Holy Spirit in Scripture construction and content is truthful or the tulipers are truthful and the Spirit is lying. You be the judge.
If Lu is correct, and Calvinists (tulipers) are untruthful, then all this talk of cooperation between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC is just wasted air. If they truly are untruthful, then they need to be sought out, identified, and purged from the SBC.
Bill,
Both sides can’t be true in the same sense pertaining to the textual constructions to express content of the texts discussed. These texts either expressed & affirmed TULIP or deny it. I see these texts denied the tulipers’ position.
If a person believes something that turns out to be false, they they are simply wrong. If a person propagates something they know to be untrue, then they are untruthful.
Bill,
Neither the proclaimers nor the hearers determine truth. The text determines truth by its constructions to express truth. Truth is not located in the interpreters or hearers no matter how many or how sincere they were.
Hence, the only persons qualify to teach are those trained in Biblical Hebrew and Greek and/or those who are not trained but rely on those who’re trained.
Have faith in God = grasp God’s thinking correctly & accurately and hang on to it by dear life–dig it out by exegeting the texts & hold it forever. There is no other way. There is no other truth. Parroting Calvin does not help us to study the Bible. In many cases it hinders. Even be careful about parroting BF&M 2000.
I have never ready anything by Calvin and I never quote the BFM. However I do not speak Greek or Hebrew so by your estimation I am not qualified to teach. You are very close to recommending a teaching magisterium. Is our English bible useless then? Were the good folks who took the time to translate the Greek and Hebrew into English not enough? We need another layer of Greek and Hebrew scholars to tell us what the scriptures really say? If we all knew Greek and Hebrew then no one would be a Calvinist?
lu ba bi,
I have a question that might help me understand where you are coming from. You said –
Do I understand you to mean that dead sinners responded to God in their natural sinful state out of their own unassisted will?
Mark,
John 16:8-11 shows the ministry of the Spirit. Paul also mentioned the intruments used by the Spirit in Romans 10:13-15. We see the operation of the Spirit in t+he case of Cornelius and Lydia (Acts 10 and 16).
The Holy Spirit does not believe for them though. The Spirit is a ‘Gentleman’, He does not manipulate their will.
lu ba bi,
Thanks. So, it seems you’d agree that those dead in sin don’t believe unassisted, correct? If this is right and I understand your position correctly (while agreeing that the Holy Spirit does not believe for someone), what role does the Holy Spirit play in one coming to faith?
The Holy Spirit quickens the Soul, it encourages and Moves one toward repentance and Insight.
It was the Holy Spirit that in the Old Testament encouraged the Children of Israel to Choose Life.
Mark,
The Holy Spirit brings conviction (John 16:8-11). Which in turn should produce faith in the unbeliever, though most times it does not. Often times the Gospel must be heard more than once before one comes to faith. Once someone repents and believes, the Holy Spirit then quickens the person and begins to indwell the new believer.
Don & Stephen,
Thanks for answering. Why can’t man believe on his own, unaided by the Holy Spirit?
Stephen & Don,
That’s just not FAIR… Some are chosen to hear the Gospel and others are not… The Holy Spirit quickens some Souls and encourages and moves some toward repentance and Insight, and others he does not.
So what hope do those unlucky souls who never hear the Gospel have? What hope to those who are not encouraged by the Holy Spirit have?
Grace Always,
I choose neither. I don’t believe those of us who believe in TULIP are untruthful and I don’t believe the Holy Spirit is lying.
Don I have not read 101, but I will and answer any question or questions you have. As you know it is hard to keep up with this format.
Don: My answer to number 101 is obviously yes. All stand before God who sends people to heaven or hell, therefore they would know at their death there is a God and I am sure remorse sets in. They know he is God, yes. Now, there is speculation whether this is a true story in the form of a parable, no one knows for sure, but obviously judging by this passage the answer is yes to your question.
Let me qualify Lu la bi. For example you give Paul says repent, repent right now. You give Peter calling people to come to Christ etc.
The Bible says in Romans 10:17: Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God. This is the vehicle God has chosen to use. His word, the preaching of it, the witnessing to others giving God’s word, the Bible. This is demonstrated in the example of Lydia that I gave in Acts. God opens their heart to receive his words. To accept them. It is God who does it, not our eloquence in speaking or writing. It is God who allows the person to hear, understand. He doesn’t need us, but we have the privilege of being used. Part of the reason is to show our salvation or to build our faith, whatever the reason it is the greatest gift God has given us to be used i this process. But it’s all God.
When interpreting scripture all scripture must be reconciled, no passage can conflict with another. If it does, its’ the interpretation that is wrong, not the passage. It may be one reason I never heard sermons on Ephesians, all of Romans etc. because it was hard to reconcile these passages with a come forward and choose, free will, type of teaching.
QUOTE When interpreting scripture all scripture must be reconciled, no passage can conflict with another END QUOTE
A good point. We all bring presuppositions to our interpreting of Scripture. That’s why I feel comfortable when my interpretation corresponds to the whole counsel of God’s Word, not just particular sections.
SSBN, even so there is no way to reconcile Inerrancy with the truths of Scripture. It is a flawwed rubric and your assertions are suspect when you adhere to it.
Don’t take my word, engage the conservative scholar NT Wright.
Bill,
Biblical languages are required in Seminaries for important reasons. Today, our seminaries they are using the NT Nestle-Aland 11th corrected edition–for valid reasons. Even good old KJV was revised to NKJ. The good NASB now has its corrected edition. All translations are good and have blessed millions. But still, it is best for pastor-teacher to be able to exegete from the originals. Or at least has the capacity to use technical commentaries by great Bible scholars (e.g., A.T. Robertson’s Word Pictures, etc).
Churches do not require a working knowledge of biblical languages from pastors. It is just my personal opinion.
If I read the history of the reformation correctly, it was inspired, among others, by Luther’s reading of Romans & Galatians in the original.
Of REform, LuBaHi and The Greek.
The SBC needs a new Reformation, an Honest Confession that loads of deceit was put into the abuse of the flawwed rubric of Inerrancy in the SBC Takeover.
A Public Declaration by Paul Pressler and Paige Patterson that Page 51 of Diarmand MacCulloch’s findings on the Chronology of the Book of Genesis is Right and They were wrong.
Apologize to Mark Noll and the Memory of Clark Pinnock about how Takeover Leaders did not listen to them at Ridgecrest in 87.
That is at the heart of Exegetical Deceit in the SBC and if Aristotle himself came back from the Dead to translate the Original Greek it would not rectify what Paige and Paul did.
That is the cancer at the heart of SBC Life, and it needs to be acknowledge, and then you can talk about True Reform
Oh thank you, Steven
I needed a pick me up this morning, and thinking about how bitter you are for how you and friends/family of yours were treated in the CR is just the thing I needed.
Acutally, you should be very thinkful. If I’d been able to be part of the CR you would have gotten much, much worse. Much closer to what you deserved, anyway.
Joe Blackmon: Did you see that Parable about the Mule in the OT me and Will Campbell been tellin you about.
Tell your Wife it’s about the futility of fundamentalism in case her thinkin isn’t up to gettin the point (sarcasm and an LOL)
How is that wife of yours thinking; or what’s she thinking; what kind of inidication of her thinking is her choice of you.
PH, Joe B; Not V (sarcasm)
And by the way who are you to condemn Barbara Dooley to Hell or Arrogantly say if she don’t subscribe to your Dogma she is Lost.
Hi calvinists,
Tell me if this is not the real intention of the author of Jn3:16-17; or if this is not the best outcome of comparing Scripture with Scripture?
“16 For God so loved the world of the elect that He gave His only Son, for the purpose that every one of the elect who believes in Him irresistibly cannot perish, but has eternal life unconditionally. 17 For God did not send the Son to the elect to judge the elect, but that the elect be irresistiblly saved through Him.”
lu ba li,
I’m sure that’s what John “really” wanted to write. He must have been trying to save paper and ink, so he left out that “elect” stuff. After all he probably knew Augustine, Calvin, Pink, Sproul, Custance, Piper and White would come along and fill in the blanks.
Don: Read the rest of John 3.
Can you delineate what you read [or read into] in Jn3 if indeed you have studied it. Please don’t paste the whole chapter here. I have my Bible on hand too.
Read John 3:16 until the end of the chapter.
Um. Yep Lubabi, that about sums it up.
Dr. Willingham,
Re.: Jn3:16 and the subjunctive mood.
Tulipers are experts in philosophizing and theologizing scripture to fit the tulip frame while suppress the subjunctive mood [potential, contingent mood] of texts that do not allow forced grace. Their effort is geared at bypassing the force of the subjunctive inherent in such texts. The most famous one is Jn3:16.
May not Perish (apol?tai); May continue to Have (ech?); May be Saved (s?th?).
Please note here that it is necessary that the Calvinist must start from the claim that one is regenerated/saved BEFORE it is possible to believe.
This theory thus must first disregards the force of the tenses, moods, etc., that play a vital role in being saved.
When the force of the subjunctive of John 3:16-17 is fully accounted for, the translation should read:
“For the God so loved (?gap?sen) the world (ton kosmon),
so that He gave the-only-one-of-His-kind Son, in order that (hina) whoever the believing one (pas ho pisteu?n) in Him MAY not perish (apol?tai) but (all’) MAY continue to have (ech?) eternal life. “For the God sent not the Son into the world in order that He MAY judge the world, but (all’) in order that (hina) the world MIGHT be saved (s?th?) through Him.”
Why does the calvinist deny the conditional nature of the subjunctive in John 3:16-17? It is there; why did he ignore its vital significance? The answer is simple: the subjunctive mood is fatal to definite redemption, and irresistible grace.
Mark,
I don’t think I could answer completely.
One reason the Holy Spirit is needed is because our faith is in someone else, which is Christ. All other religions teach one must do some sort of work to make it to the great beyond. Only Biblical Christianity teaches the “work” was done by Christ. It is natural to trust in one’s own works. It is not natural to trust in someone having done all the work on your behalf. Therefore, there must be an outside influence to help bring about fath. Which is the Holy Spirit.
Dear Lu babe: You are not quite the expert on scholarwhip in the Greek that you think you are. God’s irresistibility often appears as i did in 1965 when a friend of mine, an Arminian so to speak at the time won a young 20 year old lady to Christ. She responded so readily, he asked her why and she said, “Oh, it was so wonderful that I could not resist it.” It took 40 years for my friend to come to believe Grace was as the lady he won said, “so wonderful she could not resist it.” Then he found out he was kin to the leading calvinist of the 19th century (CH Spurgeon). God does have a sense of humor (pshaw He named one of the Patriarchs, “LAUGHTER!”). And when Jesus says in Jn.5:25, “The hour…now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.” I suppose He wasn’t speaking in an irresistible fashion any more than at Lazarus grace? Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Dear Lu Babe, you do have a problem. Wonder if you will stop death from taking you from this life by a mere statement that it cannot be irresistible? And tell me, dear friend, how in the world do suppose an Atheist such as I was (who despised the Gospel and poured contempt upon it, saying to my sister, “Take your old Namby Pamby Religion and go jump out the window with it!”) got saved? Why, I was determined to tell no one about seeing Jesus knocking at my door (really hard on one’s atheism), and yet something/someone (was it God opening the door? I think so)opened the door, changed my mind so that I told my mom and called on God to forgive me of my sins and felt a burden lifted off my heart and cried tears of Joy). Like C.S. Lewis, I was surprised by Joy. Critical studies and intellectualism and scholarship have been the name of the game with me for most of my life by God’s appointment. Dear lu ba bi, I know more about scholarship than you can possible imagine. After all, one can hardly attend 10 schools above the secondary level, earn 5 degrees and work on number 6, teach in three schools above the secondary level, deliver a lecture in an afternoon lecture series at an Ivy league university, get elected to two honor societies, and be listed in 5 Who’s Whos without having something on the ball. What evidence do you have of attainments other than repetitive quoting of some Greek Grammars (I have a number of them in my library which numbers somewhere between 12 & 20,000 vols.)? I gave you a subjunctive of purpose, and that is not quite as mild as you might think. After all, God’s merest wish comes not from the God still developing to which Pinnock turned after giving up the Biblical concept of the Absolute God….which Br’ Fox does never acknowledge (or did I miss that somewhere?). And the inerrrancy is not quite the Bogus issue as he thinks. It is quite easy to adopt facile positions, when one is not use to doing the sweaty work of years of research and thousands of notecards. When one gets back into the primary sources, one finds a hard-nosed, facticity of biblical commitment which seeks to adjust to new information arising in this world as time passes. Brother Fox still does not know that the so-called “Higher Criticism” had its origins in the Enlightenment of the French Philosophes and their English cousins (such as Paine, Hume, etc.) and that there was nothing higher about…just old skepticism baptized with a more noble sounding term, but garbage by any other name is stll garbage. Bro. Fox dips a little into Stott’s latest charades on inerrancy ad ignores the houndreds of works written on the issue by scholars as diverse as Lutherans and Presbyterians and Reformeds and Anglicans. Wonder if he ever read much of John Warwick Montgomery or the Preuses? Well, I must stop fo lunch just as I a getting ready to fire a broadside and say, “What chase out the Calvinists who founded the SBC? Chase out the theology that produced the First and Second Great Awakenings? Chase out the views that have produced more scholars, more works in biblical studies, and launched the Great Century of Missions? I don’t think so, Lu Ba Bi. But if so, so what? God will simply give us another Great Awakening and win the whole earth to Christ as He has planned from eternity. He might even cause some of us to be put to death for the sake of Sovereign Grace and for the Bible, but, Hey, that is all right…as long as the Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ is exalted and glorified and magnified on earth as well as in Heaven, but that is what He wanted us to pray in the model prayer, “Your Kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.”
Dr. Willingham,
I appreciate your testimony and heart for missions. God be praised.
Now, back to your expertise: How do you as an expert in Greek deal with the subjunctive mood in Jn3:16 and expressed the subjunctive nuance of THIS text without jumping here there and everywhere?
Dr. Willingham,
I am not an expert in Greek like you.
Now let me complete my take on the subj. of Jn3:16. I am sure suc an expert like you when exegeting this text you would like to jump everywhere except fully expressing the subj. here. You would call such exegetical jumping around as comparing scriptures.
AGAIN: the subjunctive mood is FATAL to definite redemption, and irresistible grace.
Aside from the subjunctive mood concepts in John 3:16-17 we note the place of PIESTEUON in relation to the subjunctive verbs. Last time I check, Pisteuon is the substantival subject of apoletai [perish] and eche [have]. It is of interest that the subject, a participle, is present tense, but the verbal action of the subject is subjunctive—apoletau and eche; thus, the relation to fact is of a CONDITIONAL nature. We should not HIDE the force of the subjunctive.
The condition here is that the one believing will not perish if believing is exercised. If John had wished to show that the believer could in no wise perish, he would have used the construction OUN ME. The author instead uses the conditional one. My calvinist friends: you all mangled and hide the force of the subjunctive here and there and everywhere if they deny you the forced grace.
Dr. Willingham,
Since you “depised the Gospel” I assume you must of heard it a few times before you got saved. Why do think you did not respond the first time you heard the Gospel?
Don, that’s an excellent point. If ANYONE ever heard the gospel more than once, they “resisted” it at least once.
Sure Paula, they can resist but only as long as God allows. Those who God does a work in don’t resist for long.
PS: The typical response is “Well, um, we never said it couldn’t be resisted at all, but meant that it can’t be resisted ultimately. So eventually they will be saved if they’re elect.” Of course this is moving the line in the sand after the fact, as well as begging the question.
Paula,
I can understand why the “non-elect” are allowed to resist the Holy Spirit. After all, God doesn’t want them saved to begin with, so He would limit the work of the Holy Spirit on their hearts.
What I don’t understand is why or how the “elect” are allowed to hear the Gospel any number of times before being “irresistibly quicken.” Does God get enjoyment from His “elect” when at first they reject Him?
That’s the point, Don. It’s all a sham, because the reprobate never had any hope and the elect resisted in vain. This view of God makes him operating puppets for entertainment. If it is consistent, it also makes every debate on Calvinism a fool’s errand, since the reprobate can’t help rejecting it. Which in turn makes Calvinists’ being offended when their view is challenged an absurdity. But here again, they can’t help being offended, for there is no free will. It just goes in endless circles.
Should the words of the song be: “Thou art the Puppeter we are Thy the puppets?”
Lu, they’ve already got that one… something about potter and clay.
Truth to tell, though, the Calvinist position sounds more like the Pharisee’s prayer than the publican’s.
That’s exactly what I am saying. It is what the scriptures teach Paula. Romans 9:16, Philippians 2:12-13, Acts 13:48, John 1:12-13.
As for it being more like a Pharisee’s prayer, I don’t understand that comment. To know that God does the work and not us humbles us, not make us proud. I would think that thinking you chose would bring less humbleness. Thinking there was some good in people that they chose. There is no good in any of us. The Bible says even our good works are tainted by sin.
Isaiah 64:6 (New International Version)
6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
Make me a puppet of God’s any time, anywhere.
Greg,
Good to see you back.
Actually, God chose the whole world to hear the Gospel (Mark 16:15).
The Holy Spirit quickens those that believe.
Don,
So you are actually going on record as saying that every single person who has ever lived upon the earth has heard the Gospel?
This is nothing less than “Astounding!!!” Would you please explain how this has happened???
You say “The Holy Spirit quickens those that believe.” I think the Apostle James who wrote “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” would disagree with you… I do not think that the devils are “quickened” by the Holy Spirit.
Grace Always
Greg,
Please read again what I wrote. I did not say the whole world heard the Gospel. I said God chose for the whole world to hear the Gospel (Mark 16:15). Jesus told His disciples “go ye into ALL the world.” Now I realize ALL seldom means All for Calvinists. Despite what Calvinists believe Jeus wanted everyone to hear the Gospel.
I’ve got a question for you. Not that you answered any of the others, but I’ll give it another shot. What does the word “Gospel” mean? I don’t want a description of what the Gospel is (1 Cor. 15:1-4), I want meaning of the word.
Again, I didn’t think you would be so nit-picky. I did not say the Holy Spirit quickens those that believe “there is a God,” but those that believe. I assumed you would know that I meant “believe the Gospel.” You are correct the devils are not quickened, nor could they be.
Greg,
One more question. When Jesus told the disciples to preach the Gospel to every creature, did He mean everyone or everyone of the “elect”?
Don,
You are more slippery than a Greased Eel…
I ask you the question; “So what hope do those unlucky souls who never hear the Gospel have? What hope do those who are not encouraged by the Holy Spirit have?”
And you reply “Actually, God chose the whole world to hear the Gospel (Mark 16:15).”
I replied “So you are actually going on record as saying that every single person who has ever lived upon the earth has heard the Gospel?
This is nothing less than “Astounding!!!” Would you please explain how this has happened???”
Now you are saying “I did not say the whole world heard the Gospel. I said God chose for the whole world to hear the Gospel (Mark 16:15). “
Now I realize that you Neo-Pelagianist are renowned for you double speak, and your ability to avoid answering a direct question… But come one now! Everyone hear can see you attempting to twist out of answering the simple questions I have put before you.
“In your theology what hope does one have who never hears the Gospel?” They did not choose to not hear the Gospel, so there must be some kind of hope for them???
I await your attempt to answer this very simple question…
Grace Always,
Greg,
I see you still won’t answer any of my questions.
My response was to your first statement in post #483. The subject was “chosen” and “quicken.” I did not respond to your second statement.
If you want to criticize my comments that’s fine, but at least know what I’m referencing.
Now I would like to continue this, but I must ask that you at least answer my last two simple questions. Then I will be more than happy to answer your “those who have not heard the Gospel” question.
Slippery Don,
1) The word “Gospel” means “Good News”… learned that one in Sunday school many years ago…
2) Jesus told the disciples to preach the “Gospel” to “Everyone”… No Evangelical Calvinist that I know would say otherwise… so your point is what?
Now my “Neo-Pelagianist” Non SBC friend… be good sport and answer my question: “In your theology what hope does one have who never hears the Gospel?”
Grace Always,
Dear Lu Ba Bi: I do not claim to be an expert in Greek. I probably have only the equivalent of a minor (when you add all the courses, etc. from three different institutions in the field). My fields of expertise, if they can be called that, are History, theological ideas, and counseling (The fields in which I have degrees). I have a friend who I regard as the equivalent of A.T. Robertson in Greek. He is one of the first conservatives appointed in the theological change in our seminaries. I can remember him going around with a handful of computer punch cards, writing down Greek words, preparatory to writing a thesis proving that there was Caesarean text for the Book of Acts (there are four families of Greek Mss, Caesarean, Alexadrine, Western, and Byzantine). The Caesarean is the rarest. His thesis for the M.Th. was about 350 pages, 200 of which were computer tables. He by the way took the Advanced Standing with out ever having had Greek (he taught himself Greek) and passed it with the A, meaning he would get credit for first year Greek. But when the Dean found out that he had nevr had Greek and was self taught, he wasn’t going to give him credit….the Faculty Policies Committe reversed the dean as the catalogue did not specify. And that is an expert type thing. O by the way he has done the research to prove that the Jn.8:1-11 pericope (the woman taken in adultery is New Testament in origin)…having checked all 5000 early Grk mss, the early church fathers, and the early church lectionaries. Katrina handed him a set back…as the readers there were checking out every citation…Hopefully he might be able to complete it after he retires. As to my area – history, I took the Advanced Standing in Church History orally and got credit for four hours….(I had done 6 years of research in all 2000 years of church history on the sects (montanists, novationists, donatists, paulicians, waldensians, etc.). bit I didn’t tell any one that I had not had a single course in Church History (did have one in Reformation). Research is the heart and soul of real scholarship. for example, I did two years of research on Agape in I Cors.13, accumulating some 2000 5×8 notecards ad writing a 50 page paper with 305 footnotes…which is probably why I know a little on the Greek but do not call myself a expert (a drip under pressure). I will have to come back to the matter as I hav an interruption. But let me say as this point for those worried about the reprobate that I look on myself and my atheism especially as reprobate and that God saved a reprobate when He saved me. Indeed, as a Sovereign Grace believer, I hold that the truth of Reprobation (which requires careful statement) is actually a dotrine of intensely evangelistic invitation, a paradoxical intervention preached by our Lord, for example, to the woman of Canaan in Mt.15:21-28, when He especially referred to her as a dog and she grabbed His very saying and used it as justification for Him to answer her prayer…Not bad for a helpless sinner suffering from spiritual deadness and inability. (I really enjoy this though I KNOW LU BA BI AND PAULA ARE SURELY GOING TO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING. Until later…for purpose in the subjunctive by order of my wife (Did you all ever read where God told one man to do what his wife said….and the fellow who reminded me of that was a southern baptist pastor, my pastor who was not a calvinist though he had me supply for him. I still pray for him and his family).
” KNOW LU BA BI AND PAULA ARE SURELY GOING TO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING”
Thanks so much for your vote of no confidence. But until you learn to use PARAGRAPHS I won’t even try to read your comments. I only saw your taunt because you used ALL CAPS to make sure of it.
Try again sometime when you’re more interested in dialog than your resume.
” . . . a paradoxical intervention preached by our Lord, for example, to the woman of Canaan in Mt.15:21-28, when He especially referred to her as a dog and she grabbed His very saying and used it as justification for Him to answer her prayer…Not bad for a helpless sinner suffering from spiritual deadness and inability.”
Dr. Willingham, I have a different take on Matthew 15. I would like to share it with you and to get your opinion of it, if you care to do that, sir:
about MATTHEW 15 ‘The Canaanite Woman’:
How is it that Christ holds up a mirror for us to see our own prejudices so clearly?
Can the reader not see that Christ lays out the problem confronting all of us: who are ‘we’ and who are ‘they’:
the others, the ‘dogs’, the rejected, the lepers ?
What is the difference, if any?
And what is it that may we have in common that
He values far above our differences?
And what is our obligation to help the ‘others’ ? Must they always be ‘sent away’ unaided?
Nothing in this incident was ‘incidental’.
All was planned by God and set in motion to teach us something, if we will quietly look at it without our ‘prejudices’ and without our ‘self-righteous reactions’.
The Canaanite woman did not come to Christ by chance:
she was directed to that place by a faith that she would receive healing for her child.
In some part of all of us, we know that every mother would go to hell and beyond to get help for their suffering child.
This woman came to the Lord Christ.
And she came to Him confidently.
Do His Words to her not reflect what many in the crowd thought?
And therein lies the irony.
He is wisely, once again, holding up a mirror, using His Words to reflect the crowd’s rejection of this Canaanite woman.
And in doing so, He teaches, in a way that is unmistakably His:
DID he send her away unaided, as THEY might have done?
No.
He did not.
And therein lies the resolution of the irony.
She, one of the ‘others’,
had great faith, and so her daughter was given healing by the Lord Christ ‘from that very hour’.
Nothing in this story is without meaning.
The story is a lesson that ALL the despised and rejected of this world, who are of strong faith, may confidently come to the Lord Christ for healing, not to be turned away by Him.
WE are the ones doing the rejection of the ‘others’.
Not Him.
DR. WILLINGHAM: please note my comment number 517, I meant to address you by name, in its beginning, but forgot,
and I would sincerely appreciate your opinion of my comment,
if you have time and inclination. Thanks.
This blog has become so inbred. I’ve been away a few days, come back and it’s the same “us vs. them, we-hate-Pressler-Patterson” mantra over and over again.
It is like wading in a cesspool.
I think I’ll stay away awhile and see if something new happens.
SSBN: Can you try and deal with the issue? With the doctrine? This isn’t a us vs. them. That is ridiculous. It is a discussion. How about contributing? That would be a nice change.
Chick, EVERYTHING with you is “us vs. them”. You are incapable of functioning any other way. You’re one of the Calvinists that gives the rest of us Calvinists a bad name because you tru tp spread Calvinism rather than the gospel. Of course, since you believe someone can be saved by Christ in another religion with realizing that it’s Christ doing the saving, that would make sense.
As to John 3:16,17, I would simply point out that both verses involve what is known as the subjunctive of purpose. Dana and Mantey in their work, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, in a discussion concerning the conjunction, hina (anglicized spelling of the Greek term), state: Its most common occurrence is in purpose or final clauses, and it occurs regularly wit the subjunctive mood,….” In both verses a subjunctive verb is used with hina, giving the purpose of the preceding part of the action of the sentence. In Isa.46:11 God declares, I have purposed it, I will also do it.” He has but to express His desire for a thing to be done, and it is done. When closer attention is paid to exact meanings a in the case of the word ”world,” one finds that it does not mean every one without exception. For instance, the phrase, the propiiation for the sins of the whole world used in I Jn.2:2 does not, as seems so obvious to us in our day and time, mean everyone without exception. In I Jn.5:19 John writes”And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in wickedness or in the wicked one.” Clearly from this latter verse he does not mean everyone without exception by the expression the whole world which can be rendered the whole order. It is a world, an order of those who lie comfortably and conformably in the wicked one, Satan. So in Jn.3;16,17 the word world is qualified by God’s love and by those who believe and in verse 17 the world God loved in verse 16 and sent His Son into is the world He purposed to save and whatever He purposes to do He does. As to the matter of the woman believing in Mt.15 I simply call attention again to the fact that Jesus brings up the issue of reprobation, and the woman frankly admits she is in God’s sight a dog, an image of reprobation, and yet she finds deliverance. How did she come by such faith. She had heard about Jesus as the long expected Messiah, and faith comes by hearing. But how did she come to have the power to hear. I heard a preacher when I was a child, and all I can remember to this day is his quavery old voice saying, ‘”Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” Some above assumed that every one has the power to believe. Well, they do have a faith, but it is not the kind that Jesus demands. In fact, we are told in II Th.3:2, “for all (men)have not faith.” So when God demands faith, He demands that which men cannot supply. In fact, in Mk.9:23, after Jesus said, “If you can believe,” the man cries out, “I believe, help my unbelief.” Apparently, he realized that the belief he had just expressed was really a form of unbelief, because he had already demonstrate his unblief by saying, “if you can do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.”(9:22). And in the next chapter Jesus makes it exceedingly plain that what He demands is IMPOSSIBLE.(Mk.10:26,27). And I refer back to my statements comcerning paradoxical interventions. As to taunting, I never think in such terms. I was rather expressing with humor my dismay at trying to get a point across to people who are otherwise preoccupied to the point that they are unlikely to grasp the essence and implications of what I am saying. On a more serious note, it requires the help of of the Holy Spirit to grasp what God says in His Holy word (I Cors.2:14).
I apologize for not using paragraphs. I usually forget about the need to help in grasping what can be grasped by using more appropriate forms of rhetoric and grammar.
Now back to the matter of faith. There is the faith that can work miracles and do wonderful things which God says He does not accept (Mt.7:21-28), faith that can do so much but leaves the possessor as being nothing (I Cors.13:2), faith which Jesus would not accept (Jn.2:23-25), and faith such as the demons possess who tremble (Jas.2:19). Then there is the faith of God’s elect (I Tit.1:1), that faith which is God given, a gift from God (Phils.1:29) as well as having its source and origin in God so much that Paul spoke of it as “the faith of the Son of God” (Gals.2:20). Our Lord called for His disciples to have the Faith that comes from God (Mk.11:22) (the form in the original is the genitive of sources – not the locative, intrumental or dative which would be the only form that would justify the idea of faith in God. Jesus says, “have faith of God”(usually found in the reference). When I prepared a message on Mk.11:22, I consulted some 50+ volumes of commentaries, lexicons, grammars, dictionaries (Vine), etc. od demands something from us that we do not have in order that we might become aware of our lack of that which He demands and that we might feel our need for it and cry to Him to supply it like the man in Mk.9:23. Why would the man cry, “Help my unbelief,” unless he really felt his inability to believe and wanted a faith given to him that could be counted upon. The disciples cried, “Increase our faith.”
Someone implied that man is indeed able, but that person never addressed the issue of Jesus saying, NO ONE CAN COME TO ME.” No one is able, no one has the ability to respond. Recognizing that fact is the first empowerment of a paradoxical intervention that restores power and responsibility to the helpless indvidual, enabling him or her to believe, to have and exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and in His written words of promise.
I note that no one makes any response to th information from history that I have supplied. Why is that, if I might ask? Does any of my readers know that the one president in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention who was elected president more than any one else, Dr. P.H. Mell, wrote a book on Predestination? That Dr. James P. Boyce was elected president 9 or 10 times, and he wrote an Abstract of Systematic Theology, a right good compendium of calvinistic theology? That the first book of theology published by Southern Baptists and written by a Southern Baptist, J.L. Dagg, fully discussed the doctrines of Sovereign Grace? That the Charleston Baptist Association recommended and provided the writings of Dr. John Gill for its pastors and ministerial students and his theology is so well known for calvinism as to deserve no comment beyond mere statement of fact? And has any one taken the trouble to read some of the Circular Letters of our earliest associations which do cover things like unconditional election and efficacious grace? Does any one know how Southern Seminary and others sent a telegram of congratulations to C.H. Spurgeon on his 25th anniversary at th Metropolitan Tabernacle and how they all appreciated his stand for the doctrines of grace? And what about John A. Broadus, W.O. Carver, B.H. Carroll, Curtis Vaughan, George W. Truett, R.G. Lee, and a multitude of others too numerous to mention here? And if some one does not believe spiritual death cannot be represented as inability, just try raising the dead physically and try raising sinners who have no interest or even comprehension of what you are talking about? God open your eyes to the truth is my prayer, for if one is unable to respond then you will mislead that person by saying he or she has the ability to respond when God says tell them to do the impossible, like Charles Wesley expressed it in the hymn with these words, “HEAR YE DEAF, SEE YE BLIND, LEAP YE LAME FOR JOY.”
As to John 3:16,17, I would simply point out that both verses involve what is known as the subjunctive of purpose. Dana and Mantey in their work, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, in a discussion concerning the conjunction, hina (anglicized spelling of the Greek term), state: Its most common occurrence is in purpose or final clauses, and it occurs regularly wit the subjunctive mood,….” In both verses a subjunctive verb is used with hina, giving the purpose of the preceding part of the action of the sentence. In Isa.46:11 God declares, I have purposed it, I will also do it.” He has but to express His desire for a thing to be done, and it is done. When closer attention is paid to exact meanings a in the case of the word ”world,” one finds that it does not mean every one without exception. For instance, the phrase, the propiiation for the sins of the whole world used in I Jn.2:2 does not, as seems so obvious to us in our day and time, mean everyone without exception. In I Jn.5:19 John writes”And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in wickedness or in the wicked one.” Clearly from this latter verse he does not mean everyone without exception by the expression the whole world which can be rendered the whole order. It is a world, an order of those who lie comfortably and conformably in the wicked one, Satan. So in Jn.3;16,17 the word world is qualified by God’s love and by those who believe and in verse 17 the world God loved in verse 16 and sent His Son into is the world He purposed to save and whatever He purposes to do He does.
As to the matter of the woman believing in Mt.15 I simply call attention again to the fact that Jesus brings up the issue of reprobation, and the woman frankly admits she is in God’s sight a dog, an image of reprobation, and yet she finds deliverance. How did she come by such faith. She had heard about Jesus as the long expected Messiah, and faith comes by hearing. But how did she come to have the power to hear. I heard a preacher when I was a child, and all I can remember to this day is his quavery old voice saying, ‘”Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” Some above assumed that every one has the power to believe. Well, they do have a faith, but it is not the kind that Jesus demands. In fact, we are told in II Th.3:2, “for all (men)have not faith.” So when God demands faith, He demands that which men cannot supply. In fact, in Mk.9:23, after Jesus said, “If you can believe,” the man cries out, “I believe, help my unbelief.” Apparently, he realized that the belief he had just expressed was really a form of unbelief, because he had already demonstrate his unblief by saying, “if you can do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.”(9:22). And in the next chapter Jesus makes it exceedingly plain that what He demands is IMPOSSIBLE.(Mk.10:26,27). And I refer back to my statements comcerning paradoxical interventions. As to taunting, I never think in such terms. I was rather expressing with humor my dismay at trying to get a point across to people who are otherwise preoccupied to the point that they are unlikely to grasp the essence and implications of what I am saying. On a more serious note, it requires the help of of the Holy Spirit to grasp what God says in His Holy word (I Cors.2:14).
I apologize for not using paragraphs. I usually forget about the need to help in grasping what can be grasped by using more appropriate forms of rhetoric and grammar.
Now back to the matter of faith. There is the faith that can work miracles and do wonderful things which God says He does not accept (Mt.7:21-28), faith that can do so much but leaves the possessor as being nothing (I Cors.13:2), faith which Jesus would not accept (Jn.2:23-25), and faith such as the demons possess who tremble (Jas.2:19). Then there is the faith of God’s elect (I Tit.1:1), that faith which is God given, a gift from God (Phils.1:29) as well as having its source and origin in God so much that Paul spoke of it as “the faith of the Son of God” (Gals.2:20). Our Lord called for His disciples to have the Faith that comes from God (Mk.11:22) (the form in the original is the genitive of sources – not the locative, intrumental or dative which would be the only form that would justify the idea of faith in God. Jesus says, “have faith of God”(usually found in the reference). When I prepared a message on Mk.11:22, I consulted some 50+ volumes of commentaries, lexicons, grammars, dictionaries (Vine), etc. od demands something from us that we do not have in order that we might become aware of our lack of that which He demands and that we might feel our need for it and cry to Him to supply it like the man in Mk.9:23. Why would the man cry, “Help my unbelief,” unless he really felt his inability to believe and wanted a faith given to him that could be counted upon. The disciples cried, “Increase our faith.”
Someone implied that man is indeed able, but that person never addressed the issue of Jesus saying, NO ONE CAN COME TO ME.” No one is able, no one has the ability to respond. Recognizing that fact is the first empowerment of a paradoxical intervention that restores power and responsibility to the helpless indvidual, enabling him or her to believe, to have and exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and in His written words of promise.
I note that no one makes any response to th information from history that I have supplied. Why is that, if I might ask? Does any of my readers know that the one president in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention who was elected president more than any one else, Dr. P.H. Mell, wrote a book on Predestination? That Dr. James P. Boyce was elected president 9 or 10 times, and he wrote an Abstract of Systematic Theology, a right good compendium of calvinistic theology? That the first book of theology published by Southern Baptists and written by a Southern Baptist, J.L. Dagg, fully discussed the doctrines of Sovereign Grace? That the Charleston Baptist Association recommended and provided the writings of Dr. John Gill for its pastors and ministerial students and his theology is so well known for calvinism as to deserve no comment beyond mere statement of fact? And has any one taken the trouble to read some of the Circular Letters of our earliest associations which do cover things like unconditional election and efficacious grace? Does any one know how Southern Seminary and others sent a telegram of congratulations to C.H. Spurgeon on his 25th anniversary at th Metropolitan Tabernacle and how they all appreciated his stand for the doctrines of grace? And what about John A. Broadus, W.O. Carver, B.H. Carroll, Curtis Vaughan, George W. Truett, R.G. Lee, and a multitude of others too numerous to mention here? And if some one does not believe spiritual death cannot be represented as inability, just try raising the dead physically and try raising sinners who have no interest or even comprehension of what you are talking about? God open your eyes to the truth is my prayer, for if one is unable to respond then you will mislead that person by saying he or she has the ability to respond when God says tell them to do the impossible, like Charles Wesley expressed it in the hymn with these words, “HEAR YE DEAF, SEE YE BLIND, LEAP YE LAME FOR JOY.”
Hi Calvinists,
Dr. Willingham just said above that according to Jn3:16 God did not and does not love the whole world. This is suppressing Scripture. This is blasphemy.
Here is great take on John Calvin and Inerrancy, embedded in a stellar piece that sheds light on the misguided assertions of Dave Miller and others on this board:
From Baylor blogger and REviewer of the Keith Durson Biography of George Truett; BDW who sometimes posts here; from a discussion at SBC Trends at http://www.baptistlife.com/forums
Report this postReply with quoteRe: God Ordained the Fundy Takeover of the SBC
by Big Daddy Weaver » Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:59 pm
I think this recent blog post by Baptist theologian Roger Olson of Truett Seminary articulates well where the average moderate Baptist stands on the inerrancy question. Moderates affirm that the Bible is authoritative, that it is infallible, that it is “truth without any mixture of error” but not inerrant. People familiar with Olson is a northern evangelical who became a Baptist later sparred with John Piper while in Minnesota. He’s pretty conservative and popular among those who identify as both Arminian and evangelical:
A common response to my rejection of the term “inerrancy” is “If the Bible contains a single error, how can we know it is God’s Word?”
First, let me say again: It is the TERM “inerrancy” that I reject, not the authority or trustworthiness of Scripture. AND every inerrantist I know or have read admits there are errors in Scripture as we have it today. Only the original autographs were inerrant in the strictest sense. What I want is an authoritative Bible that actually exists and not one that used to exist!
No informed, right-thinking individual can hold any actually existing Bible in his or her hand and say “This book is inerrant” without stretching the term inerrant beyond the breaking point. All they can say is “This is the best approximation we have of inerrant autographs that once existed.” But once you base authority on inerrancy, you have to then say “This is a somewhat authoritative book because it is the best approximation we have of the authoritative texts that once existed.” That’s not good enough for me. I want the Bible I take to church to be authoritative and it is.
Second, John Calvin himself claimed that the authority of the Bible lies in the Holy Spirit and not in some rational proof of its accuracy. Read Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, chapter 7. For Calvin (as Luther before him and most Protestants later) the guarantee of the Bible’s truth and authority lies in the “inner testimony of the Holy Spirit.”
That’s why I used Emil Brunner’s illustration of the dog listening to the old Victrola record player. The RCA logo had the caption “His master’s voice.” How do I know the Bible is God’s Word and authoritative for faith and life? Because in it I hear my master’s voice. And not just I, but millions of others have and still hear God’s voice speaking to us through its message.
Third, belief in strict, detailed, technical inerrancy and insistence on it for authority sets up an impossibly high standard for any book. And it undermines faith because one has to wait for each new edition of Biblical Archeological Review (or similar publication) to know whether one can still believe the Bible. What if the Bible contains a factual error in history or cosmology? Does that mean the end of belief in the Bible? I pity anyone who says so.
I believe in the authority of the Bible because I believe in Jesus; not vice versa. The Bible is the cradle that holds the Christ child and that in it is authoritative that promotes Christ (was Christum treibt) (Luther). Too many evangelicals, like fundamentalists, base Christian belief on (alleged) secular facticity. The two are, of course, inseparable. I don’t want a faith that is irrational or esoteric. However, the foundation of Christian faith itself is not a set of facts but Jesus Christ communicated to us by the Holy Spirit.
Timothy Bonney wrote:
And that is pretty much what it looks like from outside of the SBC. I’ve yet to see an moderate SBCer who was active during the takeover that I honestly believe was actually a “liberal” unless you define “liberal” as being anyone who isn’t a fundamentalist.
Well, that’s kinda how Sandy just defined liberal. He equated “creeping liberalism” with “neoorthodoxy.” Anyone familiar with neoorthodoxy knows that it was a centrist, theological response to liberalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries
thebigdaddyweave.com
“We do not serve well the causes we say we believe in by ignoring the continuing devastation of fundamentalism running rampant.” – Stan HasteyBig Daddy Weaver
There wasn’t anything resembling something about Calvin in that drivel that you copied from BaptistLIE Fourms. Just an excuse to ride your anti-Christian hobby horse and plug your moderate buddies over at that liberal stinkhole.
Fact is, the only reason comment threads go off topic on this board is YOU. If you didn’t bring up Patterson, the CR, inerrancy, conserrvative politics, or Ridgecrest then I’ll guarentee you no one else would either.
In fact, I will guarentee you that the next new post that comes up on SBC VOICES will see the first person to go off topic and mention the above will be YOU.
But Joe; You are AGain Mistaken. Another sign of your reading level. From my quote above, John Calvin and the Holy Spirit, Quoting for you Joe:
Second, John Calvin himself claimed that the authority of the Bible lies in the Holy Spirit and not in some rational proof of its accuracy. Read Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, chapter 7. For Calvin (as Luther before him and most Protestants later) the guarantee of the Bible’s truth and authority lies in the “inner testimony of the Holy Spirit.”
End Quote
From John Calvin himself.
Now go backto where you were, on Hands and Knees praying for the SAlvation of Barbara Dooley.
I would ask what the wife’s thinking, but you never answered me before and I guess things haven’t changed much….(drooling sarcasm, LOL)
The topic of the post is not CALVIN but CALVINISM.
Still sitting here just kidding about that comment I left on your blog the other day and my offer for you to come to Tennessee and play Serevetus whilst I play Calvin. Surely you didn’t take either of those seriously.
Hey Joe:
You Go To Hell and Fry Like a Sausage!!!!!!!!
Just Kidding; Have a Nice Day up there in Tennessee or wherever you are with that Thinking Wife of Yours.
Pray for Barbara Dooley.
James,
I will address your non-paragraphed comment first, though the paragraphed one is hardly an improvement. Look at how others break up their posts into readable blocks for help on standard English writing conventions. Remember, paragraphs are not an aid for the stupid but instead tell us whether the writer has any grasp of organizing a coherent argument. I realize the unwashed masses are not worthy of such consideration, but it does sully the sheen of your self-proclaimed academic royalty.
“But let me say as this point for those worried about the reprobate that I look on myself and my atheism especially as reprobate and that God saved a reprobate when He saved me.”
From the Oxford Dictionary: reprobate (in Calvinism) – a sinner who is not of the elect and is predestined to damnation.
So, James, you must be the only reprobate in history to overcome God’s eternal decree and become one of the elect. Or is it possible that you don’t know the Calvinist definition of “reprobate”, an oversight to which no respectable Calvinist would admit?
“a paradoxical intervention preached by our Lord, for example, to the woman of Canaan in Mt.15:21-28, when He especially referred to her as a dog and she grabbed His very saying and used it as justification for Him to answer her prayer…Not bad for a helpless sinner suffering from spiritual deadness and inability”
First, this is not an example of paradox, but perhaps irony. Jesus’ reference in context is obviously concerning her not being an Israelite; it has no reference to any reprobation of individuals. She was sharp and actually won an argument with no less than Jesus!
Second, of course this incident has nothing at all to do with salvation but faith for healing. But even if had been about salvation, would it have proved she was “elect”, or that there is no such thing as reprobation? Calvinism would like to beg the question as always.
As for the subsequent comments, the typical Calvinist claim that “all” doesn’t mean “all without exception” but “all without distinction” is another case of begging the question, inserting fine print into any (but, inconsistently, not all) passage if such insertion helps the Calvinist cause. You cite 1 John 2:2 contrasts “the whole world” with “ours”, and not even Calvinists would say “ours” refers to anyone but the elect. To make “the whole world” mean “the elect” renders the verse incomprehensible: “He is the atoning sacrifice for [the elect's] sins, and not only for [the elect] but also for the sins of the [elect]“. You argue for “without distinction” for 1 John 5:19 but IGNORE THE CONTEXTUAL DIFFERENCES between the two verses, especially the clear contrast just shown in the first. This is an example of the “illegitimate totality transfer fallacy”, or using any possible meaning of a word regardless of context. That is, if “the world” can mean “all without distinction” in one place, we can arbitrarily insert that meaning in every place. But Calvinists are quite inconsistent in this. Does Job 34:13 mean God is only in charge of “all sorts of people” in the world? Does Rom. 3:19 mean only “all sorts of people” are accountable to God? There is nothing in any of those passages to prevent the meaning “all sorts of people”, so why can’t we use it there?
And then there’s Rom. 5, where Calvinists play fast and loose with “many” and “all”. Did sin only come to “all sorts of people” (v. 12)? Why not? And what about vs. 18? Let’s try it both ways: there is either condemnation and justification for “all sorts of people” or there is condemnation and justification for “all people without exception”. Which is it? Are ALL condemned and ALL saved, or only SOME condemned and SOME saved?
Jesus does NOT mention reprobation in Mt. 15, as I already showed, but merely states His purpose at the time. After all, if it were about reprobation then He must have meant that only Jews can be saved! So instead of taking this added reprobation out, the Calvinist must insert Replacement Theology such that the Israel Jesus is talking about really means the church… and so on and so forth through the entire NT, redefining every word.
With Calvinism finding it necessary to go through such contortions even for very plain verses such as John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2, there is no need to examine the less plain passages, for the Calvinist will reach the predestined conclusion no matter what. History is appealed to in an attempt to give legitimacy to this practice (another fallacy of its own), but the fact remains that Calvinism must ignore such fallacies, the grammar (as lu has pointed out), the consistent and normal use of idioms, and many other factors in order to prop itself up.
But of what purpose is Calvinism? Does it have a different gospel presentation than others? Do its adherents live as better Christians? (I’m not talking only about the SBC here either.) Are only Calvinists elect? If Calvinism had never been invented, would the church be devoid of scholarship, sound theology, or holiness? And if Calvinism is true, then of what purpose is arguing about it, since God will do what He chooses and when, and those who are not Calvinists cannot choose otherwise? In all my years on this topic I’ve never seen one Calvinist give a rational or consistent answer to these questions.
Paula,
Willingham has said that he’s got it and we don’t–that is one must swallow the tulip first, then contradictions will become transrational or suprarational. And the holy circle begins by reading Scripture by the tulip and prooftexting tulip as most holy way to highest spirituality. The poison Tulip is now the hermeneutical pope & the goal of interpretation.
Well put.
Dr. Willingham,
Your syntactical claim that the subjunctive mood in John 3:16 is purpose – result, apart from contingency has the sole intent on the promotion of the Five Points of Calvinism; tragically syntax is perverted to prove that God did not love the world.
This is an attack on the very essence of the Faith that Christians must counter by every means possible.
The message of Jn 3:16 is truth for the world; the world must have it, for it is said to be the gospel in a verse. It lays stress on vital salvation issues.
In this verse is Atonement, the condition of salvation, and the
condition of eternal life. There is however a mighty effort to destroy the message as found in Jn 3:16.
Your message tells of another atonement, another gospel designed to fit Five Points that would damn the world, except the elect. The other message claims God’s love is manifested in limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the damnation of most people, including unelect infants. But this message, devoid of the gospel, stands rebuked by Jn 3:16.
You know, at least Lu and Paula are honest about what (they think) Calvinism means for the SBC. I’ve often wondered why the non-Calvinist majority in the SBC tolerates Calvinism and does not tolerate egalitarianism. For me, if Calvinism is wrong, it represents a much more egregious error than egalitarianism, which I consider to be a minor error. There are few qualms among the SBC about hunting down and driving out egals. Why not for Calvinists? If incorrect, doesn’t Calvinist represent a greater obstacle to the great commission than egalitarianism?
I actually see the opposite. Calvinists and non-Calvinists can worship together because they all have the same gospel. But comps and egals cannot, because hierarchy and equality are mutually exclusive. How could a comp sit under the teaching of a female pastor, or a female pastor refuse to use her spiritual gifts when men are present? And comp, unlike Calvinism, makes half the Body of Christ the boss of the other half on the basis of nothing but the flesh one is born with. This, not Calvinism, is the far more egregious error.
At the same time, both present a bad witness to the lost, esp. in the western world. If equality of male and female would have upset the 1st century social order (just as slavery would have), then it would have been a bad witness at the time. But now that equality is fully accepted in the western world (whether concerning race or gender), the teaching of “separate but equal” is a bad witness. I have personally known many atheists who rejected Christianity due to either the Calvinist teaching of election and reprobation or the comp teaching that one half the human race rules over the other, regardless of how benevolent that rule may be.
And it is comp which is actually the TEACHING OF DIVISION (caps for emphasis), and scripture expressly commands us to avoid those who teach such things.
Paula, while I liked your use of the Word Contortion in this discussion; I’m kinda losing track now.
Maybe I am mistaken, but at some point I thought you declared yourself to be a Proud Inerrantist.
I find it hard to square your views with Inerrancy as it is used by the Consensus on this board in the Takeover Movement.
I do hope you will search out Diarmand MaCculoch on the First 3,000 years of Christianity. I think you will find it challlenging and ultimately rewarding.
See, this is what I’m talking about. I disagree with Paula about some things but she gets the gospel right. There are Calvinists who won’t proclaim that salvation is found only in Christ and that He doesn’t save anyone without them realizing that He is the one saving them. However, unlike them, I know if Paula is sharing the gospel she’s shairing THE gospel and she’s sharing it correctly. The reason she gets the gospel right is she has read and studied God’s word which she believes to be inerrant. Whatever differences she and I have, I know if someone repents and trusts Christ because Paula shared the gospel with them they have heard the true gospel and not the “gospel of nice” or the “gospel of all religions lead to the same place”.
Aw, tanx!
And it shows that Calvinism doesn’t divide because of the teachings, but because of the attitude that many Calvinists have. I completely reject Calvinism, but the reason there are any debates about it at all is because many Calvinists make such a huge deal about it. Some of them have been downright evil (not Joe!) and consigned me to the flames of hell for daring to criticize it.
As for inerrancy, I have no clue how some takeover movement defines it. All I know is that the Word of God is confirmed by the original apostles and the original writings, not by any copies or translations. It has authority because of its Source, not its transmitters, and when carefully interpreted it is consistent throughout– a miracle in itself when one knows it was written over a period of about 1500 years by many writers from many different eras and walks of life.
But of course, inerrancy has absolutely nothing to do with any debate on Calvinism. I don’t even know why anyone brought it up (except for an obsession with the CR).
One person who brought it up wrote the consensus Definitive History of Christianity so far in the 21st Century; Diamand MacCulloch; page 51 says on the book of Genesis; well let me break it down in words maybe Russ Moore and Joe Blackmon will understand.
It says Ralph Elliot was right and Pressler and Patterson and the Takeover Artists were wrong as if Noll and Pinnock didn’t give them a clue at Ridgecrest in 87.
Even so, Paula, appreciate your response. I don’t find much in your belief in the Authority of Scripture that Russell Dilday or Dan Vestal, Jimmy Allen,even Carolyn Crumpler for that matter disagree with.
Joe: You are like a broken record here. Telling lies and not dealing with the doctrine itself, which I wonder if you are Calvinist considering your well…how do I put it nicely…..bullying and lying. A true born again Christian just isn’t like this. It’s like you know the facts in your head but it hasn’t sunk into your heart.
Hi DEBBIE,
About dear Joe, when you wrote this: “It’s like you know the facts in your head but it hasn’t sunk into your heart.”
I am tending to agree, but I have often wondered at the reasons for what you have seen in him.
I like Paula’s use of the word Distortions in here Exegesis of Calvinism above.
I think she is a candidate for the writing of Robinson and Annie Dillard but just does’t know it, yet.
Another good word in the contortion vein is Distortion; as in Inerrancy, like the Pilgrimage of Joe Blackmon, is a Distortion of the Gospel.
STEPHEN, everyone’s a candidate for Annie Dillard.
If they can get passed this quote without some impact, they’re brain-dead:
“Our lives and our deaths count equally, or we must abandon one-man-one-vote dismantle democracy, and assign six billion people an importance-of-life ranking from one to six billion:
a ranking whose number decreases, like gravity, with the square of the distance between us and them.”
God Help Me, I can’t make a simple declarative statement without an ERROR.
Paula used Contortion Well, and I wanted to amplify this teachable Moment with a Word for Joe Blackmon and his Pilgrimage:
DISTORTION
The Vanity of Everything.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/event_details.asp?EventID=an102809111535
I thought this was an interesting topic for the True Church conference considering the topic here.
Except this isn’t hyper-Calvinism Lydia. That is a term applied to Calvinists but it’s more a slam term than an actual term with the right definition.
My, my, my! This is gettng down right interesting. Obviously with such slick scholars, I do have my hands full. If they were right about calvinism, why did the Great Century of Missions get launched primarily and essentially by a bunch of 5 point tulip calvinists, namely, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, Andrew Fuller, Luther Rice, and a host of others too numerous to mention. Our lady scholars ignore implications of their own anticalvinistic theology. If Jesus paid the price for every one’s sins, then every one must be either in Heaven or bound for there. They call it UNIVERSALISM. If His payment depends upon something man adds to the process, then man gets credit for deciding for Jesus…whereas God gives all glory to His Son’s finished work. Jesus gave His life a ransom for many, not every one without exception….and as to reprobates, the term dogs is quite supportive of the idea of reprobation as Peter does suggest with reference to the dogs returning to their own vomit. So that dog of a woman got saved, an example of a reprobate. How God treats people who will never be saved is one of profound amazement to all concerned. He even answers their prayers in some instances which all would know, if they read B.H. Carroll’s message on the issue. The rich man in Hell had the best of everything, his good things, Abraham said, while Lazarus had evil. Then it was all reversed. I am not bound by some calvinist’s description of what he thinks of reprobation. I am bound by the Book, the written word of God. The usages of terms, such as dogs or world is what binds me. Quoting someone’s definition of Reprobation does not mean squat to me. There is a a great amount of literature out there on the issue and across many years I have read many discussions of the subject. I go back to what I said about the history part. Why is it no one responds to the fact that in the 1700s and into the 1800s most, if not all, of our founders (and some of whom are our ancestors), were gung ho, dyed in the wool, five point calvinists? And it was they who helped to create America, enjoyed the Great Awakenings, and launch the Great Century of Missions. Our first and oldest seminary, Southern, was clearly founded upon Sovereign Grace. So was Southwestern as B.H. Carroll’s works clearly attest to his stand and that of the institution he founded. Think of this. I have a friend who sat in Dr. Jeff Ray’s class in preaching at SWBTS. Who was Dr. Ray? The last student to live with Dr. Carroll before he died. Think of this: One f my friends was a direct descendant to Elijah Craig who led the Baptists in Va. to make a deal with the colonial legislators in Va. that in exchange for our freedom to practice our faith, the Baptists ministers would go back to their communities and encourage their young men to enlist in the patriots’ cause (read enlist in a civil war against a legally constituted government). Elijah was a strong believer in Sovereign Grace. And my grandmother who raised me named our son, Craig. That was her maiden name. There were so many Craigs in the Revolution that there was one whole regiment of colonial Virginia troops in which every member’s last name was Craig (They are a big Scottish clan). Another ancestor of mine, a preacher, no less, was a veteran of the American Revolution (a cousin joined the DAR on the basis of his service). Holland Middleton is in Henry Holcombe’s History of Alabama Baptists in the 1830s. He was also one of the officers appointed by a court in Georgia in 1781/2 to execute the will of Daniel Marshall (Shubal Stearns brother-in-law), and his theology can be seen in the original principles of the Georgia Baptist Assn. drawn up by his son Abraham. O yes, he founded the first baptist church in Georgia, the Kiokee, which has had a continued existence until now. As to where I stand, I hold some complementary ideas an some egalitarian ideas. If we are all family, you can believe we are equals. And God does call us His family. Neither am I bound by what other Sovereign Grace believers say or think or do. One dear brother above does not know it, but Mr. Fox gave away his whole case on inerrancy. He argues at cross-purposes with himself. And Joe you ought to have grasped that.
Greg,
You took all my fun away. Now I can’t say you never answer my questions.
You also answered correctly on both questions. The Gospel does mean good news, and Jesus did mean everyone Mark 16:15.
You asked “so your point is what.” I’m glad you asked.
Can you explain to me how the Gospel can be good news if it is not intended for the “everyone” to whom it is proclaimed? For instance, let’s pretend there is a ship in the middle of the ocean that is sinking. On board the ship are 1000 people, but the life boats have a maximum capacity of 250. Now let’s suppose the captain tells his men to tell everyone on board they have “good news.” If the people will just get in the life boats they will be saved. The captain told his men he has already predetermined who would be allowed on the life boats, but he didn’t tell his men who the 250 are.
Do you really think the captain’s men in good conscience could tell the people on the ship they have “good news” when they know it does not apply to most of them?
If one believes in “limited atonement” and “knows” the Gospel is not intended or even available to most people: How does one call it good news? Keep in mind it was Jesus who said to preach the good news to every creature. How is it good news if its impossible to be received by most? Is not the only way it could be “good news” is if it was intended and available to the persons being addressed?
Don,
Warning!!! I am about to set you up…
Your illustration does not quite relate the truth that apart from having their eyes open by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit a lost man neither sees himself in danger, nor that he is on a ship that is fast sinking… However, be that as it may… Jesus said “whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” (John 6:37b ESV) That is an absolute “Biblical truth” that is not up for debate between the Calvinist and Non-Calvinist; Jesus saves “ALL” who come unto him… and I know you fully agree with that statement.
Now here is the hook… Jesus preceded that statement with the words ”All that the Father gives me will come to me,…” (John 6:37a ESV)
Then in (John 8:46b-47 ESV) Jesus tells us in very clear and plain speech why some do not believe and come to him for salvation; “If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
Don, as an Evangelical Calvinist I am saying unto you that these Scriptures plainly teach: (1) Whosoever will come unto Jesus will be saved! (2) All that the Father gives to the son will come! (3) Those who are not of God will never believe and never come!
I hope that answers you questions… and I hope you (and others here) are genuine in your confusion between the errors of “Hyper-Calvinism” and “Evangelical-Calvinism”, as it appears that much of what you are laying at the feet of “Evangelical-Calvinism” truly has nothing to do with “Evangelical-Calvinism”, but rather belongs to the errors of “Hyper-Calvinism” which I will denounce with the equal amount vigor that I denounce the errors of “Pelagianism”.
Now… Once again… “In your theology what hope does one have who never hears the Gospel?”
Grace Always,
Greg,
Good job of avoiding the question. Its good to see smoke and mirors still work on some people, but not everyone.
I didn’t ask if the people could respond or not, that’s not the question. Since you want to add that, I’ll repharse the question.
If most people are not interested and unable to respond to the Gospel, and because it was never intended for from the beginning, how pray tell is it good news?
The above question is only for those that believe in “limited atonement.” Those of us who don’t believe in “limited atonement” already understand why its good news.
Don: I would contend that you and others believe in limited atonement too, unless you believe that Christ’s death on the cross and the shedding of his blood is now at work in all. All are justified, atoned for. It is not until they put their faith in Christ is it?
Debbie,
You didn’t answer the question.
Don, I don’t know why people don’t get it about atonement: it isn’t the quantity but the quality that matters.
Jesus’ blood could save the world if only one drop was shed, because He is the perfect Human.
The very question of who was covered belies a lack of comprehension of the gospel at the most basic level.
Paula,
I might add Jesus is the perfect God-man. Therefore His shed blood was all His creation. Which means everyone.
It isn’t quality but quantity? What scripture is this based on? Jesus blood is not effective until one believes. True or false? Simple question. Or the alternative is that it’s effective on those who do not believe. They are saved, justified, saved. No one should be in hell then correct? But they are. They are in hell. Because Jesus blood covers those who believe in his name.
Debbie has ignored many of my questions and so has lost the right to demand answers from me. She demands scripture but never answers that demand when made of her.
But for the sake of others I offer a full explanation of the Atonement here: http://books.fether.net/index.php?theBook=3
The OT sacrificial system, the shadow of which the reality is Jesus, specified the quality of the sacrifice over and over. But who would think that even the most perfect sacrifice offered by an unrepentant heart would have any effect for that person? Yet the power to forgive was there.
Reconciliation, another clear teaching (Rom. 5:10, 2 Cor. 5:17-21), is the whole aim of the gospel. And even we fallible humans can understand that it takes TWO to reconcile; it cannot be forced by one, even if the one is God, as those passages show. We both already are reconciled and still need to be reconciled; that is, God has reached out His hand in Jesus, and then all who reach out in return are saved.
This is the Bible’s teaching; this is salvation. God makes the sacrifice to offer us the gift of salvation, and we reach out in faith to accept this gift. The gift is not cheapened or wasted at all, just because only some accept it. Who would say, for example, that the American Revolution was wasted if not everyone in the world could live here and be free? It certainly has not gone to waste for the generations who have lived and loved their country. The sacrifice of the revolutionary soldiers was not wasted, even if some preferred to stay loyal to the crown. Was not enough blood shed? Was too much blood shed? Or is the whole point not the quantity of the blood but the reason it was shed?
If anyone wants to claim that Jesus’ blood would have been wasted on unbelievers, let THEM show the scripture that states this. And let those who believe a loving God could never send nice Muslims and Mormons to hell yet also believe in Calvinism’s reprobation explain how those two beliefs can be “reconciled”.
Calvinism drips with inconsistency, fallacy, and needless complexity (who else would have coined terms like sublapsarianism?), ignores or twists many scriptures, cheapens the blood of Christ by making it only good enough for a few, and chases many from the gospel with its god who throws babies into the flames of hell like Molech “for his good pleasure”. It presents a god who makes sport of his creatures by giving the vast majority of them false hope, reprobating them even if they wanted to turn to him.
But I follow the God who loves the world (John 3:16) and the Jesus whose blood was good enough for all (1 John 2:2), who does not want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9) and calls everyone by lifting up Jesus (John 12:32). This, not Calvinism, is an honest and simple gospel message.
Paula: I asked you questions. I don’t ever demand answers. I don’t give answers to those who demand I do either. I can answer just don’t listen to demands for answers.
I realize I’m wasting pixels here, Debbie, but the fact is that you always call your demands “questions” but other people’s questions “demands”. You do this because you cannot answer and need an excuse. Other excuses you’ve tried include pretending not to see, being above questioning, or accusing others of being off-topic. This is why it is a waste of time to talk to you, and why I am now asking you to leave me alone as I have also asked one other person.
I agree with Greg. Of course right? The Gospel is for everyone. We are commanded to give the gospel to the world and we do not know who will believe and who will not.
What all did Christ accomplish by his death at the cross? More than obtaining a path to salvation. Christ’s death was not for every single person in the world or all would be saved and that is just not the case. Christ’s death was for us, those who would believe in Him as Lord and Savior. And anyone who comes to Christ in the future. So what all did Christ accomplish when he died on the cross Don?
A general observation, not a demand, request or attempt at conversation with Debbie:
1. Equivocation: the issue here is not whether the gospel is for all, but whether Jesus died for all.
2. Non-sequitur: it does not follow that if Christ died for all then all are saved. This has already been discussed.
Yes I think I did Don.
Don,
Unless you truly believe in Universalism (???) then everyone limits the atonement… Some say the atonement is limited by God, others say the atonement is limited by Man… But all believe in a “limited atonement”. So please, stop waisting my time and playing stupid word games here. I gave you my explanation of the Evangelical Calvinist position and you refuse to answer my question, because you simply cannot!
Don, I really do not see any purpose in continuing this childish discussion, so I will bow out now.
Grace Aways,
Hi GREG ALFORD,
Your use of that term ‘Universalism’ is confusing.
For some. who are called ‘Universalists’, the belief is that God will save all mankind.
But there is another kind of ‘universalism’ that is orthodox that does not agree with that at all. Instead, it advocates a ‘universal’ atonement which says that Christ’s work makes redemption possible for all, but definite for none.
And, of course, this kind of ‘universal atonement’ is consistent with the angelic proclamation found in St. Luke’s Gospel:
‘And the angel said unto them,
“Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.”
The ‘angelic proclamation’ is often overlooked in all of its theological implications. It shouldn’t be. The ‘Gospel’ bears its imprint profoundly.
Universalism is a teaching that all will be saved, even after they are dead. The Bible teaches that after death it is too late, but the Universalism believe that is not true, all will be saved. Period.
Sorry. I was responding to Christiane’s comment.
OMG
I was reading this new post mentioned:
http://www.jerryvines.com/blog/neither-calvinists-nor-arminians-but-baptists/
AND,
I came across mention of some Baptist evangelical theologians who followed ‘Molinism’. Why is this SO STRANGE to me?
Well, it’s the first time I ever heard of someone in leadership in the SBC mentioning ‘Molinism’, a philosophy developed by a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest, Luis Molina, in the 1500′s to ‘reconcile’ God’s sovereignty with man’s freedom of conscience.
I really hope everyone who is so ‘fixated’ on an opinion about the differences between Calvinists and non-Calvinists can take a look at the writings on ‘Molinism’ as a possible ‘reconciliation’ between the two view-points. Luis Molina did not dismiss either perspective out-right, but wove the two together until the synergy produced something able to incorporate both ways of thinking into a much more meaningful ‘whole’. Even then, it’s not everyone’s cup o’ tea.
Who knew? The Baptist leadership mentioning Baptist evangelical theologians connecting with Molinism? And, as a possible way to soothe the raging war going on between the ‘C’s and the non-’C's?
What is Molinism about? Well, briefly:
“‘Protestants who lean more towards God’s election and sovereignty are usually Calvinists while those who lean more towards man’s free choice follow Arminianism.
However, the Molinist can embrace BOTH God’s sovereignty and man’s free choice . . . ‘”
an interesting theory, Molinism . . . worth taking a look at
Christiane: I take you don’t subscribe to inerrancy. That is another twist in your new affinity for Jerry Vines who wears Inerrancy on his sleeve.
As you become entranced by the world of Jerry Vines you will want to become aware of one of his former parishioners, Susan Shaw, who wrote a book about her Mother’s Sunday School Class in his church in West Rome, Georgia.
Now that you know where Vines blog is,keep an eye on it. You may find more jewels to discuss here.
Hi STEPHEN
‘Inerrancy’ is not something I understand, as it is described by Southern Baptists, so I cannot answer to you about that.
Why don’t I understand? Well . . .
Among those who advocate ‘inerrancy’, there are many different interpretations of what is considered by them to be ‘perfectly clear in the Bible’. Not to mention the many differently-worded translations of Holy Scripture AND the rather strange attempts at Greek translation done by some modern students, as they stand, bereft of anchors of tradition, in a place and a time, two-thousand years-distant from the Apostles.
It is not something I am able to understand, this ‘inerrancy’;
not in the way that it is ‘expressed’ by so many witnesses to it who so honestly and fervently disagree with one another, over the ‘clear meanings’ of Holy Scripture. It’s almost painful to watch, at time, Stephen.
As for Jerry Vines, I think it is interesting to see any leaders of the SBC focusing on a way to ‘reconcile’ people who are solidly in one camp or another, over Calvinism.
It is interesting that now they are considering an alternative, from the Jesuit Molina, that does attempt to resolve some of the difficulties between the two philosophies of ‘C’ and ‘non-C’.
Yes, I was amused to see ‘Molinism’ mentioned, I must admit.
Chrstianne,
Thank you for the reminder on Luis Molina. Though I am no fan of Catholocism (Romanism), as I’m sure you have discovered, I appreciate truth where ever I find it.
I appreciate the link to the article on Vines. I would have missed it.
Hi SSBN,
I am glad to have been a help to you.
As for ‘Romanism’ (smile), I will, for you, share something ‘orthodox’ that comes from the ‘catholics’ of another liturgy than the ‘Roman’ one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHi-1taeqeo&feature=related
I hope it has some meaning for you also.
That is interesting Christiane. Makes you wonder why some are on your case doesn’t it.
Hi DEBBIE,
I’m the FIRST to admit Calvinism is above my understanding, but look where I come from theologically.
Our own Church had a fierce theological battle raging between the Thomists and the Molinists, to the extent that the Vatican called a swift halt to all the name-calling between the two, and declared that neither side could call the other side ‘heretics’.
My own take is simple: God is sovereign AND permits choice.
And He does it in ways far above our ability to understand.
The Saving Lord knows what we do not know, but it may be that we cannot know it, because we are not geared for that in this place now where we see ‘as through a glass darkly’.
I will trust our Saving Lord to mercifully shepherd all of us, in time, beyond our prideful ways.
Greg,
I suppose if nothing else you’ve come to realize the Gospel and Calvinism are at odds with one another.
Just because you know the true answer to the question would compromise your position, you need not pretend its just stupid word games.
Sorry to see you go. If you come back, I’ll answer your question. We both know you won’t answer mine.
the Gospel and the doctrine of Calvinism fit like a hand into a glove Don. The Gospel is the mode God chose to bring people to salvation. Greg is right in that it is “Good News” and we can’t help but want to give this good news. We long to see people come to Christ. We give to everyone because we do not know who the elect are.
Don,
I got bored today and dropped by the nursery to see if you had anything intelligent to say… sadly I see you did not. More of the same old childish drivel…
Being the Spiritual Infant that you are, I suppose you to know nothing of either the Gospel or Calvinism… for if you did you would know that they are one and the same!!!
I have no idea what question you keep claiming I did not answer? You have not answered any of my questions so why cry like a baby with a wet diaper when I don’t answer yours??? But Please restate your childish question again and I will try and pacify you and answer it… (I just love being tortured by toddlers)
Grace Always,
Molinism and Ameryaldism (sp?) are a position the made its way into western evangelicalism, the aim was to blunt, end, dissipate the Sovereign Grace view point which was then threatening to take the whole earth for Christ. The folks who think they run things could not let that which they perceived (no doubt rightly) was a threat to their control. So they sent in folks on both sides of the equation to polarize parties and cause a split and diminish the force of those Awakenings and that Mission movement. As to Limited Atonement. Everyone preaches a limited atonement. Even the Universalist, because his univeralism cannot get a multitude to accept salvation. The Arminian, General Atonement, and others of that ilk also have a problem, because their view does not win those for whom the blood was supposedly shed. Particular Redemption regards a particular group of people, the Elect, the people God unconditionally chose to save (and He did it from eternity and before they were born so that the purpose does not stand of him that runs but of God), a number that Jesus referred to as MANY (as in give his life a ransom for many), and the Bible in other places compares to the stars of Heaven, the sand by the seashores, and the dust of the earth, a number that cannot be numberer, and the redeemed in Paradise/Heavenm, a number that no man can number (which leads me to believer there were will be far more saved and in Heaven than there will be in Hell). The power as we sing is in the Blood.
I was hoping Joe would get back on and see where Steve Fox gave away to the inerrancy position that he rants against. I thought that was hilarious.
As to my being a five point calvinist, I did not jump into the game believing all of this. No, like most of the others in this blog, I arrived at it piecemeal, bit by bit, point by point, by careful analysis of the texts involved, beginning with total depravity and total inability. A Puritan was the beginning of my undoing. David Clarkson in a sermon on Original Sin (the editor of the set noted Clarkson had his Hebrew wrong in that message) convinced me, regardless of his mistake, because he had his other facts exactly right. He proved human inability to me by using things from the plain English of the Bible, showing man as a slave of sin, a slave of self, and Satan, a helpless person, disabled by sin (likethe child cast out unwanted and like the lame man), deafened by sin, in darkness, blinded by sin and thus unable to see the glorious light of the Gospel (unless the Lord works a miracle which He does), dead spiritual, and etc. When I realized the full impact of all those facts brought together by that Puritan, I had to admit man was utterly helpless (like Paul said, we were yet without strength (Roms.5)). Such being the case, it required a miracle of Grace to restore or give new powers to man in order for him to be saved. I knew for instance that I had no sense of my sin, no desire for God, nothing, until that night of Dec.7,1957. Now, if man is as indifferent as a dead person, as helpless as a baby or a person paralyzed, addicted and enslaved by sin to the point that he would have his sin desire met even if it cost him his very life and soul, that his very nature was not simply that of an enemy but enmity itself as Paul states in Roms.8:7 (reconciling an enemy can be understood, but enmity???), then it follows that irresistible grace is absolutely required. Just to get those two points took me from the Fall of 1958 until the middle of 1963 (about five years). Irresistible could be the knocking of my friend, Dr. Edgar Johnston off of a chair so that he lit on his knees begging God for mercy and salvation or as in my case a change of mind for some unfathomable reason (which I later realized was God working like in Lydia’s case to open my heart that night) or so wonderful as in the case of the dear young lady who was won to the Lord Jesus by my friend, Dr. Gene Spurgeon when he did not believe in the doctrines of grace and she told him she responded so readily because it was so wonderful that she could not resist it. The third point was unconditonal election flowed from the first two. The most difficult was particular redemption. Even so it took anoher seven-eight years to come to the realization that these truths were realy the most intensely evangelistic and passionately invitational teachings that our Lord ever offered to vile sinners. Eventually as I kept seeing the references to paradoxes in commentaries, theological works, and then to find counselors using paradoxical interventions of all kinds in order to empower and help people to gain control over their problems, and then to find Jesus actually saying that what He was asking men to do was IMPOSSIBLE (mK.10 with reference to the rich young ruler), I came to the realization (along with my researches in Church History) that these were the truths of the Great Awakenings, the truths that launched the Great Century of Missions, and produced the greatest nation in world history. I even found that the people who proved it the most were the African Americans who in their great miseries were visited by God in a special way. What I stumbled on in their sufferings would have secured me a Ph.D. at Columbia U, had I returned). Well, I am weary. Age and heart say, I can’t hang in there for an all night discussion like I use to do with my friend, Rev. Donald Lee Craig back in the 60s. God grant all the readers here to see that none of this is easy. We spend years suffering and agonizing over the meaning of words. I always thank God for the simple ones like can as in “No man CAN come to me.” I do know that can refers to ability, so Jesus was saying, “No one is able to come to me.” And that is the way our ancestors and predecessors took it even in lanching the great missionary movement. Here is the way Article III of the Sandy Creek Confession of Faith in 1816 put it (which was discussed and adopted and drawn up by a committee consisting of Luther Rice the chairman, Hezekiah Harmon the founder of Gum Springs Church (a veteran of the American Revolution)(founded the church in 1829), Basil Manley, Sr., the man who would suggest the founding of Southern Seminary in 1836 and then serve as President of the three educational conventions of Southern Baptists in 1857,58, and 59 that created and established Southern and whose son would draw up the Abstract of Principles and serve as one of the first professors along with the president, James P. Boyce a preacher boy from Basil Manley, Sr.’s main pastorate (FBC Charleston) who would be the president of Southern (and note Manly, Sr. would be the first president of the Board of Trustees) . Also at that 1816 Assn. were messengers from the Mt. Pisgah Church from which would come the first Southern Baptist missionary to China, and that church didn’t know of Christ dying for everyone, only for the church as the articles of faith of 1814 state. And there were others, but I really must cease. But all the furor over Sovereign Grace comes as an answer to prayers for a Third Great Awakening. To have an awakening you need the right theology, the heavenly Presence, and humility. The theology and the ferment that its leaven causes is indicative and suggestive of life just as it was in the 1700s. Baptists argued over thing then, so much so one Anglican wrote about it, and Dr. Bill Leonard spoke of it in the past two years in a historical address at some meeting. While the Baptists were fussing and arguing, they were securing religious liberty along with others, uniting Separate and Regular Bapists into United Baptists, precursors of the SBC, persuading General Baptists (who believed in a general atonement and were neither evangelistic nor missionary to become Particular Baptists who were evangelistic and missionary minded, launching the Great Century of Missions, practicing biblical liberalism by saying, that the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man could be no bar to communion, and employing educated and uneducated ministers together, as well as having women eldresses who exhorted the congregation with out the slightest presumption of asserting authority over man. (Funny when one thinks of their tenacious adherence to the Bible that they allowed this, and one educated preacher was actually convinced of it to the point that he wrote an article in behalf of the practice.). God bless.
Don,
Nice job on Greg. Greg is one of the most attacking of the C group I have ever seen and yet he dodges the questions that show his view lacking at every step.
Timmy Boy,
I just love the way you Pelagianist refuse to answer anyone’s questions time and time again and then claim victory when they give up on having anything resembling adult conversation and move on…. Yes NICE JOB!!!
Seeing as you approve of your “Neo-Pelagianist” Non SBC friend’s conduct here… Why don’t you answer the question he wont answer: “In your theology what hope does one have who never hears the Gospel?”
Answer the question Timmy Boy….
CALVINISTS MUST DENY GRAMMAR & SYNTAX IN ORDER TO AFFIRM THE TULIP.
Dr. Willingham, again thank you for your testimony.
Now, please explain textually, contextually & grammatically, WHY & HOW you continue to affirm the Tulip, because it can only be done by means of circumventing, ignoring, and denying the subjunctive mood, the imperative mood and the active voice of so many texts of Scripture?
John 12:36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. 37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: . . . 39Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again. . . . 42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him. ..
Tulipers have to neglect or deny the IMPERATIVE mood in this text in order to affirm total inability.
V. 36 you believe: You believe is in the IMPERATIVE mood,
which does not order them to do what they could not do. The constructions yet a little while and while ye have light in vv. 35 and 36 indicate that time is running out; thus, the imperative to believe.
The imperative is the mood of command or entreaty—the mood of VOLITION. It is the genius of the imperative to express the appeal of WILL to WILL. In ordinary linguistic communication the primary appeal is from intellect to intellect, but in the imperative one will addresses another.
Jesus addresses their will by the command to believe. This does not accord with the decree from eternity, irresistibility, or total inability/depravity.
You have to neglect or deny the active voice in this text in order to affirm your Tulip.
V. 37 they were not believing on him: Note that this verb is in the ACTIVE voice. They acted–they were not believing. In the active voice, THE SUBJECT PRODUCES THE ACTION.
V. 39 they were not able to believe: Note two things: 1) In verse 36 the choice to believe was available to them; 2) in verse 37 they rejected the opportunity which was before them for a little while (vv. 35, 36). Accordingly, 3) their inability is judiciary NOT inherent nor decreed–but a the result of their own action, NOT a decree.
Thus, God judged them; God acted in judgment here as in Heb 3:19.
Yes, they were not able to believe means exactly what it says: they were not able…. But they used to be…time ran out on them! There is no Calvinistic decree here.
Sinners Respond to a Command in the Imperative Mood. Paul says: “. . . you be reconciled to God right now . . . katallagete t? Theo.”
“You be reconciled” is an aorist imperative. The imperative mood is a command from one will to another will in expectation of a response. Neither the doctrine of inability nor total depravity can hold here; both are explicitly ruled out!
God made the provision for salvation and established the conditions upon which a response on man’s part is utterly necessary. This explicit condition is rejected by the Calvinists.
In Mark 1:15, Jesus said: “You repent and you believe in the gospel…metanoeite kai pisteuete en t? euaggeli?.”
Note that both REPENT and BELIEVE are in the IMPERATIVE mood of command. Implicit to this inescapable imperative laid upon human kind by Jesus is His understanding of the following:
• That man has a will, and if he has a will, it is necessarily
free
• That man is not passive in terms of the necessity to act
• That man is active in his salvation
• That man is not brought to salvation by irresistible grace?so called?in a state of total inability.
The following fictitious unscriptural nonsense must be rejected:
“Free agency we may believe in, but free will is simply ridiculous.”
“Man is a free agent. But man has not a free will.”
“He is free to turn to Christ, but not able.”
“A dead man cannot exercise faith in Jesus Christ.”
“A dead man is utterly incapable of willing anything.”
“Free will is the invention of man, instigated by the devil.”
This kind of thinking does not accord with the (1) imperative
mood, (2) active voice, and (3) middle voice in Scripture.
A spiritually dead person has the ability to reject Christ; one spiritually dead is also said to be dead while living (1 Tim 5:6). Cf. Jn 5:24-25.
The Prodigal “was dead, and is alive again; he was lost and is found.” The following is to be noted of this “dead man,” who “has not a free will;” it was said of him: “And when he came (elthon) to himself, he said: . . . I will go to my father . . . I sinned against heaven . . .” (Lk 15:17, 18).
Came (elthon) is an aorist, ACTIVE, participle, something the Prodigal did/willed; he said (aorist, ACTIVE), something he did; I will go . . . (future, MIDDLE deponent; the ACT OF HIS WILL), again something he did. I sinned . . . (an act of his will in sinning and forsaking). Now this dead man does not fit the description of Calvinistic inability?he came . . . he said . . . I will go . . . I sinned; thus he exercised his will.
These are FACTS of Scripture. FACTS of Scripture deny the falsehood of total inability.
The Active Voice of the text(s) of Scripture shows the falsehood of the doctrine of the total inability of man to respond to his Creator with respect to salvation.
Calvinists only believe a portion of John 3:16. They literally believe in the ACTIVE voice of “ God loved [GOD ACTED]; He gave [GOD ACTED].”
But when the SAME ACTIVE voice is used of men, they DENY it.
John 3:16 & 18 use ACTIVE voice “the one believing” and ACTIVE voice the one not believing. These facts of Scripture are suppressed, ignored & denied by tulipers.
In Acts 16:30-31 we read: “And leading them forward outside, said, Sirs, what must I do that I may be saved? And they said, You believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, and your house.”
DO translates (poiein) a present, ACTIVE, infinitive. Here the jailer of the prison had to do something in order to be saved; he acted with respect to his salvation. Salvation was not irresistible.
May be saved (sotho) is a verb in the subjunctive mood, aorist tense, and passive voice. The jailer sees himself as both ACTING and being ACTED UPON, somehow. Paul and Silas see the necessity of both God and man acting in salvation; they affirm that he must believe in Christ.
And they said: you believe right now. Believe is an IMPERATIVE, aorist tense, ACTIVE voice verb. As noted already the imperative expects response and the active voice IS a response. So, what the jailer must do, he did: he believed!
Here the active voice, imperative mood, and passive voice
consist in cumulative evidence on both the part of man and
God to show that salvation is not irresistibly forced to a totally unable person. Thus, the Calvinists stand ruled against and condemned by these facts in the Greek New Testament.
You tulipers are invited to prove your doctrine of total inability/irresistible grace in the light of the cumulative facts noted above. 1) how could you affirm inability in light of the requirements of the active voice? 2) how could you affirm inability/irresistible grace in light of the requirements of the imperative mood in which action is necessary and conditional? 3) how it is that people acting toward their salvation in the active voice are in a state of total inability?
Calvinists have been & continue to circumvent, ignore, and deny NT grammar & syntax in order to affirm the TULIP.
I challenge you to evaluate the Tulip by means of the imperative mood, the subjunctive mood, the middle & active voice to see if they fully support the Tulip.
Lu Ba Bi: You used the prodigal son as an example and said he was dead. I disagree. He was alive. He was with his Father. He strayed. He wasn’t lost. He was a parable of one who is born again but leaves and goes his own way. Not only is it an example of we can’t stay there if we are truly born again, but that the Father is willing to take us back, and not just take us back, but give us a place of honor, throwing a celebration for our return.
I disagree of course that tulipers have ignored anything. Scripture interprets scripture. That’s pretty simple. Cut and dried.
Debbie,
You can forget the example of the prodigal. Let us drop the prodigal illustration and back to the text in context and the construction of these texts used by tulipers.
Let me ask YOU: how would YOU reconcile TULIP with the IMPERATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, MIDDLE VOICE & ACTIVE VOICE of the constructions of the texts? You and the rest of the calvinists JUST CAN”T affirm TULIP without DENYING the FULL EXPRESSIONS of texts’ grammar and syntax.
Calvinism IS a philosophical theology but NOT a biblical theology. TULIP is constructed OUT of SPECULATIVE theology NOT EXEGETICAL theology.
Your Scripture interprets Scripture is just a poor prooftexting method. It is actually a mangling of texts and contexts to prove the illusions of TULIP. TULIP is just NOT there in the Bible.
Can you or anyone AFFIRM the ACTIVE VOICE, MIDDLE, SUBJUNCTIVE AND IMPERATIVE MOODS of salvation texts and STILL SEE TULIP? NO, a thousand times NOT able.
Willingham can tell story after story but in the end he is DENYING grammar & syntax to keep affirming the speculative prooftexting of TULIP.
Let me ask YOU or your pastor if he is reading this blog: how would YOU reconcile TULIP with the IMPERATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, MIDDLE VOICE & ACTIVE VOICE of the constructions of the texts? Calvinists MUST circumvent, violate, and deny grammar & syntax of the texts to affirm TULIP. IT IS A FACT
Dr. Willingham,
You can only affirm Total Inability by Denying the Construction of the Imperative/Active/Passive in such texts:
Acts 2:38, “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit…
Repent translates metano?sate in the aorist tense and IMPERATIVE mood. The aorist tense, is momentary or instantaneous action. The imperative mood is a command. A good translation, then, would be: “You repent! Do it right now!”The imperative mood is of such a nature that it addresses the VOLITION or will, and not simply the reason. The nature of the imperative, then, expresses an appeal from one will to another will in a summons to action, which may or may not be carried out.
Don’t you know that grammarians call the imperative, the VOLITIONAL MOOD?
Thus, by command of superior appeal, the will of God through the Apostle Peter summoned the hearers—“You repent! Do it right now!”
In verse 40 the Holy Spirit through Peter summoned them—“You be saved! Do it right now!” Here the construction is the same, except we have a PASSIVE voice rather than the active. They could REPENT?ACTIVE VOICE?but they could not save themselves?PASSIVE VOICE.
Thus, these penitent sinners were instructed to now submit their will to the will and work of the Holy Spirit that they might be saved, NOT submit AFTER being saved…but now and throughout life.
The Calvinist is invited to show just how these active and passive conditions support TOTAL INABILITY & IRRESISTIBLE GRACE?
WHY the active voice when used in reference to God is accepted & emphasized, but WHY the same ACTIVE VOICE when used in reference to man is DENIED? Here your philosophical theology has swallowed the NORMAL use of the textual construction.
Acts 2:41 says: “. . . they therefore embraced (apodexamenoi– aorist participle, MIDDLE deponent) the word for themselves right then…
The will of Almighty God issued forth—“Repent! Be saved!” And the will of man in obedient surrender “embraced the Word.” That day three thousand souls were saved. Note that all these persons were dead in sin, and it was dead sinners who responded to God that day!
Calvinists can’t help but keep on keeping on inserting and forced INABILITY & IRRESISTIBILIY where they are NOT in the text at all.
You either affirm the grammatical construction of the text and deny Tulip or you deny the grammatical construction by affirming tulip. You can’t have it both ways. The grammatical construction of salvation texts totally deny the tulip.
Folks, here’s some advice. Give it a rest. It is clear that there won’t be any converts to or from Calvinism on this thread. Repeatedly saying the same things over and over again is doing nothing except driving the comment count higher.
I’d be more interested in how Calvinism (or not) plays out in our everyday Christian walk and witness. For me, being a Calvinist has given me much more confidence in sharing my faith, because I understand that although I am doing what I have been commanded to do, any mistakes I make or my lack of persuasiveness isn’t going to damn someone (and, by the same token, it isn’t my brilliance or eloquence that will save someone). It has also freed me from that “wretched urgency” (a term coined by my late friend Michael Spencer) that is so prevalent among evangelicals. The idea that we must be in a frenzy of “witnessing” to everyone we meet, lest they die before they accept Jesus into their heart.
Bill: With all due respect. I think the conversation is going nicely. It has to be discussed at length in order to get the full teaching in. Of course some are going to get upset that is the nature of the beast. But….the reason we never get anywhere is that it is not allowed to be fully discussed without someone coming in and cutting off. Dialog has never happened between Calvinists and non-Calvinists before the internet. This has just been happening within the last few years. It needs to be discussed, warts and all, anger and all, in order for understanding and dialog to continue. To get uncomfortable because the discussion is long, or it produces some anger simply cuts off one side possibly understanding another. Some hard questions need to be asked, that is how we dig into scripture. I would like to be able to discuss fully without someone being uncomfortable and cutting off what I see as a productive discussion and one that needs to be if both are going to co-exist in the Southern Baptist Convention, which both are.
I’m not uncomfortable and I have no authority to cut anything off. If you think you are being productive by all means carry on.
Although granted Joe, Paula and Christiane are not SBC, they bring thoughts to this discussion that some Southern Baptists have. I don’t think anyone is trying to convert anyone. One doesn’t have to discuss in order to “convert.” But there has been war in the SB for too long and discussion is good.
I’m a five pointer but give me a Lydia or a Paula over Cough-man any day of the week and twice on Sunday. At least they get the gospel right. You’ll never hear one of them blathering about “faith trumps belief” or suggesting that someone who believes that Mormons are real Christians actually knows the gospel and is saved by that gospel.
Joe: Faith trumps belief? I consider faith and belief the same thing actually. I have no idea where you get these things from.
But you gave me a chuckle here. And the fact that you have to make fun of my name is very telling what you believe. Bullying trumps faith?
And bullying a woman too. Does that make you proud? Considering you believe we should know our place and all I am just asking.
On the concept of ‘wretched urgency’:
“The idea that we must be in a frenzy of “witnessing” to everyone we meet, lest they die before they accept Jesus into their heart.”
There were certain qualities about the early Christians that pointed towards Christ. When Christians today rediscover and model those qualities again, I think that witness, in itself, will do much good to convert others.
‘Pointing towards the Lord’ is not the same as ‘wretched urgency’.
It demands much more of a Christian.
God IS perfect Justice and completely in control.
God IS perfect Mercy.
What we can’t figure out, as human beings, is HOW God does both without sacrificing one to the other. (’cause WE couldn’t do it)
Hence our confusion over how He does His thing.
C.S. Lewis wrote something interesting, that I don’t fully understand, being me:
“”Christ died for men precisely because men are not worth dying for; to make them worth it.”
There is something in his statement that speaks to both God’s Supremacy AND to His Mercy.
We look for answers in our reasoning and but we cannot find them there. So we argue, and divide based on our own reasoning.
All the time, the ‘answers’ were right in front of us,
in the great mystery of the Person of Christ Himself.
We aren’t as bright as we think we are.
What we can’t figure out, as human beings, is HOW God does both without sacrificing one to the other
Wrong.
Romans 3:26 (NASB)–for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just (His JUSTICE) and the justifier (His MERCY) of the one who has faith in Jesus.
II Corinthians 5:21 (NASB)–He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf (when He punished Chrit on the cross–His JUSTICE), so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (He imputes Christ’s righteousness to out account, saving us on the basis of faith ALONE–His MERCY).
Joe, are you adding words to Scripture, or just explaining your own take of what a word in Scripture means?
Hopefully, you know the difference between the two.
Hopefully.
Quite obviously, I was expounding on the text. It means exactly that. Thanks.
If it was ‘obvious’, Joe, I wouldn’t have asked you to clarify what you did. At least I asked you, and didn’t assume the worst. You can thank me some time for that.
Christiane: From what I read in scripture Joe is correct on this passage.
Mr. Blackmon:
You said:”I’m a five pointer but give me a Lydia or a Paula over Cough-man any day of the week and twice on Sunday. At least they get the gospel right. You’ll never hear one of them blathering about “faith trumps belief” or suggesting that someone who believes that Mormons are real Christians actually knows the gospel and is saved by that gospel.”
Mr. Blackmon as nice as I can say it just be quiet when it comes to Debbie Kaufman. Your continued attacks on her appear as personal as I am sure that they are. Are you in the 3rd grade or something? Personally I believe it is you that blather.
I’m still not sure what you believe the Gospel to be?
Do you usually holler and scream when you witness to the lost?
Tom,
You don’t read what I write, remember?
Mr. Blackmon as nice as I can say it just be quiet when it comes to Debbie Kaufman.
Debbie gets treated the way Debbie deserves to be treated. When she stops supporting moderate chiristian positions and left wing political positions, I’ll be more than happy to drop it.
Until then, don’t hold your breath.
Yep. They are. Personal I mean. For a five pointer, he is one of the most violent I have met. Most are not this….well I don’t have a word for it….yet.
He loves a good fight.
Debbie K:
You said the following concerning Mr. Blackmon:”Yep. They are. Personal I mean. For a five pointer, he is one of the most violent I have met. Most are not this….well I don’t have a word for it….yet. He loves a good fight.”
He sure loves to dish it out.
Debbie,
No, you did not answer my question. You talked around it just as Greg did, but you did not answer it.
Greg does not think the Gospel is for everyone. Greg believes in “limited atonement” so he “knows” the Gospel is only for the “elect.”
Greg won’t answer my question because he knows he can’t believe Mark 16:15 and in “limited atonement.” Since he dropped out I assume he chose “limited atonement” over Scripture.
Calvinism is like trying to fit your glove on my hand. It needs to be stretched to make it fit.
I would contend that you are misunderstanding the answer Don. I would also contend that Greg does believe the Gospel is for everyone, but as you know not everyone receives it. I answered your question, it might just take a while to sink in. I don’t say that facisciously(sp?). I had to really read the scriptures and let it all sink in for several years as a matter of fact. I had never known those verses were even in the Bible.
Hey Don,
I will answer you question whey you answer mine…
What question Don???
What question Don???
What question Don???
Mr. Blackmon:
You said:”Debbie gets treated the way Debbie deserves to be treated. When she stops supporting moderate chiristian positions and left wing political positions, I’ll be more than happy to drop it.
Until then, don’t hold your breath.”
I believe you could hold your breath for 10 minutes straight if you would just give it a try.
BTW, how should the rest of us treat you?
Mr. Blackmon likes excuses to treat people badly. In that he evidently believes all persons are equal. Some make theology their god, instead of what the Bible actually teaches about love and treatment of others. Thankfully God in his love, doesn’t treat us as we deserve, or we would all be in hell and that would include Mr. Blackmon. Some have theology in their minds, but it hasn’t sunk into their hearts. I would possibly put Mr. Blackmon in that category. I do not know, but suspect. Until it sinks into his heart, he cannot change. Only God changes the heart from stone to flesh. He knows that in fact.
I believe you could hold your breath for 10 minutes straight if you would just give it a try.
Now I would LOVE to see Debbie do this…or rather attempt it.
BTW, You never did answer the question–to whom is it that I’m disrespectful, other than Debbie? What are some things they have in common (particularly in their theology)?
What your doctrine is usually determines how a person lives.
Debbie K:
You said:”What your doctrine is usually determines how a person lives.”
Mr. Blackmon please consider this as excellent advice.
Mr. Blackmon please, please, take a real hard look at yourself from God’s perspective.
Debbie,
No one who believes in “limited atonement” thinks the Gospel is for everyone. Now most who believe in “LA” think the Gospel should be preached to everyone, but that is not the same as it being for everyone.
Yes I’m familiar with the line “we preach to everyone because we don’t know who the “elect” are. But that has nothing to do with my question, so I’ll ask it again.
If most people are not interested and unable to respond to the Gospel, because it was never intended for them, since only the “elect” are allowed receive it, how can it possibly be good news for those who are not of the “elect”?
Finally the Non SBC “Neo-Pelagianist” ask the question again… so I will answer it for him before he wets another diaper!!!
“The Gospel is NOT Good News for those who do not believe…”
Now Don, I think I stated that simply enough for even you to understand… Why not answer my question now???
Greg, I think that is a part of the Bible message many people miss. It is not the fault of God that some people reject the good news and therefore it becomes very bad news– it is the fault of man.
People want a gospel that has only one side: grace and love and don’t like to flip the coin and find judgment and wrath. It’s the same coin.
SSBN,
Exactly!!!
And their “god” is not the God of the Bible.
Grace Always,
“People want a gospel that has only one side: grace and love and don’t like to flip the coin and find judgment and wrath. It’s the same coin.”
Bingo. Try asking Christiane if she believes in hell.. See if you get a direct answer.
Dr. Willingham,
You said “the world” in Jn3:16 is the elect. Remember, each time you say to the unbelievers: “God love you,” logically, you are contradicting the Tulip.
Don,
I’m just wondering if you surveyed all those who believe in the doctrine of limited atonement, or just all those who believe in your personal interpretation of the doctrine.
My point is: in moderate (I hate that word) views of Calvinism, people can holded to a general availability with limited efficacy. At least that is my position.
Now, I’m sure you might define the doctrine differently and discard my view as not truly being “limited atonement,” but then you are stuck calling my view something else, but I will certainly not agree to it being associated with general atonement.
My point is that language seems to fail to remove the ambiguities of exactly what is the process by which a person saves someone within the perameters of “by grace through faith.”
SSBN,
When I’m refering to “limited atonement” its from the Pink, Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, White perspective.
Its true one can hold to general availability and llimited efficacy, but that is not the “L” in the TULIP doctrine.
In order to to have general availability one must believe Christ died for the whole world, not simply the supposed “elect.”
Depending upon what you mean by “limited efficacy”, I could agree with your position.
Don,
I would agree with your assessment of the problem of general availablility and limited efficacy. My point is that this is what I believe is the Biblical position if passages are taken in context.
It doesn’t fit either a Calvinist nor a non-Calvinist position, which in my humble opinion indicates that both ends of this spectrum assume to know more than the Word teaches.
That would be a correct inference Don. I agree with all you have mentioned. Limited Atonement means: The Atonement of Jesus Christ is not limited in its power to save, but in the extent to which it reaches and will save certain individuals.
God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for either:
1) All of the sins of all men – which means all men are saved.
2) Some of the sins of all men – which means men are still in their sins.
3) All of the sin of some men – which I see as the biblical position.
John 6:37-40, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Matthew 1:21, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”
John 10:15, “As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.”
John 15:13, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
Acts 20:28, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;”
Excellent Debbie!!!
“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men. They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question–Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if…” –and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say that we limits Christ’s death; we say, “no my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”
Charles Spurgeon
Greg,
So glad to hear from you. Its always a blessing when you spread your cheer.
As far as the questions are concerned, go to my post #556, last two paragraphs.
No, Calvinism is not the Gospel, despite what Mr. Spurgeon said.
Don Johnson,
Is that your real name or should I call you Sonny?
I answered your question a few comments back up… now perhaps you will stop crying.
Yes Calvinism is the Gospel,,, and you and your “Neo-Pelagianist” friends who keep spewing forth hate for Doctrines of Grace will not succeed, on this blog or anywhere, in changing the truth of God’s Word into a lie.
Grace Always,
Debbie,
Did Mr. Spurgeon give any Scripture with his statement, or was he just stating the standard Calvinist tradition.
Don, if you look you will see I posted scripture. I always or usually do to show where I am coming from.
Debbie,
I did notice some verses in an above post, but you didn’t say anything about them. I was wondering if you had any that prove the TULIP. The ones you gave don’t.
Hi Don,
The tulipers’ standard method is to wrest out words or phrases out of certain text(s) and string them together to prove the inerrant tulip–words such as “His people,” “His friends,” “the Church,” “the world,” “sheep” etc. Cut & paste theology. They’ve killed grammar, syntax, and context in the process. For the sake of the inerrant tulip. Tulip really transcends grammar, syntax and contexts. This is a theology from above.
lu ba bi,
You’re right on the money.
Professor lu ba bi,
Funny name but hey Don Johnson (Sonny) is commenting here so whatever…
Anyway, as I was saying… Professor lu ba bi which university do you teach at?
QUEST-ION
wondering if anyone has read Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s book entitled Predestination ?
I have never heard it mentioned or referenced on any posts to do with Calvinism/ non-Calvinism issues on Baptist blogs,
but still am wondering if anyone has had experience with it?
And yes, he is a VERY famous orthodox scholar.
Christiane,
I’ve not read the book. I must admit I’ve not heard of the author either.
From what perspective does he write.
His book is an extremely scholarly exploration of the Thomists’ point of view, as well as an attempt to reconcile all of the orthodox concepts on ‘predestination’, which differ from the TULIP model in ways that are complex.
It is not a book for light reading or for providing quotes to be used in a free-for-all between C’s and non C’s, as it is focused more on the concerns of the Thomists, with some references to the positions of the Molinists. An understanding of Augustine and the early Greeks is also helpful.
Very, very scholarly work.
‘Reconciling’ in his writing is more of an exercise in the ‘convergence’ of ideas that seem on the surface, unrelated, and appear unable to mesh, but still he is able to put some light on where these ideas converge so that they compliment one another somewhat. No easy task, that.
Good stuff, understandable if you are conversant with Thomas Aquinas’ Summa, which most seminarians are exposed to, I believe. It is not ‘light’ reading.
Debbie,
The Bible teaches that Christ died for “sinners” (I Tim. 1:15;
Rom 5:6-8). The word “sinner” nowhere means “church” or
“the elect,” but simply all of lost mankind.
lu ba bi: Christ’s death accomplished more than just dying for sinners, and the passages I gave specifically say the church. The Universal church are all those who have Christ as their Lord and Savior, past, present and future, all over the world.
Hi Greg,
Just Lu. No prof. at all.
My feeling is that theological systems could hinder us from studying the Bible objectivelly. I pray that someday people such as John Piper will renounce calvinism.
Lu,
If you are not a professor then you must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night
I pray one day the moon will turn to cheese… but I really don’t think it’s going to happen.
Greg,
Piper spoke at a conference some time ago and confessed of struggling with the issue of his own salvation (and many of his flocks are struggling too–as a result of his preaching on final salvation by works).
Look up the following: John Piper, “Why God Is Not a Megalomaniac in Demanding to Be Worshiped,” ETS lecture, November 20, 2008, Providence, Rhode Island. Text available online in the Resource Library at http://www.desiringgod.org/.
Piper’s 2007 Crossway Lecture at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 14-16, 2007, in San Diego, CA. http://bit.ly/beR4EK
In response to a question (during the conference) about our imperfectness in this life, Piper responded: “I know people, and I would say this about myself, for whom the greatest threat to my perseverance and my ultimate salvation is the slowness of my sanctification. It’s not theoretical questions like ‘Did He rise from the dead?’ or the problem of evil. I’ve got answers. But why I sin against my wife the same at age 62 that I did at age 42 causes me sometimes to DOUBT my salvation or the power of the Holy Spirit… This question is not theoretical.” John Piper, “Why God is Not a Megalomaniac in Demanding to be Worshipped” 60th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Recording # EV08487 (www.actsconferenceproducts.com).
He spoke consistently (and consistent with the TULIP and the Westminster confession) that final salvation depends of works.
Again, he is struggling uncomfortably with this issue because he is serious about Scripture.
Lu,
I have no desire to debate you concerning John Piper’s confession of his struggle with indwelling sin (See the Confessions of the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter-7). It is the universal experience of God’s saints throughout church history that the closer one walks with God, and the closer one examines his life by the light of the Word of God, the more and more he comes to realize that just as the Apostle Paul he too must confess; “Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect,” (Phil.3:12)
To be honest with you Lu, you need to show just a little more “Christian Charity” towards those brothers with whom you disagree… If you were not so eager to destroy the doctrines of grace you would not have made such reckless statements concerning any Christian Brother as you have made here concerning Piper. In your rush to judgment you have not paused to consider that perhaps I am misunderstanding what the brother is saying… (and you are!) In this you, my brother, and not Piper have sinned.
This I will say and no more… I suspect that Piper is speaking of Salvation (as the Apostle Paul spoke in the N.T.) as encompassing the whole process of our Salvation and not just Regeneration.
This includes:
(1) Regeneration or New Birth – This is only the beginning of our salvation.
(2) Sanctification – This is the process whereby continual self examination and repentance we grow in righteousness.
(3) Glorification – This is only accomplished when we shed this corrupt flesh we now dwell in and are robed in incorruptible bodies.
However, even if Piper is not speaking of Salvation in this manner… the N.T. commands us to examine ourselves to make sure we are in the faith… So in this age of such great spiritual deception where men think they are saved because then have parroted a prayer some fraud on T.V. told them to say and then went joyously about their sin filled life utterly unchanged, there is no shame in a brother confessing that he is obeying the Scriptures concerning the matter of examining his personal salvation to see if it be genuine. Perhaps if we all did this more we would not run around with our pockets stuffed full of rocks to throw at our fellow Christians?
Grace Always,
“My feeling is that theological systems could hinder us from studying the Bible objectivelly. ”
Amen and Amen. Calvin is a poor substitute for the Holy Spirit.
“Calvin is a poor substute for the Holy Spirit”… Why don’t you just go ahead and accuse Calvinist of worshiping John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ!!!
I mean if you are going to offend someone why not just go all the way?
Lydia: Calvin had the Holy Spirit as did Luther, as does anyone who is born again. To say Calvin is no substitute for the Holy Spirit is to negate all preachers, anyone who witnesses, even yourself. That is simply not true. God uses humans to depart his Word. His doctrine.
Debbie, Your logic is scary.
If you have the Holy Spirit, you don’t need Calvin or any ST. Are you implying the Holy Spirit sends you to Calvin to understand the Word?
Agreed. Putting any person before the Holy Spirit is idolatry. Besides, you never said who had the Spirit and who didn’t; this is an indirect way of saying YOU don’t have the Spirit. Yes, scary logic for sure.
Lydia,
The ‘worship’ of Calvin [calvinolatry] is blinding many–even those who have never read the Institutes. And the parroting of some tulip cliches creates false spirituality. The Bible is being manipulated for the service of the tulip.
lu ba bi: Now you are doing the very thing people do when they don’t want to or can’t talk about the doctrine they go for the straw man argument of worshiping Calvin. That is ridiculous, but yet you do it just the same. It’s not true, in fact it would be a lie, which is sin isn’t it? Stick to the doctrine. If you stick to that you don’t have to worry about lying, which as I pointed out and can give scripture too, is a sin. Stay out of sin. Stick to the issue of the doctrine.
“It’s not true, in fact it would be a lie, which is sin isn’t it? Stick to the doctrine. If you stick to that you don’t have to worry about lying, which as I pointed out and can give scripture too, is a sin. Stay out of sin. Stick to the issue of the doctrine”
This sounds eerily familiar. Oh yeah, this is the tactic the BI guys have used with you with other topics. They claim you are in sin and lying.
I have not seen you deal with Greek grammar on this topic, Debbie, so how can you call Lu ba bi a liar? You seem to be awfully quick to accuse others of the sins you also commit.
Lu Babe has me ignoring syntax and grammar, when I reason from the very facts that she cites as evidence of God’s absolute sovereignty. The imperative of such commands, for example, are well summed up by Bro. Charles Wesley in his, “Hear ye dead, see ye blind, leap ye lame for joy.” In short, God is commanding sinners to do the impossible as He plainly explains to His apostles about what He had told the rich young ruler to do.(Mk.10:17-27). Now dear Lu babe and Christiane and Don and who ever else wants in, why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler to do the impossible? You will note that Peter had just asked Him this question: “Who then can be saved?” (Mk.10:26) And our Lord rather bluntly states His point, “With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.”(vs.27). God alone makes it possible for a person to respond. He gives them the wherwithal to come to Christ, read He gives them the ability.(Jn.6:65,44). Dear Lu babe, that is a rather plain statement of fact. God gives….just as Paul says in Phils.1:29. I note you are very good at calling someone else to task, while weaseling past things that would trouble you, if you faced them. You own arguments are puerile rant and nonsense. Are you like Christiane, a Catholic, perhaps a coadjutor of the Jesuits (or do they have female coadjutors)?
As to grammar and syntax consider, Acts.2:23 and 4:24-31. You might consder the word despota in 4:24, the Greek from which we derive our term despot, an Absolute Lord (Sovereign Master is W.O. Carver’s rendering) in absolute control of everything, who designed that the rulers and etc would do what they did to Jesus. Dr. W.O. Carver in his comentary on Acts 4:24-28, stated: “And yet they could only carry out wht God’s hand and plan had predetermined. How inspiring to feel the grip of sovereign purpose that holds the reins on even the enemies of God when one is also gripped in grace so that he is in harmony with the plan of the Sovereign!” (pp.50,51). Squirm on that for awhile. I do wonder if you even know Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior – at all. And I am amazed that you would accuse our Lord of blasphemy, for if I spoke the truth concerning Him which I believe I diD, then you did not charge me with blasphemy. NO, YOU CHARGED CHRIST HIMSELF, SOMETHING HIS ENEMIES DID IN HIS DAYS ON EARTH. And as to following John Calvin, I laugh at the idea. Since people were dying for the beliefs he advocated before he was even born, let alone converted, pray tell me how I am addicted to him when I never even got my views from anywhere but Holy Scripture. Did you like Christiane get yours from the Pope? Have you ever studied the Inquisition or how the Jesuits had a communist state in Uruguay back in the 16-1700s. O yes, guess what the Lollards were dying for at the hand of the Inquisitors in England (believing that they had free will and the papacy out of the univerities…clearly a bunch of predestinarians!). Tsk! Tsk Tsk! Could it be that the same outfit as likely infiltrated the Baptists around 1820 and led to the primitive – missionary split was the same that was clearly proven to have infiltrated the Protestants in Enlgand in the 1600s, I say, could they be behind the great criticism of Sovereign Grace in some cases today…even some who make comments on this blog? Study the Inquisition records. Like the pictures of one of the Holocaust camps taken by a member of the second church I served, they might give you nightmares as they did me. The tortures of the inquisition ( the father of a late friend of mine was subjected to the mercies of an old invention of that nefarious organization, the Iron Maiden), the photos of the holocaust camp, and the treatment of Blacks that I read in the records gave me nightmares. O yes, so did the thought of atomic war in the 50s, when we use to practice taking cover in High School in St, Louis. As to my attitude, no one need ever fear that I would take away their freedom of religion or speech as both my predecessors in the Baptist ministry as well as my actual ancestors took political action and military action to secure those blessings to others as well as themselves.
Debbie,
Your cut and paste scripture is NOT doing theology or doctrine responsibly. Citing scripture without context to parrot tulip is proftexting–the worst kind of theologizing.
Even Dr. Willingham is dancing around the texts and telling stories but UNABLE to build doctrine from biblical texts. Simply because tulip is a speculative not exegetical theology.
TULIP is a piece of philosophical theology NOT a biblical theology.
Can you prove ANY part of TULIP by affirming ACTIVE VOICE, SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD, IMPERATIVE MOOD from salvation texts? Even Dr. Willingham with his Greek knowledge is UNABLE to to so. Again it is because TULIP IS NOT from biblical texts.
That is why you can conveniently citing phrases and words by violating contexts and thinking it is comparing scriptures–it is mangling scripture.
Now let me see you build a scriptural case from INSIDE the texts by incorporating active voice, subjunctive mood, imperative mood, etc and establish total inability and irresistible grace.
Stop parroting and making statements and stringing & pasting scripture.
Can YOU build any point of TULIP from John 3:16? Don’t jump here and there and everywhere. Explain this grand TEXT and let us proceed.
I don’t know lu ba bi: I read the scripture, I give it, and it fits to me. I find it interesting that you call giving verses from scripture cut and paste. It is from the Bible isn’t it? It seems to fit from my reading of it. Deal with the scriptures that I have “cut and paste.” You bypass any dealing with these passages and head right into the next question. No. Stop a moment and deal with the scripture I “cut and paste.”
Hello calvinists (Debbie too),
Let us discuss JUST ONE text, Rom 10:13 ONLY–thistext is contextually about salvation:
“For everyone (pas) whosoever (hos an), on the condition that he/she may call for himself/herself (epikalesetai) on the name of the Lord, will be saved…”
Calvinists can go to ALL Greek grammars & Lexicons and see that: It is ILLEGITIMATE to render Pas (everyone) plus Hos An (whosoever) as the elect. You can only read the elect by doing VIOLENCE to the grammatical law to do so. Grammar & syntax do NOT allow divisions here!
EPIKALESETAI (CALL) is aorist middle subjunctive: may call for the benefit of himself/herself [may call is CONDITIONAL on the VOLITION of the person]. There is NO predestination or election or irresistible grace or total inability here. You can smuggle it from outside but it is NOT inherent in the structure of the text.
WILL BE SAVED (SOTHESETAI) is future PASSIVE indicative. Meaning the caller DOES NOT save himself/herself. He is in the Passive. This is CONDITIONAL NOT ON ELECTION OR IRRESISTIBLE GRACE BUT UPON him/her calling.
Irresistible grace is NOT allowed by the text.
Please don’t mangle the original structure of the text to affirm tulip.
How do you all deal with THIS text without jumping here there and everywhere?
See comment above. No dealing with any more passages(which I can and will deal with) until you quit skipping over what I have given you and deal with it first. Your jumping all over the map. This isn’t a see who can win debate. It’s a discussion and so let’s discuss. How about that? Yeah.
I think Lu Ba Hi makes a good point best as I can understand his meanin
I should know better than to get back into this conversation, but I’ll bite. I have no Greek training whatsoever so I must deal with the English translation.
Romans 10:13 fits nicely, in other words it poses no problems at all to the Calvinist paradigm. However I think your point is that the verse in no way supports the Calvinist model against any other model. In that I agree. It says what it says. Anyone and everyone who reaches out to God in faith (through Christ) will be saved. I don’t know any Calvinist who doesn’t believe that.
There are much better passages that pose problems for Calvinists than this one, but as an avid non-Calvinist, I’m sure you know that.
“This isn’t a see who can win debate. It’s a discussion and so let’s discuss. How about that? Yeah.”
Then why won’t you “discuss” the grammar issues?
Lydia, few people can discuss English grammar, let alone koine Greek. Diagramming sentences in 7th grade English class wasn’t everybody’s cup of tea. So it doesn’t surprise me that lu’s grammatical presentations are going way over some people’s heads. But of course that’s hardly grounds for dismissing them.
Aside from grammar there’s also logic, another subject not commonly studied, much less mastered. People aren’t trained to see the implications of their beliefs, or the inconsistencies in their arguments. But even those who knew/know better, such as Luther or Grudem, make numerous logical errors, and because of their influence such errors are magnified and expanded.
On top of all that is debate itself, which presumes that the participants have at least a basic mastery of both logic and grammar, as well as understanding that the purpose of debate is not to convince or convert the participants but the onlookers. Quoting Justice Clarence Thomas:
“A good argument diluted to avoid criticism is not nearly as good as the undiluted argument, because we best arrive at truth through a process of honest and vigorous debate. Arguments should not sneak around in disguise, as if dissent were somehow sinister. One should not be cowed by criticism.
In my humble opinion, those who come to engage in debates of consequence, and who challenge accepted wisdom, should expect to be treated badly. Nonetheless, they must stand undaunted. That is required. And that should be expected. For it is bravery that is required to secure freedom.”
— awildernessvoice.com/Quotation.html, from a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, May 2001
That’s why we go in circles, here and everywhere else.
Lu ba bi,
I appreciate your writing and your knowledge of the Greek language.
Would you help me (us) with Romans 12:3 as it talks about the measure of faith given to every person.
Our reformed friends seem to teach a “total inability” — how does the measure of faith speak to the reformed view of total depravity?
Also, John 1:9 speaks the True Light who gives “light” to everyone … does this verse connect with the meaning of Romans 12:3.
Thanks!
Hi Ron,
I am NOT an expert. I rely on experts. I am sorry. I just use the tools that you also have on hand. Mine is somewhat limited too. I am just trying HARD to study texts. That is all. You can do so with each text. Someday I will study Romans, since I am studying Acts and Collosians now. I have spent weeks on Acts 5 and Col2. Now I have to start all over again from vs1.
Ron, you have more expertise than I.
Re. the phrase: “according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith” – a conjunction of comparison “as.” The nominative subject is “the God.” The definite article specifies someone previously mentioned in context who is well-known to the readers. The aorist active indicative of merizw. Merizw does not mean to deal, it means to divide, to distribute, to assign: “as the God has assigned.”
This is a constative aorist for a fact of doctrine extended over the course of human history. The active voice: God the Father, the author of the divine plan, produces the action of the verb, of assigning something. The indicative mood is declarative for a fact that God the Father has assigned a standard of thinking from Bible doctrine.
God’s plan is personal: dative singular direct object from
—“to each one.” God regards us as individuals. “The measure of faith” is incorrect. It is the accusative singular direct object from metron, which means not a measure as such but a standard—of thinking.
Plus the ablative of source from the noun pistis [faith] which has three different meanings: a) trust or confidence or faith, a non-meritorious system of perception; b) an attribute: faithfulness or reliability; c) a system of doctrine, that which is believed. It is this third meaning which is pertinent here.
It should be translated, “as the God has assigned to each one a standard of thinking from doctrine.” The ablative of source implies that the original situation, doctrine, contributes to the advance to maturity and the dynamics of thinking.
To weigh on the context of ch12 and all it is misleading to talk of any part of tulip here at all. Also I don’t see the necessity to read the incarnation passage of Jn1 unto Rm12 on spiritual gifts.
lu ba bi,
Thanks for taking the time in break this verse down for me (us). I appreciate it very much.
Debbie,
Just an example of method: calvinists always quote Acts 13:48 ASSUMING as though the word predestined is in the text. But the word predestined IS NOT in the original. The word is TAGMA– TETAGMENOI.
So you have to DEAL with why TAGMA became predestined for calvinists first.
Then you SHOULD take into account the syntactical relationship of Tagma and the rest of the sentence in CONTEXT to see if it is indeed predestination, before you conclude anything.
THEN, and ONLY then can you compare the usage with OTHER texts. But if it is the ONLY usage in NT, you CAN’T compare it with other words. Why? They ARE different.
When you strung texts that have words such as: sheep, church, the world, the elect . . . and QUICKLY assuming they are all the same—talking of total depravity and irresistible grace; then you are merely stringing texts to to prooftexting–the calvinists’ way to illegitimately teach tulip. In the final analysis you haven’t prove anything yet. You just throw Scripture at us. That is a mockery. It is offending. It is NOT the way to build argument. Paula has pointed this out to you.
Your cut and paste MANY texts does NOT prove anything. It is just making the reading easier without opening the Bible. Thank you for the help we don’t need. We want to see HOW & WHY from these texts you arrive at your position.
Even Dr. Willingham with his jumping here there and everywhere is skipping AROUND this text of Acts 13:48.
To cut and paste texts is not a RESPONSIBLE way to discuss at a high level discussion. I use TOOLS to check ONE WORD above: the word CALL for example. In the translation you WOULD NOT know if it is indicative, subjunctive or imperative in mood. You have to check the morphology of the word.
I checked first the morphology, secondly, I checked the syntax–the relationship with the rest of the sentence; then I read it in context, etc. I use grammatical tools such as BAG, etc. And if necessary I have several commentaries such as Alford’s New Testament, etc.
So to cut and paste and say there it is is NOT how you present a case from a text. It is like you order a well-done steak in the restaurant and they dump at your table some raw meat, a knive, oven, etc. It is a mockery and you would be offended.
You don’t seem to do any homework on any text you pasted.
Why don’t you STUDY Jn3:16 to see if there is any tulip element there.
You have a strong FAITH in Tulip, you have very STRONG faith in tulip. But your faith does NOT make the tulip exists in the texts, even if it exists in your mind. IT is NOT. You have NOT prove ANY part of tulip YET. Just giving a statement re. tulip is NOT the same as state a conclusion based on valid arguments.
Why don’t you start with one aspect of it. Start with Jn3:16. I challenge (again) all calvinists to prove tulip from Jn3:16 without you jumping here there and everywhere.
Jn 3:16 IS the achilles heel of the tulip. They CAN’T exegete THIS text without jumping around all over the places.
So your answer lu ba bi is that the Bible reads and says what it says in this passage but it really doesn’t say what it says in the originals. I must admit I had not heard nor read in any commentary that one for this particular passage. The NKJ uses the word ordained(Greek:tasso which means to assign, to arrange in an orderly manner).
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Act 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.
By the way I could open up my Bible and copy verses word for word, but why do that when I can quickly copy and paste the passages I want that say the same thing. It is still scripture is it not lu ba bi? I believe it is.
You l have John 3:16 plus the passages after it which connect to John 3:16 that you also have to deal with.
oh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Or the ESV if you prefer:Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
Joh 3:20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
Joh 3:21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
Ron,
I don’t believe we can use Rom. 12:3 to show ability. The passage is speaking to Christians with regards in using their spiritual gifts. When one becomes a Christian he receives one or more spiritual gifts. Because one doesn’t get a certificate stating which gift they received, God gives a measure of faith for the ministering of the particular gift.
John 1:7-9 does in fact speak of ability. Light has been given to every man. Therefore, Paul could write in Rom. 1:20 “so that they are without excuse.” Without excuse implys ability. Even a Calvinist would not chastise a blind man for not being able to read, the deaf to hear or the lame to walk. Why? Because they all have a valid excuse, which is inability. Unbelievers however, are without excuse because they have been given the ability to believe.
Don: Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Debbie,
I don’t mind you giving Scripture, but please tell us why you think it supports your position. Anyone can give lots of Scriptural texts, but that does not prove anything. Please at least give some exegesis, even if its only a little.
Don: I think it’s pretty self explanatory.
^^ copout. Again.
“I don’t have to answer” is not an answer. “It’s obvious” is not an answer. “I’m SBC” is not a “get out of answering free” card.
What are you talking about Paula? No clue. Again.
Therein lies the problem.
Debbie,
OK, you’re going to make guess as to want you believe the verse means.
1. Are people born to become believers or are they born to become sons (children)?
2. In your Bible does vs 12 come before vs 13, or is it the other way around?
OK Paula, now I get what you are saying. But it is obvious what this passage is saying. As obvious as the nose on your face.
Then so also are John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2–
For God so loved THE WORLD that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of THE WHOLE WORLD.
Yep… plain as the nose on your face.
Yep Paula I agree they are self explanatory too.
Good, because they mean limited atonement is a lie. Glad to know you see this clearly now.
That’s it Paula? Just Limited Atonement is a lie? That’s all you have? Not good enough for me to change my mind Paula because I don’t believe it’s a lie. I believe it’s all over scripture from Genesis to Revelation.
Loraine Boettner wrote this:
THE question which we are to discuss under the subject of “Limited Atonement” is, Did Christ offer up Himself a sacrifice for the whole human race, for every individual without distinction or exception; or did His death have special reference to the elect? In other words, was the sacrifice of Christ merely intended to make the salvation of all men possible, or was it intended to render certain the salvation of those who had been given to Him by the Father? Arminians hold that Christ died for all men alike, while Calvinists hold that in the intention and secret plan of God Christ died for the elect only, and that His death had only an incidental reference to others in so far as they are partakers of common grace. The meaning might be brought out more clearly if we used the phrase “Limited Redemption” rather than “Limited Atonement.” The Atonement is, of course, strictly an infinite transaction; the limitation comes in, theologically, in the application of the benefits of the atonement, that is in redemption. But since the phrase “Limited Atonement” has become well established in theological usage and its meaning is well known we shall continue to use it.
Concerning this doctrine the Westminster Confession says:
. . . Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed in Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
http://www.the-highway.com/atonement_Boettner.html
John 1:7-9 is speaking of ability. This is confirmed by the verses down further which is what I gave. Don, now if you can read, it is self explanatory. It’s God who starts salvation and does all the work, not us. Not complex. Pretty simple.
No exegesis required.
Debbie,
You are correct. It does speak of ability. Its good to see you’ve given up on “total inability.”
As you can see I haven’t given up total inablity.
It’s in scripture I have no “choice” but to believe in total inablity. 
As you can see, Don, trying to discuss something with Debbie (and her friends here) does nothing but go in circles. When someone clings to a teaching even when they admit scripture refutes it, further discussion is pointless.
Is there anybody here besides Debbie, Tom, Stephen, or Dr. Lookitmydegrees who would like to try and defend the TULIP?
Hi DEBBIE,
“It’s God who starts salvation and does all the work, not us. ”
I agree with this totally.
God immediately touches and directly moves our hearts. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy.
and . . . Our Saving Lord has done the work of salvation
> Unbelievers however, are without excuse because they have been given the ability to believe.
I think Paul would disagree with you…
6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:6-8)
Romans 8:6 addresses ability and Paul tells us that the unbeliever is unable to submit to God’s law.
And also…
18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18)
…it is considered foolish by them. And furthermore…
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
…the unsaved person is not able to understand in such a way as to make the folly sensible!
When Jesus was explaining belief and unbelief to the Pharisees, he said…
25b “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. (John 10:25b-26)
Are we to take away from this that when Paul said the natural man is unable, that he really meant he is able? Or that when Jesus said unbelief is not the cause of separation but a result of it that we are to take it as meaning that a person’s unbelief is the cause of separation and not the result of it?
In these passages, both Paul and Jesus address will and ability. Both say that man is unwilling because he is unable. Would I chastise a blind man for not being able to read? No, not the least of which being that inability to read is not sinful. Now, let me ask you a similar question – would you chastise a psychotic child molester for molesting children? I sure would, and whether he is able to or not plays no part whatsoever in that. He even has an excuse – he is unable to resist molesting children because of his psychosis. It seems that in this case though, his excuse is not valid. The reason he does what he does is because his nature demands it. That is what Paul is getting at in Romans 1. “They are without excuse” does not mean “they have the ability to believe and they don’t, therefore they are guilty.” It means that nothing that they say or do will ever excuse them for their sin, even “I am unable to not to!” Even though they are unable to believe, they still sin, and that is what condemns them. Remember the child molester? It is like catching him in the shower with your daughter – not only is he without excuse, he is caught red handed! And even though he was doing what his nature demanded him to do, you would rightly hold him fully accountable, and no excuse he could possibly give would ever convince you otherwise. He is without excuse, even though he could not do otherwise.
Reminds me of people who read Ephesians 2 and say “yeah, it says ‘dead’, but we’re not thaaat dead.”
Greg,
Its good to see you watched my shows. I had no idea you were such a big fan. I have sneaky feeling you’re just trying to butter me up, so I’ll give you an autographed picture.
BTW do you happen to know if your mentor A.C. Custance is still alive?
Also, you still haven’t really answered my question.
Jesus did not say to give just any old message to everyone. He said to give good news to everyone. How can one bring good news when he knows it is not for most people?
Is it not also true, if one gives good news to everyone, then is not the good news for everyone? Or do you think Jesus used the wrong words?
Sonny,
I think I’ll pass on that autographed picture… more than likely it would not be your real picture either…
“Is A.C Custance still alive?” Why do you ask, do you want an autographed picture?
Yes, I answered your question dude… now dry up those sniffles before I come over there and…
How can one bring good news when he knows it is not for most people? How can you sleep at night knowing that someone you know might die and go to hell that very night all because you did not do a good enough job pleading with them to pray the sinners prayer?
As I said above, the Scriptures say the Gospel is good news to everyone who believes (you know the Elect)
Jesus got it right, you are the one who has gotten it wrong.
Greg,
Its always a pleasure to hear from you.
At least you were right about one thing; Jesus got it right. Jesus said to preach the good news to everyone because the good news is for everyone.
Don,
If your point all along was that we should preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to everyone in the World, for we truly do not know who will be saved and who will not, why did you not say so in the first place? And I would have agreed with you by saying “ABSOLUTLY YES!” The Evangelical Calvinist does not in any way restrain from preaching the Gospel to every living soul, but instead is happy to do so knowing that somewhere out there in those vast fields there are “Lost Sheep” who will hear the voice of their master and come when we call them home through the preaching of the Gospel message.
But to say that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is “good news” to those who do not believe it’s message, or those who never hear it’s message, is utter foolishness… These individuals will spend eternity in Hell, and that most certainly is not good news.
Grace Always,
Greg,
No, that was not my point.
The Gospel is good news, period. The reason the good news is to be preached to all, is because it is available to all.
The angel of the Lord gave the same message in Luke 2:10, “I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.” The good tidings were for ALL people. That does not mean the good tidings would be received by all, but that they are available to be received by all. If what the angel said was true (and it is), then we know that Christ died for the whole world.
Don,
Do the words “all people” and “word” as used in the text you give refer to the breadth of humanity (no longer exclusively the Jews but all peoples)? Or do they refer to the totality of humanity (every single person who has ever lived upon the earth)?
That shuld say “all people” and “world”
Greg,
Its refers to every single person who ever lived.
Don,
How does that work? I am very interested to know how every single person who has ever lived will hear the good news of the Gospel?
Greg,
I did not say every one would. I said it is available to everyone. In other words, we don’t need to be concerned in witnessing whether or not the Gospel was meant for the person we’re addressing, because Jesus said it was. Otherwise it would not be good news that is preached.
Jesus did not say to wait for a decision before we can call it good news. Instead He said to proclaim the good news to everyone, because it is good news for everyone.
The fact that the Gospel can be rejected shows it must have been available to the person. Only something genuine can be rejected.
A.T. Robertson in discussng Acts.13:48 states: “As many s were ordained to eternal life (hosol esan tetagmenoi eis zoen aiornion. Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tasso, amilitary ter to place in orderly arrangement. The word “ordain” is not the best translation here. “Appointed,” as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews hee had volunarity rejected te word of God. On the other sie were those entils who gladly accepted what the Jews had rjected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God’s side as opposed to the Jews Luke does nt tell us. This verse doe not solve the vexedproblem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mid an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shwn tht God’s plan extended to and included Geniles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away. Believed (episteusan). Summary or cnstative first aorist active indicativd of pisteuo. The subjct of this veb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean “those who believer were appointed.” It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were rangedon the side of eternal life, who were thus reveled as the subjects of God’s grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of
God.” (Word Pictures.III.pp.200-201). Dr. Robertson was writing in a day, when the swing was on toward man and what he can do in salvation (cf. R.T. Kendall, The Rise and Demise of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. Thesis for the Master of Arts degree. University of Louisville, Ky.).I am being interrupted and will, deo volente, return to this discussion, hopefully, later.
Dr. Willingham,
Who did the “ordaining”?
Anybody wants to affirm and defend the Tulip point by point here? There are some of us here who would like to try using biblical ‘missiles’ to shoot them down one at a time.
Including P?
Bill,
As a Baptist, I believe in the preservation of the saints. I don’t however agree that they will necessarily persevere in their walk.
Don: If someone does not persevere in his walk, even if he/she strays for awhile, but if they renounce and never come back, I would say they were not born again to begin with.
When a person becomes a Christian as the Bible teaches it, it is a supernatural event. It is a literal supernatural change inside by God. You are not who you were before. You have struggles, we are human, but you always come back to God because you can’t help but do so. Paul calls it becoming a new creation. This is literal. It’s supernaturally done by God. Perseverance is not work based salvation, it is not the cause of salvation but the result of salvation.
I would also question those with a consistent mean spirit, because of the supernatural work of God, it just can’t remain there forever.
My last comment to you, Debbie, ever, anywhere:
It means nothing to you coming from me, but I will tell you point blank that you are one of those people “with a consistent mean spirit”. And in light of your comment about perseverance in one’s walk, this puts you in the same boat as you put Joe. Whatever you think of him is true of you in spades. And remember, this is “confronting in love”, right? You continually judge and condemn Joe, but remember that Jesus said He will judge us by the standard we used to judge others.
Paula,
Your first three words got my hopes up…
Haha Greg.
At the risk of undoing some of my previous comments, I have to say, Greg, that your comment above was a gold standard for funny!
I could do this lu ba bi, but it might make for an ever longer discussion that would go on for miles.
Lu,
Why don’t you just post your systematic theology and let us take a close look at what you come up with…
I just bet no one will be discussing your theology in 500 years, or even 500 minuets for that matter… LOL
Paula: I can’t say that I am sad that this is your last comment to me anytime.At least I’ll have some semblance of peace. We are to judge Paula and I do hope that I am judged by the same measure I judge others. I want to be judged by that same criteria. Bigotry and hatred seem to be part of your theology and I just have to stand against it.
“The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.” (Psa. 37:30) A righteous person will talk of judgment. He will not REFUSE to judge. He will talk judgment.
“Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken. Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.” (Amos 5:14-15) How can you hate the evil and love the good if you refuse to judge? You can’t. You are SINNING when you refuse to judge.
The word righteous in these passages means every born again Christian.
Bill,
Yes–I want to try to discuss and reject as unbiblical, the calvinistic reformed-westminster version of P (e.g., John Piper’s P or final salvation by works stuff).
On October 4 at 3:15, Glenn Beck’s Good Friend Richard Land will be speaking on the Doctrine of Election at Steve and Donna Gaines alma Mater, Union University in Jackson, Tn.
OK. Have fun.
It is best to discuss one point at a time based on texts of Scripture.
IG needs to be continued for now.
It is also better for the affirmative position to be presented with sufficient data and not just a statement (e.g., I believe in T as per Eps2:1 says “dead”).
I can be saved by reading & understanding and for Blackmon complying and never have heard the name Calvin. I don’t think I ever did until I came on this blog and wouldn’t have known Al Mohler either. That’s the way it is.
THE PATHETIC GOD OF THE “NEO-PELAGIANIST”
These modern day “Neo-Pelagianist” worship a very different “god” than the one we find in the Holy Scriptures. The little “g” god of the “Neo-Pelagianist” is indeed quite a pathetic being, as far as gods go…
He truly desires to save the all the World… and yet all the World is not saved. He sent his son to die for the sins of all the World… and yet the World remains in their sins. He sent the disciples to preach the Gospel to all the World… and yet so many have never heard the Gospel. He draws and convicts all the World… and yet not all come to him.
Dag-nab-it he really tried…. he gave it his best effort… what else could he do? I mean he is only a “god” after all, cut him some slack man.
Yes, cut him some slack… for he indeed is only a “god”.
———-
Now contrast the pathetic god of the “Neo-Pelagianist” with the God of the Bible:
“But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter ; and we all are the work of thy hand.” (Isaiah 64:8)
“O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.” (Jeremiah 18:6)
Grace Always,
. . . “I have overcome the world”.
from John 16:33
“Behold, I am making all things new.”
from Revelation 21:5
Christine,
That is exactly my point… The little “g” god of the “Neo-Pelagianist” has not overcome the world… The world is thumbing their nose at this little god and he apparently can’t do a thing about it… but instead he just sits around twiddling his thumbs hoping that someday man will see the error of his ways and chose him.
That’s just Pathetic…
Greg,
I am not a writer. Just want to grasp the Bible accurately.
Lu,
“Just want to grasp the Bible accurately.”
Come on Lu, tell the truth… With all the over the top rhetoric you have used on this blog… Is a more accurate grasp of the Bible truly the only thing you want?
Greg,
Does the form (accidence) of words such as tagma matters to you? Does relationship of words in a sentence (syntax) matters in terms of meaning to form theology? What is the basis of your doctrine of predestination if the formation of tagma (shaky according to lexicographers plus grammarians such as A.T. Robertson) and the syntax (relationship of tagma in contex) is ignored? Then on what basis would a calvinist affirm predestination? It is then merely faith on faith.
Has any calvinist shown and proven irresistible grace and predestination from Acts 13:48? NO! A thousand times NO!. James White has tried by mangled Greek grammar to affirm predestination from this text.
Tulip is a philosophical theology. That is all. You can hold to it with every ounce of energy you have. But sincerity and strength of will are not the basis of truth.
LU,
I thought you said you were not a professor??? You can chose to live in you little world of make believe if you wish to do so… but seriously do you really think anyone is going to believe what you are saying is truth, when you are so wildly outside of the orthodox theology of the last 500+ years…
Seriously Dude, if what you are saying were true every single English translation of the Bible would need to thrown out and we would need you to write us a new translation… do you think that is going to happen?
Really I doubt anyone is even reading your long rants on this blog anymore, so why don’t you write a book because this is quite exhausting…
By the way what does you pastor think of your take on the original text? Now where did you say you went to church, and what did you say the name of your pastor was?
Seriously… do you think this rant of yours embodies the “be nice” post sentiments? Is this “Christian love”? Calvinist love? Is LU not one of the elect?
And people think Joe is bad. o.O
Paula,
Just being honest with this seriously misguided young man… He needs to let his theological beard grow a little bit before he attempts to rewrite the core doctrines of Orthodox Christianity.
Who thinks Joe is bad? Everyone I talk to say Paula is bad.
What does you pastor think about your blogging?
Honest, Greg? Or flaming? I guess it depends on who does it. Yeah, that’s it. Now where are all those people who say it’s mean to belittle someone as you are doing… Hm.
Jesus said “Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am among them” and “The kind of worshipers God seeks will worship in spirit and truth.” Peter said “You (plural) are a royal priesthood”.
Now who is trying to rewrite the core of BIBLICAL Christianity?
I vote for flaming. Has anyone in this thread said this about what you believe Paula? Heresy is a word thrown around entirely too often. I don’t see where anyone has called non-Calvinists heretics on this thread. Deal with the arguments give here Paula, or admit that you can’t. One way or the other.
What Lu Baby (711(, Paula, Christine, and others of thir ilk really don’t want is a Third Great Awakening. The theology of the Westminster Confession (also a part of the Baptist Confessions of 1689 and 1742 as well as the 39 articles of the Anglican Church) is the theology of the hymn, Amazing Grace, “that saved a wretch like me,” and it is the theology of the First and Second Great Awakenings as well as the theology that launched the Great Century of Missions. Since these dear ladies do not want that theology, it is obvious that they do not want the Third Great Awakening. Way to go, folks.
What I want is for Christians to first of all know what makes them such, then to show a smidgen of HUMILITY
(hit return by accident)…
and stop the mockery.
The BIBLE, not confessions or creeds, is my authority. It is the Word of God. It says that if you want a REAL “awakening” you need to spread the gospel, that Good News of Jesus’ saving us through His death and resurrection, and that by FREELY accepting this GIFT from God’s hand we can spend eternity in heaven.
Who cares about the mechanics? Who cares about splitting hairs? Do we not all believe that salvation would not be possible without God first reaching out to mankind, and without individuals reaching back in faith? THIS, not somebody’s pet theoretical ordo salutis, is what people need— NOT sublapsarianism, supralapsarianism, or any other isms. We don’t need to spread the BAD news that God hates babies and throws them to the flames like Molech “for his good pleasure” or that God plays a cruel hoax on many who only think they’re saved.
Bash us all you like, Dr. Lookitmydegrees…. it only helps to show the world what kind of people Calvinists are. I’m following the Jesus who laid privilege down to save the oppressed, who numbers the hairs on our heads and says “If I am lifted up I will draw ALL to myself”.
“Since these dear ladies do not want that theology, it is obvious that they do not want the Third Great Awakening. Way to go, folks.”
Personally, I think there is a spiritual awakening afoot abeit small, unorganized and unpopular with the powers in place in our institutionalized church.
It does not have important men in black robes writing up confessions.
It is a movement made up of believers that are quietly leaving behind the institutions with their org charts and titled positions to follow Christ with other lowly believers. They want more NT and less man centered interpretations and human writings “about” scripture.
In effect, I believe many of our churches are huge mission fields.
I expect to see the day when Chinese house Christians will be coming here to tell us what it means to really follow Christ without all our creature comforts and big important titles.
Jeff,
Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond, and for giving some exegesis of your verses. I’ll respond to each of your texts one at a time.
I said: unbelievers are without excuse because they have been given the ability to believe.
You said: I think Paul would disagree with you….
Jeff look again at Paul’s exact words in Romans 8:1-8. In verse 3 Paul writes: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh.” This is the same law Paul referenced in vs 7.
I agree completely man has an inability to keep the law. That inability is his flesh. Please note Paul said man was not subject to the LAW of God, neither indeed can be. It was the law that cannot bring life (Gal. 3:21) because no one could keep it. Since no one kept the law it became a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith (Gal. 3:24).
In Romans 8 we see an inability to keep the law, but nothing is said of an inability to believe the Gospel, as they are two completely different things.
Jeff,
Your next text was 1 Cor 1:18.
I hardly think foolishness is the same as inability.
I may think it foolish to watch football games all Sunday afternoon. And there are millions of Americans who think it foolish if I didn’t. However, I have the ability to watch or not, despite whether its foolish or not.
Foolishness is not the same as inability.
Jeff,
Next up 1 Cor. 2:14.
Before commenting on the text I would like to first ask a question. Since the text is speaking of the natural man who does not have the Holy Spirit, my question is; when does one receive the Holy Spirit so that they are able to receive the things of the Spirit?
Jeff,
Next up John 10; 25-26
Those that Jesus mentioned in verse 26, are they sheep or goats?
Though these were not Christ’ sheep when He addressed them; could they become His sheep at a later time or was their fate already set?
Dr. Willingham,
As you know A.T. Robertson REJECTS the idea of predestination in this text. Many scholars also reject the usage of tasso to teach predestination. It is at best a SHAKY ground to build a MAJOR doctrine.
The Greek verb used here is not the one which means to choose or to elect. Nowhere else in the entire Bible is this word used of election! In fact, not only does the word not refer to election, it is even possible if not probable that it doesn’t mean appointed here either.
Personal Devotion NOT Predestination May Be in View Here: This verse uses the verb tasso in the passive or middle voice. According to the leading lexicon of NT Greek in Acts 13:48 it means “to belong to, to be classed among those possessing” (BAGD, p. 806). Additionally it points out that the passive can also mean “to devote oneself to a service [taken as middle].”
Middle voice means: the subject acts to benefit himself/herself.
This means that tasso here which passive in form is read as middle in meaning. Why? (1) the form for middle & passive is the SAME; and (2) USAGE & CONTEXT determine the meaning. Hence, legitimately read “to devote oneself to a service.”
Lexicographer Abbott-Smith, takes it as middle: “(perh. in mid. sense; v. EGT and Page, in 1.).”; R. J. Knowling, author of The Acts of the Apostles notes in The Expositor’s Greek New Testament, Vol. II, shows the strong possibility of a middle sense here.
Wordswoth notes: “The words tetagmenoi esan are happily chosen, because they have passive and also a middle sense; and represent the twofold operation of divine grace on the heart, and also the concurrence of the human will; both of which are requisite to Faith, and Salvation.” (Chr. Wordsworth, The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the Original Greek, with Introductions and Notes, The Acts of the Apostles).
AS A RULE: You DO NOT build a MAJOR doctrine on a SHAKY GROUND. But this is exactly what the calvinists have been doing all along. Why? Because the fatalists have PREDETERMINED to do so no matter what the text teaches it or not.
Yes, Tassõ is used in Acts 13:48 in a type of Greek construction (perfect periphrastic) which suggests that the verbal action occurred prior to the believing.
But the question is, what meaning should we assign to tassõ here? It could mean, “As many as had belonged to eternal life believed,” or “as many as had been classed among those possessing eternal life believed” or “as many as had been devoted to eternal life believed.” The context is helpful here.
CONTEXT determines usage: In v. 42 the Gentiles “begged [Paul and Barnabas] that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.” Begging suggests devotion. They were devoted to learning about the good news of eternal life. This makes good sense in the context and it also makes a nice parallel.
The Jews in Pisidian Antioch rejected the teachings of Paul and Barnabas and judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. The Gentiles, oppositely, accepted the teachings of the apostles. However, instead of saying “they judged themselves worthy of eternal life,” Luke chose to say instead that the Gentiles believed, as many as had been devoted to eternal life. (Note: the Greek puts “they believed” before the words “as many as…”) They first devoted themselves to searching out the way to eternal life and then having discovered the message (Jesus guarantees eternal life to all who simply believe in Him) they believed it.
God Will Remove the Veil for Anyone Willing: This passage clearly teaches that the unbeliever is not without spiritual sensitivity. Here we have unregenerate people begging the apostles to come preach the Word of God to them. Like Cornelius in Acts 10, they were actively responding to God’s drawing by seeking Him.
It is true that certain verses teach that Satan blinds the eyes of unbelievers so that they can’t see the gospel clearly and hence believe it (Luke 8:12; 2 Cor 4:4). But remember that in Acts 16:14 we are told that “God opened Lydia’s heart that she might heed the things spoken by Paul and Silas.”
Lydia, like the Gentiles of Pisidian Antioch reported in Acts 13, was a God-fearing Gentile. She was at the place of prayer by the riverside outside of Philippi. She was seeking the truth and God rewarded her search (just as He rewards all who seek Him, Acts 17:27; Heb 11:6) by opening her eyes to the truth.
Clearly the Gentiles in Pisidian Antioch were capable of responding positively to the preaching of the apostles. They begged to hear more, and as a result, God opened their eyes and they believed.
Everyone is capable of responding and when they do, God will ultimately open their hearts to believe.
Note that the ability to believe was there all along. God doesn’t have to create that in a person.
PREDESTINATION HERE? NO! God had in mind from all eternity past certain men in Antioch who when they heard the gospel they were going to believe. It’s not saying they are robots; they made a real decision, a real responsible choice. But why the word appointed is in the text is to show you this had always been on God’s mind. When they believed is when eternal life was granted, it’s the moment the appointed were created in time. They did not exist before that.
In other words you can never look at this and conclude therefore that there are elect unbelievers running around. There are no elect unbelievers. That’s a category completely foreign to Scripture.
Now there are people who are in God’s mind who are the elect but hey, that’s no different from God having the Flood of Noah in His mind before it happened. All kinds of things are in God’s mind but they’re not in history until they occur in history. So when these men believed Paul and Barnabas found out what had been on God’s mind with respect to those men.
As an illustration: In Luke 22:20 we read “For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!” Do you see both sovereignty and responsibility in that verse? The Son of man must be crucified; it has been determined from eternity that I die; it has been ordained from eternity that Judas be the one, Judas had been picked out for all eternity as the Christ betrayer, as the man who would cause the murder of Jesus Christ and yet Jesus doesn’t say therefore Judas is excused because he was chosen to turn Me over to the authorities. He says it was predetermined that he do this, but woe to him. Judas of a free choice is held responsible and yet still it was predetermined.
Now, Acts 13:48 doesn’t teach Christian fatalism. There is, in fact, NO such thing as biblical fatalism. God so loved the entire world that He gave His only begotten Son to die on the cross in our place and rise from the dead SO THAT whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. As the old Baptist hymn puts it, “Whosoever surely meaneth me!”
God does give life to those who he wills to give eternal life, and He only wills to give eternal life to those who believe in Christ.
lu la bi: The word elect in scripture is the elektos which means chosen, favored, select. It is the word used each time the Bible speaks of the elect or election.
Yes, the word election is used in some texts of Scripture.
JOHN PIPER & SALVATION BY PERFORMANCE
John Piper teaches justification by faith alone PLUS final justification by WORKS.
In his own words:
“Paul foresees the possibility that some professing believers – in the judgment of charity he calls them brothers, may go to hell… Your works confirm that you are saved.”[Piper, “We Will All Stand Before the Judgment of God (Rom 14:10-13)]”; October 30, 2005.
“Getting to heaven in the New Testament involves the use of MEANS… Your PERSEVERANCE in faith is a means of attaining heaven; it is necessary… Mutual exhortation is a means by which we…help each other persevere to heaven. It is NOT automatic…”[Piper, “Do Not Destroy the Work of God (Rom 14:14-23)]”; Nov 6, 2005. Capitalized mine.
“…These are just SOME OF THE CONDITIONS that the New Testament says we must meet in order to be saved in the fullest and final sense. We must believe in Jesus and receive him AND turn from our sin AND obey him AND humble ourselves like little children AND love him more than we love our family, our possessions, or our life. This is what it means to be converted to Christ. This alone is the way of life everlasting.”[Piper, “Do Not Destroy the Work of God (Rom 14:14-23)]”; Nov 6, 2005.
“Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Piper in “The Justification Debate: A Primer” (CT, July 23, 2009; see http://www. christianitytoday. com/ct/2009/ june/29.34.html).
Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our WORKS. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be NO future salvation”. How it can be true that “through faith alone…we have eternal life with God in the new heavens and the new earth,” but at the same time also be true that at the “final judgment,” without the “validating transformation” of our good works, “there will be NO future salvation”? Which is it – “through faith alone,” or only with the “validating transformation” of “OUR WORKS”? [John Piper, “Why God is Not a Megalomaniac . . . ” Evangelical Theological Society 2009. Recording # EV08487]
Don Carson, a calvinist NT scholar admits that the calvinists and the arminians are one, in terms of teaching final salvation by performance.
For the arminians, no good works = salvation gift will be revoked at the end. For the calvinists, no good works = no salvation from the start. Hence, Carson concludes, “Thus at their worst, the two approaches meet in strange and sad ways.” “Reflections on Christian Assurance,” Westminster Theological Journal 54(1992)
We can say that the reformed-westminster calvinistic perseverance view is just the other side of the coin of arminianistic final salvation by holiness.
Again Lu La Bi: Don Carson is speaking of the result of salvation not the cause of salvation or even justification. If one is truly born again, good works are going to happen. They will occur. A change is eminent.
Debbie,
Have you read Carson’s whole essay? Can you intuit what he meant by not reading the essay?
Why don’t you present your calvinistic view of perseverance and let us see how it goes.
Nobody here has yet to present it from Scripture and then defend it. Again your cut and paste does not amount to a serious presentation yet.
I wish Dr. Willingham would join in doing point by point tulip exchange.
Yes, I have read the whole essay. I know D.A. Carson’s writing well having read a lot of him. In fact here is the essay you reference. Think of it as my proof.
http://www.sgc.org/resources/ReflectionsonAssurance.pdf
And sure, I’d love to talk Perseverence of the Saints.
D.A. Carson’s position will coincide with Debbie’s position here:
Carson “is speaking of the result of salvation not the cause of salvation or even justification. If one is truly born again, good works are going to happen. They will occur. A change is eminent.”
Thank you.
lu ba bi: Works are indeed a sign that one is born again. Otherwise the book of James goes out the window. The fruit of the Holy Spirit means nothing and needs to be torn out of the Bible. I stress this, but we are new creations as Paul put it in 1 Corinthians. Old things pass away and all things become new.
Works are not a means to salvation or the cause of salvation, good works are the result of salvation which produces a changed life.
Read carefully how Piper said that good works are NECESSARY as one of the CONDITIONS of salvation.
But Piper is not the only calvinists who teach final salvation by works a la arminianism. For example:
Arthur Pink said that work is necessary for salvation: “There is a deadly and damnable heresy being widely propagated today to the effect that, if a sinner truly accepts Christ as his personal Saviour, no matter how he lives afterwards, he cannot perish. That is a satanic lie, for it is at direct variance with the teaching of the Word of truth. Something more than believing in Christ is necessary to ensure the soul’s reaching heaven.” (dl “The Life of Arthur W. Pink” h. 248-249)
James Montgomery Boice said: “The minimum amount a person must believe to be a Christian is everything, and…the minimum amount a person must give is all. I say, “You must give it all. You cannot hold back even a fraction of a percentage of yourself. Every sin must be abandoned. Every false thought must be repudiated. You must be the Lord’s entirely.” (dl Christ’s Call to Discipleship, h. 114)
John Gerstner, the mentor of R. C. Sproul is clearer: “Good works maybe said to be a CONDITION for obtaining salvation in that they inevitably accompany genuine faith. . . . The question is not whether good works are necessary. As the inevitable outworking of saving faith, they are NECESSARY for salvation.” (Wrongly Dividing, h 210).
This is what John Piper has been preaching.
Lu La Bi: Arthur Pink is absolutely right when he said:
“There is a deadly and damnable heresy being widely propagated today to the effect that, if a sinner truly accepts Christ as his personal Saviour, no matter how he lives afterwards, he cannot perish. That is a satanic lie, for it is at direct variance with the teaching of the Word of truth. Something more than believing in Christ is necessary to ensure the soul’s reaching heaven.”
If a person says he/she is a Christian and continues to live in the same sinful way, there is reason to doubt that salvation. For the reasons I mentioned. We are new creations, old things are passed away behold all things have become new.
As for Piper, he is saying the same thing that you have said earlier, Paula has said, CB has said and many other. Repentence leads to salvation. That is why regeneration comes before salvation. That is John Piper’s message and I would find it strange that you would disagree. The result of regeneration is salvation and repentence. As John Piper puts it:
The Good End of Godly Regret
December 30, 1984 |by John Piper topic: Repentance
Subscribe to…
* Text Only Feed
* Sermon Audio
* Sermon Video
* Sermon Text
View list of podcasts and feeds
You’re listening to The Good End of Godly Regret
You’re listening to The Good End of Godly Regret (Excerpt)
* Listen:
* Full Length
* Excerpt
*
Download
o Audio: Full Length
o Audio: Exerpt
Loading suggest options…
2 Corinthians 7:5-13
For even when we came into Macedonia, our bodies had no rest but we were afflicted at every turn—fighting without and fear within. 6) But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus, 7) and not only by his coming but also by the comfort with which he was comforted in you, as he told us of your longing, your mourning, your zeal for me, so that I rejoiced still more.
For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it (though I did regret it), for I see that the letter grieved you, though only for a while. 9) As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting; for you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. 10) For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death.
This is the last Sunday of 1984. As we look back over the year, every one of us who is honest has something to regret. Even though we can count our many blessings and name them one by one, the list of our blunders is also a long one. Resolutions unkept; bad habits unbroken; anger unconquered; Scripture unmemorized; letters unwritten; opportunities not taken. The higher your goals and the keener your conscience, the greater your regret. It can be a very depressing time of year.
So I want to talk about regret this morning. The text is 2 Corinthians 7:8–10 and the doctrine I want to unfold is this: the good end of godly regret is salvation. Before we try to unpack this statement, let’s get the situation clear.
The Situation at Corinth
Paul had written a letter to the church at Corinth. The letter was a response to a situation caused by some opponent that had swung the allegiance of the church away from Paul. Notice verse 12: “So although I wrote to you, it was not on account of the one who did the wrong, nor on account of the one who suffered the wrong (perhaps Paul himself), but in order that your zeal for us might be revealed to you in the sight of God.” In other words, somebody had done a wrong to someone else (maybe Paul) and had somehow dampened the zeal of the Corinthians for Paul. Perhaps his authority or his character had been maligned, and the church had fallen for this and lost their affection and longing and respect for Paul. Paul writes a stern letter to try to point out the wrong and stir up their support once again.
He probably sends it with Titus from somewhere in Asia and promptly sinks into depression that they might be alienated by his letter and his ministry with them be ruined for ever. According to 2:13 he had hoped to meet Titus with news of their response in Troas. But Titus didn’t show. Then 7:5 says Paul crossed on over into Macedonia struggling all the way with “external conflicts and internal fears.”
Finally, Titus comes with news from Corinth in verses 6 and 7. The letter has worked. Their zeal for Paul was restored. Then Paul writes these rich words from which we take our message today (vv. 8–10):
For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it (though I did regret it), for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting; for you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death.
The Good End of Godly Regret
So the teaching that I want to unfold is this: The good end of godly regret is salvation. To unfold this truth I’ll make three points:
1. Godly regret is good.
2. Godly regret produces repentance.
3. Godly regret leads to salvation.
http://desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-good-end-of-godly-regret
I also notice you give half quotes out of context with no link or citing of your source. That is suspect to me and leads me to search for myself the whole quote which when taken in context and read in full, does not lead to the conclusions you give.
Excellent Debbie!!!
I also notice you give half quotes out of context with no link or citing of your source. That is suspect to me and leads me to search for myself the whole quote which when taken in context and read in full, does not lead to the conclusions you give.
BINGO!!! For both LU’s handling of both Scripture and Calvinist writings.
Men who do such things, soon lose all credibility with most honest serious minded Christians.
I also agree with John Gerstner: Read both statements again Lu ba bi and listen this time. “The minimum amount a person must believe to be a Christian is everything, and…the minimum amount a person must give is all. I say, “You must give it all. You cannot hold back even a fraction of a percentage of yourself. Every sin must be abandoned. Every false thought must be repudiated. You must be the Lord’s entirely.” This is the result of God working in a heart, turning it from stone to flesh(Ezekiel). You must give all of yourself to Christ, all your sins, everything. The sign of a true born again Christian is two fold. 1. loving God with all your heart, mind, soul, and your neighbor as yourself. 2. When we sin do we repent. Are we sorrowful. This is a sign that God has done a supernatural work in a person’s life. Conditions if you will. They are all absolutely correct.
Jonathan Edwards teaches MANY CONDITIONS of Justification. Here is what he wrote:
Faith is the condition of justification, and in another sense, other qualifications and acts are CONDITIONS of salvation and justification too. . . . But in this sense faith is not the only condition of salvation and justification. For there are many things that accompany and flow from faith, with which justification shall be, and without which, it will not be, and therefore are found to be put in Scripture in conditional propositions with justification and salvation, in multitude of places. SUCH ARE love and love to our brethren, forgiving men their trespasses, AND MANY other good qualifications and acts. And there are MANY OTHER THINGS BESIDE FAITH, which are directly proposed to us, to be pursued or PERFORMED BY US, IN ORDER TO ETERNAL LIFE, which of they are done, or obtained, we shall have eternal life, and IF NOT DONE, or not obtained, WE SHALL SURELY PERISH” (J. Edwards, “Justification by faith alone” in http://www.apuritansmind.com/Justification/EdwardsJonathanJustification.html
Edwards is crystal clear about the calvinistic WAYS of salvation here. Does he need many ‘speakers’ to explain him?
Lu, to bring balance to the claim that you are spewing garbage and doing anything on the order of CalvinIST bashing (as opposed to CalvinISM refuting), I offer my encouragement to never “give it a rest”. Bad exegesis is bad exegesis and it needs to be exposed, regardless of whether some think Calvinism floated down from heaven on golden leaves. Sacred cows were meant to be marinated and consumed.
QUOTE Bad exegesis is bad exegesis END QUOTE
And, of course this comes from the ultimate authority. By all means continue the “haranging (sp).” Anybody who disagrees with Paula could not possibly know how to exegete the Scriptures.
As always, I find her statements belittling and condescending, not to mention presumptive. I will bet anybody $1 to a million that they will never solve the problem of determination and free-will to the degree that one side folds and throws in the towel.
I think it is the height of pride for a human being such as Paula to think that somehow we can define in clinical terms the exact process that takes place when a person is “filled with the Holy Spirit” which is salvation. I know my puny mind cannot fathom it. I jump from analogy to analogy trying to get some grip on the “spirit world,” but I don’t feel I ever completely understand it anymore than my dog understands it when I’m trying to teach him Algebra.
The Creature will always be creaturely the Creator never will. Knowledge is finite, but ignorance is infinite.
Wanna see belittling and condescending? Check out the ravings of your buddy Greg. Or read your own. And I find this supremely ironic coming from a Calvinist: “I think it is the height of pride for a human being such as Paula to think that somehow we can define in clinical terms the exact process that takes place when a person is “filled with the Holy Spirit”
IS THIS NOT THE VERY CORE OF CALVINISM, to nitpick the ordo salutis and turn “whosoever” into “all without distinction”?
Wow.
Paula, I assume you are not a Calvinist. I presume you are not a very pleasant person to be around. I know you don’t hold truth in very high regard. You just spout stuff off as if you have a direct line to God, without even an inkling that you could possibly be wrong.
#1: I don’t even know Greg, let alone be his buddy. I don’t even know if he is a real person.
#2: I’ve never claimed to be a Calvinist, except in joking calling myself a “pointless Calvinist.” I’m a Texualist. I just invented that term so I don’t have to fall into either the Calvinist nor the Arminian camps.
#3: I don’t at all understand how “all without distinction” is the core of Calvinist thought. But, not being a Calvinist, I’m not perhaps the best expert to contact for clarification.
It is hard not to be condescending to someone who consistently travels such a low road. You do not seem to possess the ability to discourse without disparaging.
Stay on the high road and I’ll do my best to ascend to your wisdom rather than condescend to your attacks.
SSBN,
If I ASSUMED all the things about you that you ASSUME about me, you’d call it hate speech. But because it comes from you against me, somehow the hatred is sanitized and sanctified. I’ve come to expect that from Calvinists, but that doesn’t make it right.
I do know from experience that Calvinists scream if anyone who isn’t one says “neither am I an Arminian”, for they insist that whether I hold to all of Arminius’ teachings or not, I am one nonetheless. To apply the same standard to you, then, I can say that you are a Calvinist because you defend it with great emotion and resort to ad hominem because logic and sound hermementics have failed to support your cause.
And as has been the typical case here, you have missed my point entirely: that for any Calvinist to point the finger of nitpicking at anyone else is the height of hypocrisy, as Calvinism depends wholly on a very complex system of pedantry and sophistry.
We all claim to be “textualists” but that hardly makes us so. What determines the truth of that claim is how one argues, and I find Calvinism and all its proponents sorely lacking in that regard.
You can call your own condescension something else if it helps you feel better, but when one uses a single standard for all, it becomes clear that you are adept at hurling it in all directions. Additionally, blaming your victims for your lack of self control is very common these days (esp. among Muslims) but is no excuse for practicing it.
I do try my best to stick to acknowledged standards of logic and exegesis, but to no avail, as another standard whose boundaries blow with the wind is used on me by others with impunity. You do all the attacking and I defend myself, but you make me the villain time and again, as many of your buddies also do (at this point I won’t bother trying to explain my use of that term to you). I cannot make you see this but will pray that God will open your eyes, even though a certain individual here will again accuse me of lying.
Again you misread Lu la Bi: These are not conditions but the result of true Biblical God wrought salvation. and the link you gave is broken, but at least this time you gave a link to your source.
Faith in Jesus Christ lu ba bi: Isn’t that what salvation is? I don’t understand your objection here.
LU,
Give it a rest and move on… no one is buying this garbage. Calvinist do not teach salvation by works… good grief, now I have heard it all… the next thing you will be telling everyone is that Calvinist eat little children.
Seriously… give it up and move on.
QUOTE Calvinist eat little children END QUOTE
Taste like chicken
Greg,
How would you explain (or explain away) these words of Jonathan Edwars? Can you deal with these FACTS? What is he teaching? He was the mentor of John Piper. Piper wrote several books based on his reading of Edwars. And he is teaching the SAME thing: FINAL SALVATION BY PERFORMANCE.
“. . . And there are MANY OTHER THINGS BESIDE FAITH, which are directly proposed to us, to be pursued or PERFORMED BY US, IN ORDER TO ETERNAL LIFE, which of they are done, or obtained, we shall have eternal life, and IF NOT DONE, or not obtained, WE SHALL SURELY PERISH” (reference above).
You can deny facts–but they are in PRINT. Calvinists proclaimed and printed it. I just pointed out the contradiction in calvinistic soteriology.
The teaching of Jonathan Edwards regarding no good works = perish IS NOT BIBLICAL.
Hi works-inspectors, or fruits-inspectors, please listen to Calvin.
Calvin DENIED Edwards & Piper’s PERFORMANCE-BASED perseverance–hence final salvation:
“Doubtless, if we are to determine by our works in what way the Lord stands affected towards us, I admit that we cannot even get the length of a feeble conjecture: but since faith should accord with the free and simple promise, there is no room left for ambiguity. With what kind of confidence, pray, shall we be armed if we reason in this way– God is propitious to us, provided we deserve it by the purity of our lives?” Institutes, 3.2.38.
Calvin feels strongly about this. He not only asserts that faith is assurance, but conversely, he states where we cannot find assurance, by examining our works.
I guess, Debbie is ready to jump in and explain away what Calvin stresses here. Let me say (not so humbly), I have read the Institutes VERY carefully. In many ways Calvin is not a calvinist.
In many ways Calvin is not a calvinist.
Man, you need to take off your Hyper-Anti-Calvinist secret decoder glasses and read the Institutes again…
Lu,
One of the key principles of Biblical Interpretation is that you interpret the difficult passages, by the passages that are clearly understood… This same principle should be used in all our reading of other men’s works, because we can often misunderstand what is being said, or read into their words meaning that they did not truly mean to communicate.
For every quote of Edwards you have taken out of context and misunderstood, I can give you 10 quotes where he says just the opposite in context and in clear language.
As I said before… you need to move on, you are not going to convince anyone who has any knowledge of Edwards that he believed what you are trying to say he believed.
Greg,
Which obscure text(s) are you talking about here?
CALVIN’S VIEW RE. GOOD WORKS & SALVATION:
“If we are not to trust in our works for justification, why should we trust in them for our assurance? While acknowledging that regeneration has its fruits, such as love, he avows that the presence in our hearts of love for our neighbor is an “accessory or inferior aid to our faith.”[Calvin, Commentary, 1 Jn. 3:19; 3:14.]
He insists that, “if we are elected in Him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves.”[Institutes, 3.24.5.]
In his commentary on 1 Corinthians he says, “When the Christian looks at himself he can only have ground for anxiety, indeed despair.” [Calvin, Cornmentary, 1 Cor. 1:9.]
Calvin singularly emphasized contemplation of Christ towards assurance. Works, when present, they reveal salvation, but when absent, they prove nothing.
The evidences of holiness in our lives have no assuring value except to the mind which has already “perceived that the goodness of God is sealed to them by nothing but the certainty of the promise.”[Institutes, 3.14.19.].
He continues: Should they begin to estimate it (assurance of their salvation] by their good works, nothing will be weaker or more uncertain; works, when estimated by themselves, no less proving the divine displeasure by their imperfection, than His good-will by their incipient purity.[Institutes, 3.14.19.]
Calvin insists that we must never “look to our works for our assurance to be firm.”[Calvin, Commentary, 1 Jn. 3:19.]
If we want to know if we are elect, we must be “persuaded” that Christ died for us. We know this by a direct act of faith. We do not look for testimonies of good works in our lives.
In this sense, I dare to say that I am MORE calvinistic than most all of you here.
Jonathan Edwards: ” . . .as soon as ever a soul has put forth one act of faith towards Jesus, it becomes interested in his righteousness, and so in all the benefits that are purchased by it. The soul is thenceforward united to Christ, and Christ is his and all that he has. When a soul has believed in Christ, God stands bound to do all the rest for him. He stands bound to bestow grace to persevere in faith and holiness, and to carry on his work, even to eternal life.
When once any person has by faith committed himself into the hands of Christ, Christ has promised that he will keep them, and that they never shall pluck them out of his hands. John 10:28, “My sheep shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hands.” But,
of a title to salvation. There never is a title to salvation without it. Though it han’t the righteousness by which a title to life is attained, yet none have that righteousness that don’t persevere; and that because although it is not proper to say that perseverance is necessary in order to justification, yet a persevering principle is necessary in order to justification. In order to a title to Christ’s righteousness, ’tis necessary that there should be such a qualification in the heart; that is as it were a seed of perseverance, and such a foundation that perseverance will be the certain result of it ‘Tis necessary that there should be “such an heart in them” in order to justification (Deuteronomy 5:29). ‘Tis necessary that a man should believe in Christ, and cleave to Christ in a persevering way: a temporary faith don’t justify. But in order to that, persons must have that faith that is of a persevering, everlasting sort. He must have that sort of seed that is an abiding seed. ‘Tis not a vanishing but a durable faith that justifies. Though perseverance be not an act performed, till after persons have finished their days; yet perseverance is looked upon as virtually performed in the first act of faith, because that first act is of such a nature as shows the principle to be of a persevering sort.
Perseverance is necessary to salvation, as ’tis the necessary consequence and evidence of effectual calling. ‘Tis an evidence that universally attends uprightness, and the defect of it, an infallible evidence of want of uprightness. Jonathan Edwards [1734], Sermons and Discourses, 1734–1738 (WJE Online Vol. 19) , Ed. M. X. Lesser, page 600-601
19. And hereby we know, or, by this we know. The word truth, he takes now in a different sense; but there is a striking similarity in the words, — If we, in truth, love our neighbors, we have an evidence that we are born of God, who is truth, or that the truth of God dwells in us. But we must ever remember, that we have not from love the knowledge which the Apostle mentions, as though we were to seek from it the certainty of salvation. And doubtless we know not otherwise that we are the children of God, than as he seals his free adoption on our hearts by his own Spirit., and as we receive by faith the sure pledge of it offered in Christ. Then love is accessory or an inferior aid, a prop to our faith, not a foundation on which it rests.
Why then does the Apostle say, We shall assure our hearts before God? He reminds us by these words, that faith does not exist without a good conscience; not that assurance arises from it or depends on it, but that then only we are really and not falsely assured of our union with God, when by the efficacy of his Holy Spirit he manifests himself in our love. For it is ever meet and proper to consider what the Apostle handles; for as he condemns reigned and false profession of faith, he says that a genuine assurance before God we cannot have, except his Spirit produces in us the fruit of love. Nevertheless, though a good conscience cannot be separated from faith, yet no one should hence conclude that we must look to our works in order that our assurance may be certain.(John Calvin Commentary: 1 John 3:19-22)
This is a commentary Lu Ba Bi. It goes chapter by chapter verse by verse giving interpretation of the Bible. A commentary is not a good source unless you are speaking of a particular Chapter and verse. You can’t just pick something out and say this is all John Calvin believed. Pick an essay, pick a writing, but to use a commentary as a source unless using it to explain a specific scripture is something I have a hard time excepting having read John Calvin as well.
That should be accepting, whoa, I should stop for the night.
Greg,
The following ARE facts based on serious reading of Calvin’s:
The system known today as calvinism was not developed by Calvin, but by Theodore Beza (1519-1605).
Calvin grounded assurance in the death of Christ and included it in saving faith itself.
However, Calvin’s successor at Geneva, Theodore Beza departed from Calvin and grounded assurance in evidences of fruit in the life.
Beza’s starting point was his doctrine of limited atonement.
Calvin held to unlimited atonement.[See: Institutes, 3.1.1; Commentaty on Isaiah, 53:12; Commentary on Hebrews, 9:28. In both places Rom. 5:15 is referred to, and Calvin says “many” = “all.”]
In his commentary on Mark at 14:24 Calvin says, “The word ‘many,’ does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race.”
In Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p. 148, he says, it is “incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world.”
In his commentary on in. 1:29 he observes, “And when he says the sin of the world he extends this kindness indiscriminately to the whole human race.”
“For God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world” (Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy, p. 141).
If Christ died for all, Beza argued, then all would be saved. He developed a system which became known as supralapsarianism. In that system the order of elective decrees is:
1. Decree to elect some to be saved and to reprobate all others
2. Decree to create men, both elect and non-elect
3. Decree to permit the fall
4. Decree to provide salvation for the elect
5. Decree to apply salvation to the elect
This is NOT Calvins’
Start giving links or sources Lu Ba Bi. Cite your sources. Cite your sources.
My fault Lu Ba Bi, I see you did write down the source. My apologies. You cannot pick and choose from Calvin, especially commentaries. Sometimes the Bible does make reference to the whole world Lu Ba Bi. Sometimes all does mean all, sometimes it does not. Calvin systematically approached the scriptures as we all should, letting the Bible speak for itself, and writing this in his commentaries.. It is said Calvin got his theology from Augustine. Read Augustine, you have much of the theology of John Calvin.
Lu ba bi: Read John Calvin’s “On The Christian Life”
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/onchristianlife.html
The better to arouse us, it exhibits God the Father, who, as he hath reconciled us to himself in his Anointed, has impressed his image upon us, to which he would have us to be conformed, (Rom. v. 4.) Come, then, and let them show me a more excellent system among philosophers, who think that they only have a moral philosophy duly and orderly arranged. They, when they would give excellent exhortations to virtue, can only tell us to live agreeably to nature. Scripture derives its exhortations from the true source, 4 when it not only enjoins us to regulate our lives with a view to God its author to whom it belongs; but after showing us that we have degenerated from our true origin, viz., the law of our Creator, adds, that Christ, through whom we have returned to favour with God, is set before us as a model, the image of which our lives should express. What do you require more effectual than this? Nay, what do you require beyond this? If the Lord adopts us for his sons on the condition that our life be a representation of Christ, the bond of our adoption,—then, unless we dedicate and devote ourselves to righteousness, we not only, with the utmost perfidy, revolt from our Creator, but also abjure the Saviour himself. Then, from an enumeration of all the blessings of God, and each part of our salvation, it finds materials for exhortation. Ever since God exhibited himself to us as a Father, we must be convicted of extreme ingratitude if we do not in turn exhibit ourselves as his sons. Ever since Christ purified us by the laver of his blood, and communicated this purification by baptism, it would ill become us to be defiled with new pollution. Ever since he ingrafted us into his body, we, who are his members, should anxiously beware of contracting any stain or taint. Ever since he who is our head ascended to heaven, it is befitting in us to withdraw our affections from the earth, and with our whole soul aspire to heaven. Ever since the Holy Spirit dedicated us as temples to the Lord, we should make it our endeavour to show forth the glory of God, and guard against being profaned by the defilement of sin. Ever since our soul and body were destined to heavenly incorruptibility and an unfading crown, we should earnestly strive to keep them pure and uncorrupted against the day of the Lord. These, I say, are the surest foundations of a well-regulated life, and you will search in vain for any thing resembling them among philosophers, who, in their commendation of virtue, never rise higher than the natural dignity of man.
4. This is the place to address those who, having nothing of Christ but the name and sign, would yet be called Christians. How dare they boast of this sacred name? None have intercourse with Christ but those who have acquired the true knowledge of him from the Gospel. The Apostle denies that any man truly has learned Christ who has not learned to put off “the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and put on Christ,” (Eph. iv. 22.) They are convicted, therefore, of falsely and unjustly pretending a knowledge of Christ, whatever be the volubility and eloquence with which they can talk of the Gospel.
Yes Lu… I know… Calvinist eat little children… I’ve even heard they taste like chicken.
Seriously, do you even know the difference between Hyper-Calvinism and Evangelical Calvinism?
Greg,
Have you read any Hyper-calvinist’s serious work? Any that you would like to discuss? Any rep. of hyper or non-hyper you would like to discuss I will gladly join in. Why don’t you try to present the tulip from the text?
Can you present and defend ANY point of Tulip exegetically? I know you can argue logically and philosophically. But I also know that Tulip was NOT developed exegetically.
Have you seen ANY calvinist present ANY point of Tulip by means of AFFIRMING the subjunctive voice, the active voice, and the imperative mood of salvation passages?
Can you try and let us see. Why don’t you start present, argue, and defend each point of tulip.
Dr. Willingham started to do it and reverted back to self-promotion. So the tulip has not been argued exegetically yet.
Can you show us any point of tulip even from Jn3:16 without jumping here, there, and everywhere? I know you can’t. Prove me wrong sir.
Lu,
Can you defeat even one point of Calvinism using any one of the widely accepted English translations that were produced over the span of the last 500 years by no less than several hundred true Greek and Hebrew scholars laboring many years to do so?
Can you defeat even one point of Calvinism without referring to your “supposed” new and improved LU Version and misinterpretation of the Greek and Hebrews text…
I have one even better than that Lu…. Why don’t you stop attacking the theology of others and start laying out a case for your own systematic theology of the Scriptures? But then what’s the fun of that, then you have to defend what you actually believe… it much more fun to just attack and spew disrespect for the faith of others.
Well, seems I touched a few egotists. In our fallen condition, we do not like to be oneupped unless we are the ones who are the up. Lu Baby, I seriously doubt that it would be a wise investment of time to debate Acts 13:48 with you though I think in one of my previous comments I cited a source tracing tasso back to Xenophon (sp?) with the idea of purpose being involved. However, if you are really serious, why don’t we get the blog masters to start five new blogs, specifically devoted to the tulip doctrines, one for Total Depravity/Inability, etc. There we shall take you, Christiane, Paula, Don J., and whoever on. You, for example, have never faced the issue of man’ inability, clearly implied in and by his spiritual deadness, lack of power (no one can refers specifically to power), etc. (consider all of the verses bearing on the fall of man and his sinful and ruined condition) (jn.6:44,65; I Cors.2:14). Look at the terms for unconditional election (Ephs.1:4, et.al.) and so on. That you take statements from Calvin and other Sovereign Grace writers and ascribe to them that they teach salvation by works, I consider ridiculous and truly lacking in understanding of the context. Greg and Debbie have shown how pathetic your effort has been. I note that you are resolutely silent about the history of the theology that was very much a part of the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions plus many other wonders that I referred to. As to degrees, my doctor is a doctor of ministry, clearly a very lowly degree even though the theological liberals in the Christian Century about 4 decades ago called it “an honest to God” doctorate, and your lack or possession of degrees is not a problem for me one way or the other. In my thesis for the M.A. in Intellectual history, I cited a gentleman who was only a high school graduate and a body shop mechanic. He had done 10 years of research in church history and had written 4-5 mss and had self published one. He was the wisest man I ever met, and he asked me one question that about 7 years later totally wrecked my system of eschatology. My main field of study after the word of God is ideas, truths, doctrines, theology, call it what you will. I am concerned about the truth. I do not expect perfection in all of the writers, and scholarship being what it is (a human endeavor), shortcomings will exist. One of my main fields of study is agape love; agape love is a breath of reality in a world of sordid disappointments in ideals. God recognizes that He is dealing with and saving sinners and, like He must have to hold His nose, He is not deterred by their conditions. Another field of study is Black History (now called African American). We all suffer from limitations, and a lot of our efforts in these comments cover a lot of our own short comings while seeking to take advantage of those of others. But, and here is where your problem is, we love these truths that you so definitely hate. I dare say none of us came to them by the route of your readings of calvinism. I know I came by wrestling with the reality of depravity in people and what is taught about it in the Bible. The Puritan who outlined with appropriate scriptural references man’s fallen condition as one of deadness, disability, desperation, darkness, definance, diabolic, and depraved convinced me. Every point, he showed, proved, and by abundant references justified. I remember having read not only what he said, but what every one (that I had access to) had to say who diagreed with him (for example, I had John R. Rice’s Predestined for Hell? No!) and works of systematc theology like Thiessen and C.G. Finney. I think I can say without fear of much contradiction that every one of the Calvinists who write in this blog (and please remember I do not particularly care for the term as I am a Baptist whose predecessors and ancestors were responsible for religious liberty even though Calvinists of the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other denominations gave themselves to the effort to secure this freedom also). You accuse me of blasphemy, and then get bent out of shape if I chide you ladies and gentleman a bit for your rather evident weakness (one to which you do not pay much attention, namely, that a bunch of Baptists ain’t all that likely to be impressed by what you understand from your readings when they feel like with justification that they arrived at their views from careful study and agonizing thinking through the implications of scriptural statements). Let us list the topics of TULIP and Predestination and Reprobation, along with the scripture generally considered to teach such doctrines. Not only shall we examine the scriptures, we will see instances in history, missions, etc., which illustrate how these teachings worked or failed to work. I once met a primitive baptist preacher who had a doctor of laws degree from a German university who gave chapel and radio devotions on the doctrines of grace at Harvard U. during WWII. An Augustinian priest thought so much of them, he asked that Primitive Baptist Elder if he could use them for the members of his congregation to read for rosaries. I know shortcomings of some of the leaders in the movement of Sovereign Grace as well as their successes. Well, I am tired and not in the best of health as young people are, but I ask God to grant us all His grace that we will not dishonor Him in our give and take over what we regard as precious, evangelistic, awakening truths and what you regard as at best junk and at worst (?). Personally, I have no animus that I know of to hinder (that is not to say there absolutely isn’t any…after all, we are sinners being saved by grace) EVen Paul and Barnabas got into a cat fight over John Mark, and the contention was so sharp that they parted company. They were actually enraged, and Paul says in I Cors.13 that love is not enraged…term from the same word in the Greek. But perhaps the blog masters won’t want to begin each one, and it could be a long drawn out affair for each point as the involve many scriptures and volumes have been written about each point as well as about the verses involved. Untll later, may grant us all His unconditional favor and love, may we respond out of sheer gratitude and reciprocal love (I Th.5:18; I Jn.4:19).
“Well, seems I touched a few egotists.”
Priceless. And paragraph-challenged still.
‘nite.
Debbie,
Read this from Calvin:
“Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ Himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of His goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of Adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only forever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so He effectually seals in them the grace of His adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to these extent, that they recognize His grace; but that conviction He distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which He gives to His elect in this respect, that the reprobate never obtain to the full result or to fruition. When He shows Himself propitious to them, it is not as if He had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under His protection. He only gives them a manifestation of His present mercy. In the elect alone He implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays His grace, it must endure forever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of His enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent. Although faith is a knowledge of the divine favour towards us, and a full persuasion of its truth, it is not strange that the sense of the divine love, which though akin to faith differs much from it, vanishes in those who are temporarily impressed. The will of God is, I confess, immutable, and His truth is always consistent with itself, but I deny that the reprobate ever advance so far as to penetrate to that secret revelation which Scripture reserves for the elect only. I therefore deny that they either understand His will considered as immutable, or steadily embrace His truth, inasmuch as they rest satisfied with an evanescent impression; just as a tree not planted deep enough may take root, but will in the process of time wither away, though it may for several years not only put forth leaves and flowers, but produce fruit. In short, as by the revolt of the first man, the image of God could be effaced from his mind and soul, so there is nothing strange in His shedding some rays of grace on the reprobate, and afterwards allowing these to be extinguished.” The Institutes 3.2.11-12.
Lu, I’ll try and read over that again sometime, but does it not have Calvin saying that (1) there is no assurance of salvation, you must earn it by good works lest saving faith fade away, and (2) God sometimes amuses Himself by giving the reprobate false faith?
What Calvin is saying is found in Philippians 1:6. Once God begins a work in a Christian it never stops. He completes it and will complete that work, sanctifying us, changing us, showing us sin, cleansing us from our sin, for the rest of our lives until heaven.
What Calvin is saying is that there are those who may act as if they are Christian but time will tell. Repentance is on going when we sin, a person without Christ will eventually show their true colors.
“being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” Phil. 1:6.
Paula,
You read it correctly. Why don’t you pursue it–especially the first point?
Calvin says the following contradictory things:
(1) yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which are enabled to cry, Abba, Father… He effectually seals in them the grace of His adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast.
(2) Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith.
If God alone implants true and lasting saving faith, then of what purpose is this advice to the elect? Will God not force upon His elect the behavior He has ordained from eternity past, for His good pleasure? Do the elect have a choice as to whether or not they grow spiritually, since they couldn’t even choose whether to accept salvation? How can anyone with such twisted arguments be considered a great fiction writer, let alone a great theologian?
And I find this statement most reprehensible on Calvin’s part:
“…under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to these extent, that they recognize His grace; but that conviction He distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which He gives to His elect in this respect… He only gives them a manifestation of His present mercy.”
That is, God is responsible for fooling some of the reprobate with a fake salvation, and yet this is called “hypocrisy”! Calvin has unwittingly made God, not the hapless reprobate, a hypocrite and a liar. And of course, if people have no free will then God is necessarily the cause of both good and evil, which is the lowest blasphemy.
Calvin is saying what it says, we should continually examine ourselves to make sure carnality does not creep in and take away our assurance of salvation where we begin to doubt that we are truly saved. Sin takes away assurance, examining ourselves continually for sin gives assurance.
I love reading Calvin, his words beautiful to the Christian. Glorifying God.
You guys keep posting Calvin, he’s a good read as well as Martin Luther, well that is till it comes to their view on women, but that is a sign of the times they were in.
Paula,
That section is Calvin’s discussion of the controversial “temporary faith.”
When Calvin bases his doctrine on an inner assurance given by the Spirit and then affirms that the reprobate can have a similar sensation, he ruins his argument.
Calvin has said that the reprobate cannot discern the difference between their experience and that of a born-again Christian. They believe God to be propitious to them and to have given them the gift of reconciliation. Since both the reprobate and the saved can have these feelings, how can one know if he is saved? Calvin seems to be saying that the unsaved man has these feelings, but they are more intense in the elect and enable them to say, “Abba, Father.”
He feels, however, that the differences between the reprobate and the elect are more important than the similarities. The primary difference is that the faith of the reprobate is temporary. Eventually it fails and they fall away. The true believer is sustained.
A second difference is that the reprobate never enjoy a “living feeling” of firm assurance.
Part of Calvin’s problem goes back to his misinterpretation of the parable of the soils. The last three are all true Christians and are not reprobate. Therefore, there is no “temporary” faith taught here. Similarly, Heb. 6 refers to true Christians, not mere professors, and the doctrine of temporary faith is not found there either.
Since the Bible does not address the subject of a supernaturally imparted temporary faith, should we speculate about it?
Calvin’s doctrine of perseverance, to which he was driven in order to defend the Reformation against the Catholic attack that it was antinomian, has forced him to interpret these passages in a way contrary to their obvious meaning.
We should assume that those who produce fruit, who take root, who grow, who are illumined, and who have tasted the heavenly gift are genuinely born again even if they do fall away in the future. We will see them in heaven if they genuinely believed. We do not know if they have, but a lack of enduring fruit does not prove they are reprobate.
In the final analysis Calvin has thrown away the possibility of assurance, at least until the final hour. When he grants that the only certain difference between the faith of the elect and the faith of the reprobate is that the faith of the former perseveres to the end, he makes assurance now virtually impossible.
Lu,
If I recall my logic terms correctly, Calvin has engaged in the fallacy of “affirming the consequent” here: we can only know whether reprobation is a true teaching by assuming to be true in the first place. That is, if sustained faith to the end of one’s life is proof of salvation, then how can we tell whether the cause was election or salvation by works? It proves nothing.
And of course, his claim that the elect have a bigger, deeper emotion about their salvation is pure fiction; he made it up in order to try and connect dots that are a million miles apart. To quote yet another movie line, “It ain’t fittin’”.
But I think you are moving toward an argument for Free Grace, another fascinating topic, and I must attend to other things and come back to that.
Paula,
Of course Calvin did the “affirming the consequent” and it is taken to the extreme by Bezae. You could continue pursue this one if it is fruitful.
My position on the assurance is very simple. It stems from the structure inherent in the texts, and not by any experience as per the calvinists (and I guess it is your position also).
My take is this: salvation is absolutely PERFECTED at per point of believing. It is simply irrevocable.
The important question now is AFTER salvation what?
Let me get back to the perfected salvation per believing. For example: the use of the perfect participle such as in Eps2:8 emphasizes the finished product, not the process. The process is completed and the static result continues (aftermath).
The phrase “are saved” — from sesosmenoi (are saved) is perfect passive participle of sozw. The combination of the perfect with the present este (are) is the NT pattern to express the “aftermath,” the completed process of salvation at the point of believing.
The combining of the perfect passive & the present (are saved) to express static result of the perfect is key here. James does not modify Paul. Paul does not need supplementation, explanation, or neutralization resulting in the explaining away of the perfect passive participle here. The perfect result IS there in the structure of the text.
The perfect example of the perfect passive with the continuing static result is Jn19:30 when our Lord said re. His redemptive work: TETELESTHAI — perfected or finished. The process was completed then. The result continues, not the process.
Back to perfected salvation: Subsequent works do not add, or modify or change the perfected salvation. It is perfected instantaneously at a point in time. We don’t need to perfect the perfect. Works are NOT for salvation as per Rom4:4-5.
Works in James 2, neither adds, nor confirms; or shows fruits of salvation.
I see works as natural expression of marinated Bible doctrines in someone’s soul.
Doctrinal works are products of the operation of the living doctrine in the soul empowers by the Spirit. Doctrinal works are expressions of spiritual life (not eternal life). So the emphasis is on doctrine in the soul, not works or projects or testimonies. I don’t believe in testimonies or braggamonies.
Spiritual life, for me, is NOT works, but thinking doctrinally (Rom12:1-3).
My take is very simple: fellowship with God is filling by the Spirit (Eps5:18) and growing in spiritual life is walk by means of the Spirit (Gal5:16). This must be maintained continually as per present imperative of filling in Eps5:18.
Growing in spiritual life is a continuous acquisition of Bible teaching. And the application of such is not primarily by means of works, but by increasingly becoming harmonious in thinking with God’s thinking.
I see the pattern of spiritual life in Jesus’ 33 years of learning & applying doctrine.
He did not run around and do things His first 30 years. He grew in grace and spiritual life (Luk2:52) and reached the highest level of spirituality–fullness or pleroma in Eps4:13. Hence, as a God-man, He did not use His omnipotence to defeat the Devil when tempted. He uses doctrine implanted in His human soul to destroy the works of the Devil (Mt 4:1-11). The highest spiritual life expression I see is when Jesus uses the Scripture in His soul to defeat Satan.
That battle is won in His soul where bible teaching resides and living and active.
This kind of life is opened for all saved believers.
I will go out of the country very soon. Will be back in October.
Yes, exactly, and an excellent connection to Jesus’ triumphant “paid in full!”. And I very much like your term “braggamonies”.
Allow me to add what I recently stated in an email to a friend on this topic:
” We need to patiently establish one point before moving on to another. We need to thoroughly establish salvation by faith alone before we can present the counter-balance of dying to sin, because otherwise people may come to a shallow conclusion that you really can meld this with salvation by works. It’s a delicate balance but I think people fall on one side or the other because we are not patient enough to work through the points.
My simplest point about faith/works is found in Gal. 3:2-5–
‘I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by human effort? Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by your observing the law, or by your believing what you heard?’
That is, if we are saved without works, we are preserved without works. But at the same time, if we truly are saved we have died to sin. Yet again, if this means we cannot sin, then all of Paul’s exhortations to purity and holiness are wasted since it is a foregone conclusion.
And yet again, when we observe clearly evil people claiming Christ, can we do anything but conclude they were never saved? This is the point at which I press for details on exactly what the gospel is, to make sure people are saved by right belief, not emotion or works.”
Knowing the gospel clearly and simply is everything. We must come to the one and only Son of God with faith in His death on our behalf and His resurrection in a new physical body, and we must come not merely for “fire insurance” but because we want to be reconciled with God, because we love Him and are grateful for our salvation.
Then, those who presented the gospel to such a one must see to it that they are not abandoned like an unwanted baby but nurtured and trained, so that they will learn to die to sin.
Lu, you take care on your travels. The workers for the harvest are few.
For anyone interested:
http://www.fether.net/readme/
I think a reading of Charles Spurgeon “A Defense of Calvinism” is in order here.
http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
“You guys keep posting Calvin, he’s a good read as well as Martin Luther, well that is till it comes to their view on women, but that is a sign of the times they were in. ”
You mean they were going along with the crowd? Sort of like going along with the state church mentality and sacraments that should not concern us when it comes to their interpretations?
I wonder if Paul was “a product of his time”.
Oh they believed what they said to be true Lydia. Read the commentaries on Genesis. Calvin believed that women were created in the image of God. He just believed that they were a little less inferior. He did acknowledge that we are created in the image of God. And yes, in a way culture had something to do with it. Doesn’t it usually?
Read Calvin’s 11th sermon on Job or his commentary on Genesis 2:18.
“And yes, in a way culture had something to do with it. Doesn’t it usually? ”
In what respect should culture have to do with it? I have Servetus arrested and go along with the burning because culture says it is ok? I deduct from scripture that grace comes through sacraments because so many around me in positions of power say it is so?
That culture?
Now if you are suggesting that all that Calvin wrote be tossed aside I disagree. I listen to many good Bible teachers that teach complimentarianism and though I disagree with this teaching or even hierarchy, they have some very good, sound teaching of the Bible and I still listen and learn from them. So no I don’t throw away all of Calvin’s teaching because of the few I disagree with. I consider him and Martin Luther great theologians worth reading.
Interestingly enough however, there are writings that show there may have been women deacons in Calvin’s Geneva church. This by Brian Schwertly, who is another I read from time to time, is an interesting read.
http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/deacon.htm
To save time here is what he wrote concerning John Calvin’s view of deaconesses in the church.
http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/deacon.htm#Calvin
This from Mark at HereIBlog is profound from John Calvin and to me sums it all up. Great quote.
http://hereiblog.com/lords-day-0912-adopted-life/
Greg,
I can’t speak for lu ba bi, but I can defeat the TULI of TULIP with just the Bible and a concordance.
I noticed Dr. Willingham also put out a similar challenge.
Let me turn the question around. Can you, Dr. Willingham or anyone else defend the TULIP with just the Bible and a concordance.
I’d like to see that too. I’ve seen claims and assertions and pressure to bow before credentials or longevity, but no consistent or logical arguments from scripture itself. Even Calvin and Luther had blatant logical errors, some of which have already been exposed, and these have not been countered.
And Paula I would tell you, if you dare look through all the comments that scripture has been an important and integral part of what we have shown you. What you are saying is simply not true. Believing in Sola Scriptura or Scripture alone is the only thing that drives this theology. You have been given a lot of scripture. Whole chapters, books of the Bible as a matter of fact. I am willing and able and excited about using only the Bible to show why I believe in TULIP. No problem as far as I am concerned.
Don, Yes I can defend the TULIP with just the Word of God quite easily… (Just open the Bible and Read it! DONE!!!)
However, I will not allow you or Lu to define the rules of any debate I am going to spend any length of time engaging in.
Theological debate is not just about what you do not believe but you must be able to defend what you actually believe as well.
Rule number #1 – You must define and defend each point of your own theology. I will start by defining and defending the doctrine of Total Depravity, and you can start by defining and defending the doctrine of Partial Depravity, or No Depravity at all, which ever you believe to be the truth.
When you tell me you accept Rule #1 I will know you are serious and I will put forth the rest of the rules before we start.
OK?
And I can show TULIP with just a Bible.
Oh so my answer would be a definite yes. I can defend TULIP with just a Bible and if I have to use a concordance I will.
I’d love to. I will preface by saying that I will be out of pocket from Thursday to Saturday or longer, but can resume when I am available. We can begin after I get home from work tonight, go as long as I can until I am out of pocket for a few days. But sure, I’d love the challenge.
Debbie,
When I say defend with the Bible, I don’t mean just listing several verses and then saying no explanation needed. I want the explanation. Otherwise you’re just listing and not defending. Fair enough?
Don: I am willing, able, would love to. Fair enough.
Now I would add to if I may and I am willing to abide by this as well if agreed upon.
No ad hominem attacks,No getting off track, no rabbit trails, the Bible and commentaries(if I need a commentary ha) only, sticking with TULIP in order, no jumping around. Fair enough?
I might add, I really do use commentaries quite often.
Why not just use the scriptures and discuss the Greek? Commentaries will get you guys off track.
I can do it any way one wants.
I’m flexible.
‘literal’ or ‘dynamic’ translations of Greek can be taken to extremes and provide difficulty for the person translating for him/herself
in relying on a ‘translator’, good to know what ‘type’ (literal or dynamic) of translation is being done (or a combo), as it will affect the meaning of the English
Various commentaries might provide some insight into how different translators handled a particular Greek passage of Scripture. And in reading a ‘variety’ of commentaries, a picture comes forward with a little bit more clarity about the biases of the translator
Just some thoughts . . .
Christiane,
My thought on translations is that “no such thing as a literal translation” exists. Some are “more” literal than others, but all require picking a translation for a word from a range of meanings.
I think that is why our generation is so blessed to have so many good translations.
Sorry for not ‘expanding’ on a definition, so I found this for you as one reference that might be useful. (there are others, of course)
“Methods of Translation
1. Literal translation. Attempts to keep the exact words and phrases of the original. It is faithful to the original text, but sometimes hard to understand. Keeps a constant historical distance. Examples: King James, New American Standard.
2. Dynamic equivalent translation. Attempts to keep a constant historical distance with regard to history and facts, but updates the writing style and grammar. Example: New International Version (NIV), New English Bible.
3. Free translation (paraphrase). Translates the ideas from the original text but without being constrained by the original words or language. Seeks to eliminate historical distance. Readable, but not always exact because interpretation depends upon the translators. Example: Contemporary English Version (CEV), “The Message.”
I am sympathetic with your own point of view, SSBN, in the sense that I think I understand where you may be coming from.
“And in reading a ‘variety’ of commentaries, a picture comes forward with a little bit more clarity about the biases of the translator”
Exactly. So why go there?
So, it becomes a “my commentary is better than your commentary” debate.
Just a thought.
I think the value of experts in any Bible-related debate is in linguistics and history and logic. Those are the tools we use to examine the text. In contrast, a commentary is simply an opinion, educated or not. I don’t want others to think for me but to give me the tools I need to think for myself.
Just as a blog does not make one a writer, a commentary does not make one a theologian and an interlinear does not make one a linguist. So when, for example, Lu cites linguistic data, one must deal with that data instead of merely citing someone who thinks its rubbish; it is not enough to label it so but requires one to demonstrate it so. And linguistics, esp. grammar, is more of a hard science along the lines of archaeology; it is what it is, and only those who at least grasp the fundamentals of grammar can speak on the topic with authority.
But interpretation is the end we can come to only after picking up the tools and using them, and it does not require expertise but only clear and honest thinking.
An illustration of this can be found in military aviation: fighter jets are designed by PhDs, built by MSs, flown by BSs, and maintained by those with high school diplomas. Likewise, the basic researchers in history and language are the PhDs; the theologians are the MSs; the commentators are the BSs, and the rest of us are the HS grads. Not a perfect analogy but there it is.
As I said. I have no problem doing it any way one wants. With or without. Discussing the Greek and original words. I’m very flexible.
A VARIETY of commentaries, not all in agreement, can be examined in the spirit of ‘never look at just one reference’.
After a while, patterns emerge among the various commentaries that show areas of disagreement.
It’s kind of like that old saying: never base an entire evaluation on one test score. You won’t get a ‘range’ from just one commentary. Also, this: various commentaries may also give references that can be followed up . . . if you are really on the hunt for information, why not?
If you have already ‘made up your mind’, this is a waste of time for you . . . depends on where you are at.
Just some more thoughts . . .
Just quit changing the rules, let’s settle on this and get discussing.
Greg,
You originally asked if even one point of Calvinism can be defeated with just using the Bible. I answered yes I can.
I then asked if one could defend Calvinism with just the Bible. Thus far, yourself and Debbie have both said yes.
The debate is not about what I do or do not believe, its about defending or defeating Calvinism.
Therefore, with you first rule I would say, present your case in the affirmative and I will attempt to defeat it with the denial.
Don,
If there is going to be a serious debate about Biblical Theology then I am not about to let you limit the scope of the debate to an examination of just what I believe, without an equal opportunity to examine the validity of your alternate views.
The Scriptures tell us to be ready to give a defense of our faith (1 Pet. 3:15)… I am more than ready to defend what I believe the Bible clearly teaches… If you are not willing to do likewise then just say so and move on… But in doing so you will have proven that you are just here on SBC-Voices to attack and ridicule the faith of others when you are not even able to defend your own beliefs. That’s not a reputation that I would want to have attached to my name, but if you now back out of the debate I understand.
Grace Always,
QUOTE you are a Calvinist because you defend it with great emotion END QUOTE
What part of “I do not call myself a Calvinist” to you not understand? This is what I was referring to: “you just jump to conclusions, attack, attack, attack” and then blame everbody else for picking on you.
Show me one post in which I defended Calvinism–especially TULIP. I never have because I don’t follow that particular method of defining my theology. But, you just say whatever comes to mind about whomever you choose to put in your sights.
You also say, “I follow logic” implying that you alone know anything about logic. Sense my degree is actually in philosophy, I can say with pretty good authority, that you do not always follow the rules of logic — unless you mean, your rules of logic.
You also say, “I stick to standards of exegesis,” implying that you alone know and apply the rules of exegesis. While I do not always disagree with your exegesis, I’m not convinced you are the only qualified exegete on this blog. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I think you would have less heartburn if you dropped the “their picking on me attitude.” Once you adopt that attitude on a blog, it is like blood in the water.
By the way, just for your information, fighter jets are not designed by all Ph.D’s. One of my members is a retired designer for a top secret aircraft and he does not have a Ph.D.
And, for what it’s worth, I agree with you on the need to borrow from experts in various fields. Nobody can know everything. Part of being an exegete is the ability to determine which experts are closest to the truth.
SSBN,
Look again: I said “To apply the same standard to you”. It was HYPOTHETICAL and a vain attempt to get you to live by the standards you demand for others. Talk about blaming others for attacking you!
And the logic I referred to was STANDARD, not my own.
But why do I bother? The thin-skinned here do nothing but whine.
PS: that little jab about the PhDs is SO far off the point. Wow. Just wow.
SSBN,
You hit a girl dude… that’s just not right. Wink, wink,
Ladies and Gentlemen, seriously…
800+ comments? I looked back and the best I can tell, going to the start of this year, this is the second most commented post here and it just keeps going round and round and round…
Granted, I tried to add to it here and there, and I’m thinking about pulling a Job and repenting in dust and ashes.
This goes back to what I said in the opening: 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.
I was hoping to give a different analogy to help explain things and maybe inspire a little discussion on the topic not spark a verbal-war.
Here’s a little wisdom from Paul: But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?…Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God.–2 Cor 2:14-16, 3:5… people, go be an aroma to someone and pray it’s from life to life.
I mean, seriously…and I point the finger at myself (if not more) than at anyone else…but if we shared the gospel with even half the fervor and time spent that we accuse each other of bad exegesis imagine the possibilities of what could be!
Greg,
The debate was supposed to be about Calvinism. In a typical debate one affirms and one denies. If you allow it be about what anyone believes about anything, the debate will never stay on subject. Remember we are not the only two on this thread.
However, if I have to agree to your rules to keep you from backing out, well then I agree to your rule #1.
What’s your next rule?
Don, you’re right about how a serious debate is conducted, and what happens when people just want a free-for-all. But it appears no one is interested in a serious debate. I have lost hope of any Calvinist willing to abide by standard debate conventions. I’m moving on, sorry.
GREAT NEWS EVERYONE!
Paula writes “I’m moving on…”
I can feel the love…. And may this exact kind of love come back to you, pressed together and multiplied. buh bye!
A better ‘blessing’ here, for ALL of us together, and I think we ALL need it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHi-1taeqeo&feature=related
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5696/9/
“I remember the first time it became crystal clear to me that there is no such thing as Christianity, but only competing Christianities. It was when I was working on my doctoral dissertation on Christians who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. During that time I attended a most remarkable conference in New York on hidden children of the Holocaust. This gathering brought together the now-grown adults who had hidden from the Nazis to survive. Some of these children were saved by Christian families.
The most memorable speaker for me was a hidden child, and now a sociologist, named Nechama Tec. A Polish Jew, she survived the war hiding with Christians. She was asked after her address whether it was Christianity that motivated her rescuers. Her unforgettable response went like this: “It wasn’t just any kind of Christianity that would motivate a rescuer. Only a certain kind of Christianity would lead someone to risk their lives for us.”
A certain kind of Christianity — the phrase stayed with me. It is enormously helpful. From hard experience, young Nechama Tec learned the difference between versions of Christianity that teach hatred of the religious/ethnic other and versions that teach sacrificial and inclusive love. Her very survival depended on being able to tell the difference between these competing Christianities and the people who embodied them. ”
David Gushee
Don,
If you are truly serious send me an email at alfordg@paec.org and we can settle on the rules of a debate between you and I (not everyone else on this blog).
I will even offer to post this debate on my blog as I am sure we have worn out our time on this post.
Comments on this entry are closed.