Editor’s Note: I originally posted this at my own blog quite a while ago and had thought about publishing it here at that time but didn’t. While I am waiting for some of our contributors to finish up some posts and get them ready to go, I figured I would offer this as fodder for discussion. If I have misrepresented any of the core of the five points of TULIP, feel free to offer some constructive correction. It was not my intention to flesh them out fully, but neither did I desire to misrepresent them.
I have had a flash of inspiration. Perhaps someone, somewhere has already done this before, but I can’t say that I have seen it elsewhere so I thought I would give it a whirl. I keep seeing people complain about hyper-Calvinists. I have a dear brother in the Lord who was burned so bad by a group of extreme hyper-Calvinists (we referred to them as 6.5 pointers in frustration) that he would nearly froth at the mouth at the mere mention of Calvinism at all. This post should not be taken as a diatribe against Calvinism as a whole. It is meant in a spirit of levity to encourage potential discussion. I love my brothers and sisters who are serious Calvinists and who are passionate for the Lord and the Gospel.
Please further note that I am not a 5-point Calvinist. At most, I probably agree with one or two of the points of the TULIP, but I will try to describe the points with some accuracy up through my own addition. These descriptions will be intermingled with my observations as well on the ones that I don’t have full agreement. With all that said, here is the acronym spelled out for posterity.
T – Total Depravity
Ok, I think we all pretty much get that and know what it means I would think. Man is totally depraved. Scripture makes this point repeatedly, and one episode of Jerry Springer will drive this point home to even the most reluctant of individuals I would think. The additional teaching behind this however is that man is completely helpless regarding his salvation. We don’t even look for salvation on our own.
U – Unconditional Election
We can not earn God’s grace and cannot merit salvation. There is nothing within us that makes God love us, He just does. All our righteousness is filthy rags type of things are the general point of this point. From my perspective, the idea behind this is generally right, but I hesitate to do much explaining about how God does these things. Even Paul was eventually rendered speechless in this regard (see the end of Romans 11). Pushing this doctrine to its limit starts to move into double predestination and things that I generally disagree with as well.
L – Limited Atonement
Since not everyone is saved according to the words of Jesus, it follows that Jesus’ death must not be effective for all people in the end of all things. This particular point is generally arrived at through logical means in my experience. Both those who support it and those who argue against it can cite John 3:16 as it becomes a discussion/argument of who is covered by whosoever. We have had plenty of those exact arguments here in fact.
I – Irresistible Grace
This is the teaching that God’s grace is irresistible to those who are elected to salvation and they will respond to the call of God through the Spirit. This is also a hotly debatable topic, mostly because simple observation yields plenty of examples of people who hear the clear Gospel message and don’t respond to it. Frankly, I think it is more amazing that anyone can reject God at all. This doctrine reflects that in some means, but I think any attempt to explain why some reject God’s call by placing them in a category of “unelected” or whatever is not correct.
P – Perseverance of the Saints
This doctrine simply states that those who are called, elected and chosen will remain in the faith without fail as God is capable of keeping them. This sentiment is perfectly biblical and true as far as it goes. I think the main problem in applying it stems from the fact that we never can know who is who from our limited perspective. In fact, many of the problems of Calvinist theology and much of the rest of theology is due to our extremely limited understanding and perspective.
Y – You’re Irrelevant
This addition is all mine, but you may have seen it coming. Given all of the above as absolutely true, many have moved on to another very logical point. It doesn’t matter what we do, since God has planned it all ahead of time. This comes out in various ways. I have seen a church that did no external evangelism. They preached the Gospel in Sunday morning service and expected God to draw those who were called to their building. I have seen others who assume that because everything is up to God, it absolutely doesn’t matter what you do about anything. Ultimately you are either chosen or not chosen, so just live your life and trust God(I mean why not do it anyway right) and He will do everything. I couldn’t disagree more with this idea and I know that most Calvinists don’t agree with it either. But I can assure you that I have known people who do think this way, and they weren’t all Calvinists either.
Let me say it once again. I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I will work alongside you all day long to share the Gospel and make disciples for Jesus Christ. I just wanted to write a post that points out the all too real end of taking this theology to its logical conclusions (I have seen it far too often for my liking). The only thing that can keep us from going there is the reminder that while all of these points may be true from God’s perspective; we are not God and they don’t work from our limited perspective. So let’s just do what He has called us to do. Go and make disciples of all the nations.
You should read Dr. George W. Truett’s Address at C.H. Spurgeon Centenary in the Royal Albert Hall in London in 1934, where he was introduced by the Prime Minister of the British Empire, especially with reference to your last point about being irrelevant. Dr. Truett stated: “Calvinism magnified the sovereignty of God and placed a crown on the head of the individual man, whoever and wherever he might be . It reminded an of his direct and inescapable responsibility to God.. It laid hold of man and lifted him above the heads of priest and archbishop and cardinal and pope and king and president and potentate and told him that he must answer directly to God.”(The Inspiration of Ideals, p.161) And then you should read Truett’s commendation of the five point hyper calvinist Spurgeon, if you define a hyper-calvinist as one who hold all five points. Actually, it might help you, dear brother, to note that my ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell, was a supralapsarian hyper calvinist, and he would tell you so from the pulpit and person to person. He was a soul winner par excellence, and he preached a revival once in a country church in Georgia where he had 100 converts. Dr. Robert G. Lee thought so much of Dr. Campbell that he put it in his will that Dr. Campbell would preach his funeral. Of the five ministers, the one Dr. Lee sought to guarantee would be there to preach his funeral was the fellow who was a professed hyper calvinist and the founder of the American Race Track Chaplaincy when he was pastor of the FBC of Hialeah, Fla.(cf. Who’s Who in Religion, 2nd edn. Chicago: Marquis, 1977). Dr. Campbell once pleaded with a member of my family to look to Christ until tears ran down the man’s face.
Dr. James,
I think that there are a lot of different definitions of hyper-Calvinism floating around out there, which is why I offered this one with it’s slightly tongue-in-cheek 6th point. I don’t know a whole lot of people who hold to this extreme sort of view, but I do know some. I was actually asked a question by one of the deacons in my ordination council that suggested that he had either met someone who thought that way or was concerned about the issue in any case.
“It doesn’t matter what we do, since God has planned it all ahead of time.”
Do you not believe that all things happen according to God’s perfect plan/will? If you do, then how are you not open to the same charge? If you do not, then do you believe God’s plan/will for future events is limited? Or maybe you seperate God’s will from his plan, such that you believe he has a perfect will pertaining to all things that will be accomplished but that his plans are something different.
Thanks.
Adam,
I don’t believe that everything happens exactly the way God wants it to happen. When Scripture says that God is not willing that any should perish, and yet we know from the testimony of Christ that there are some who do perish; there is a problem to reconcile there. How we reconcile that is part of the ultimate debate in this matter. I think our westernized desire to lock this issue down has led us to paint ourselves into a corner on both sides. Paul wrestles with this problem and never gives a definitive answer to lock it down for all time or we wouldn’t even have this discussion at all.
All that to answer your questions in order thusly: no, N/A, and I have no idea at all since He hasn’t seen fit to let me in on the details as such.
in my faith, no one believes that there is anyone who is predestined to sin . . . there is a view of predestination, yes, but it is based on the GOODNESS of God . . . and much of the speculation about predestination is permitted, none of it sees God as the source of evil or evil-doing . . .
it is said that He ‘permits’ evil to happen, but that He is not the cause of it in anyway
and for those engaged in dialogue concerning Calvinism, pro or con, here’s an interesting tip:
read Romans 11, THEN read Romans 10, THEN read Romans 9
it’s much clearer that way, the intention, I think
give it a try . . . it may help some of you
In my personal experience there are far more traditionalists that worry about the Y than real TULIP-Y calvinists. It’s more of a distortion than a reality. The Y might seem to some to be a logical extension but is unsupported by scripture and is somewhat rare in experience.
“there is a problem to reconcile there.”
Well, not a problem but two things which at first glance seem contradictory. Isaiah 46:10 and Psalm 115:3 speak of God’s perfect plan being accomplished. The picture is of a God who is never frusterated in getting what He wants. Not even in his ability to save anyone at anytime. Do you believ God can save anyone at any time? I do! It fuels my evangelism, and I believe it fueled Paul’s as well (2 Tim 2:10). You mention 2 Peter 3:9 and seem to believe there is a problem to reconcile. But the “anyone” is clearly equated in context with “you” (same verse) meaning believers. These folk are the same as the “beloved” in v. 8 and “those who have recieved faith” in 1:1. Peter is talking to believers about the final salvation of God which is coming mentioned in v. 4. So 2 Peter 3 does not give us reason to doubt that God does in fact have a perfect plan that will be accomplished. It actually supports the claim.
“I think our westernized desire to lock this issue down has led us to paint ourselves into a corner on both sides.”
I don’t see any reason to think this is a matter of being western. Or maybe you mean “modern” or “enlightenment”? But surely you know that there are people who embrace reformed theology around the globe, and that Augustine, for instance, was hardly western or modern. A more charitable read would be to say that Christians have generally wanted to understand how these pasages fit, and some have held out hope that there is a way to understand these ideas of sovereignty and free will in a way that works (compatibilism).
But I wonder why you think it is somehow wrong headed (my word, perhaps too strong) to systematize issues of sovereignty and free will (libertarianism, compatibilism, molinism, etc) but not, for instance, in matters of Christology. For instance, when we speak of Jesus being God and man, we don’t throw up our hands and say “we’ll just never understand” but rather, we have the chalcedonian creed. Do you think chalcedon is a misguided attempt to “lock down” something which should remain unreconciled, or do you take a different approach to matters of salvation than Christology, in terms of method?
Thanks.
You cite a couple of verses that say that God always gets His way and I will not argue with them, yet I still have to hold them in tension with statements from Jesus like Matthew 23:37. And they will stay in tension because I don’t know the mind of God and I am not His counselor.
I meant westernized in the sense of Greek philosophical culture which also affected Augustine plenty. People tend to gravitate toward Greek thought patterns in interpreting the NT, probably because it was written in Greek. The problem is that the writers of the NT were Jewish and thought in Hebraic terms and patterns even as they were writing in Greek, so working their writing through a Greek philosophical grid causes us to lose the tracks. There is a vast difference in mind set between the two cultures and I would argue that taking a more Hebraic tack in understanding the NT would yield more fruitful understanding of many of the places where we do find difficulty understanding.
In fact, the current debate over Romans 9 in another thread here on our site would probably be mitigated somewhat by taking Paul’s writing as a rabbinic midrash on the passages instead of a literal definition of the work of God with Jacob and Esau, in my opinion. Further, as I have noted in similar debates at times past, Paul spends essentially three chapters (Romans 9-11) working with the themes of God sovereignty and election and then punts the whole thing at the conclusion with a doxology about the greatness of God without any definitive answer to the question. If he did that when writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what makes us think that we are going to do him one better by answering the question once and for all.
Maybe we can better spend our time getting to know God more deeply and serving Him with some of that passion as we live our lives.
Jeff, you said:
Maybe we can better spend our time getting to know God more deeply and serving Him with some of that passion as we live our lives.
The reality is that for many of the greatest theologians in Church history, Romans 9 and the implications that many of us see clearly there exegetically (and not merely philosophically) indeed led to a deepening walk with Christ and an insatiable passion for His glory. Really, I am not sure you get any more passionate than men like George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, David Brainerd, Andrew Fuller, and William Carey.
Jeff, one thing I have recognized is many non-Calvinists dismiss (or just don’t understand) the spiritual vitality that often comes from embracing the Doctrines of Grace. For the vast majority of us, it is not a wooden system that we are simply convinced of from Scripture, but rather it is an experience with a Holy and Merciful God whose presence we do not deserve to stand in, but in whose Grace we stand in awe of.
D.R.,
And I am good with that. Randall mentioned that he didn’t think he had discussed this stuff with me before and I am sure that he hadn’t, because I usually just stay out of the comment streams when the discussions come up. Frankly, this post is a little out of character for me, which is what happens when Dave is away and I feel like I have to fill content in his absence.
I am glad that it spurred passion in those men and I have great respect for all of them. I just may not agree on every jot and tittle with them or with you either, and I don’t think that is a problem when it all comes down to it. We can still go forth and share Jesus the Messiah with all we come into contact with and live it out in our daily lives no matter which way we believe on the details of the TULIP.
Shalom.
Jeff — why do Baptists continue to harbor this ‘tension’ idea as the excuse to continue to so poorly interpret Scripture? Might I suggest that you read John Gill’s incredible explanation of this passage below which is an utter refutation of this as any passage that demands tension so to keep free will intact. Who is Jerusalem in this passage? Clearly it is the Pharisees. Please read Gill’s logical and rational explanation below:
“And it is to be observed, that the persons whom Christ would have gathered, are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered; but their rulers were not willing that they should, and be made proselytes to him, and come under his wings. It is not said, “how often would I have gathered you, and you would not!” nor, “I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not”; nor, “I would have gathered thy children, and they would not”; but, “how often would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not!” Which observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage in favour of free will.”
[http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-23-37.html?p=2]
I dunno…I find His grace irresistible.
But I do think many of those letters are unbiblical and should be tossed out.
Oh those wacky Calvinists. They seem to delight in bringing doubt to people.
I spent a dozen or more years as a Presbyterian and didn’t see anything remotely resembling your “Y” point. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the worst thing about Calvinism is what others say about it. What others say Calvinists say.
To more currently pressing issues, what’s a majority failure to make disciples, of converts, the logical conclusion of?
Bob,
I am not saying that they aren’t rare. Just that they are less rare than say Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster.
As for your question, perhaps an overabundance of people who call Jesus, Lord, but aren’t willing to do what He says, who teach others to do the same; as opposed to those who come to Him and learn from Him and obey Him and teach others by example to do likewise.
Jeff,
Rarer than Bigfoot. That didn’t narrow anything down. Sightings of Bigfoot are so common they even have a TV program on Animal Planet. Funny thing though, nobody has found a live, dead or even any remains of one. I’d say more but I think I just heard a Bigfoot outside my door.
Even worse than “You’re irrelevant” is “God’s foreknowledge of man’s response is irrelevant.” I can happily subscribe to being a BACON Calvinist as “already elected” doesn’t carry the negative (and IMO unscriptural) connotation of UNCONDITIONAL election. In discussions with a Calvinist in a prior thread he described God’s actions and man’s reactions as a big pile of pick up sticks where every action affects others. I think that this is a good description of the CONDITIONS that God in His foreknowledge evaluated before time began in making His election. The statement that God’s foreknowledge is irrelevant as all would reject Him denigrates the power of the Holy Spirit. Romans 2, 8 +9 state that we are already elected but are silent on the thought process God uses. Calvin made the UNCONDITIONAL aspect out of whole cloth.
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your post, brother.
I don’t think I’ve engaged with you before on these threads, but a couple of statements you made earlier rather startled me:
While I know that you are aware of the number of passages that seem to speak contrary to what you posited here, I would offer just one for the sake of discussion:
You offered 2 Pe. 3:9 as evidence that not everything happens as God wants it, but I’m sure you are aware of the oft cited exegesis that shows this speaking of the elect. What I am wondering is how do you reconcile the passages such a Eph. 1:11 etc., with your statement? Paul here seems to leave no room for anything frustrating the will of God, especially in relation to our salvation.
God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture as the Eternal, Immutable, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of Heaven and Earth is overwhelming. It seems that this should be a major part of our hermeneutic when interpreting any passage concerning the will/purpose/desire of God. To interpret any passage (such as 2 Pe. 3:9) without this over-arching understanding of the nature of God seems a grave mistake. And it even seems to whisper of a hermeneutic that has crept in and diminished the Majesty of the Almighty.
Should we not tend toward the primacy of the attributes of God in our interpretations, rather than elevating anything to the position of being able to frustrate His will/purpose/desire?
You later pointed to Paul’s mighty wrestling with the immense implications of the Sovereignty of God, and you concluded the following:
Brother, I think Paul would be a little surprised to find that he had “punted.” While he does acknowledge the inscrutable nature of God’s ways in the closing verses of ch. 11, he concludes with a clear and dramatic proclamation that leaves no doubt as to where he landed at the end of his wrestling:
After 11 chapters of masterful argument in the realm of soteriology, Paul’s conclusion is unmistakable: All things are from God…All things are through God…All things are to God. This is not the language of a man who has surrendered to the idea that anything can frustrate the purpose/will/desire of God. Nay! His hermeneutic is clear: It’s all from, through, and to God–to Him alone be glory!
That gets my blood pumping. I want to stand up and shout: Yeah! That’s my God right there! Any lesser god is no god at all!
Shouldn’t we interpret all passages concerning the purpose/will/desire of God with this Pauline Paradigm?
Thank you again, brother
Soli Deo Gloria
Two points from this Calvinist.
I’m beginning to see Irresistable Grace as a tautology. Grace is irresistable, except when it isn’t. People can resist saving grace, except when they can’t. Anyone who is saved can truly say that saving grace was irresistable, for them.
Unconditional election: When we say unconditional, of course we mean that we don’t know why God elects, not that he doesn’t have reasons. The reason we stick to it is (and some will find this offensive) the alternative of God electing because he foresees our choice for him, is frankly embarrassing. What that says, essentially, is that election means exactly nothing. The third alternative, that God elects groups instead of individuals, is far more compelling than the second alternative.
I would have to agree with you on that first point. In order for it to hold up, it has to be taken as a tautology. It is what it is and all of that. It helps define what it is about Calvinism that doesn’t work for me.
And on the unconditional election thing. As I noted in another comment, I really think that Paul’s statements taken to derive unconditional election are specifically in regard to the nation of Israel whom the Bible makes clear that God did not chose because of their inherent worthiness. It seems logical to try and extrapolate that beyond the nation of Israel, but it stands on less firm ground as we do so. As you noted, our best answer is that we simply don’t know what God is doing in this area because He hasn’t seen fit to let us know.
Bill — The Calvinist view is that everyone resists God’s will at various times before and after becoming Christians. The issue more correctly understood is “Do we ULTIMATELY” resist the sovereign will of God with our ‘free will’? The answer must be a resounding NO if indeed God is who he says he is.
Bill: That’s helpful but UNCONDITIONAL means just that- no conditions for God or man. Perhaps it just a poor choice of words given the unfortunate reality that the acronym is not taken from a flower called a “TALIP.” I do appreciate your agreement that we don’t know God’s thought process as Scripture is silent on it. However, I find it hard to grasp that an omniscient mind would ignore anything and act arbitrarily, which is another way of describing UNCONDITIONAL.
Walt: In my comment I obviously conflated conditions with reasons. God obviously has reasons for his election, but they are not conditioned on anything we do, not if the word “election” is to mean anything. I’ll say it again. Choosing us because he sees the future and knows that we will choose him is nonsensical. That’s like God choosing to make me 5’6″ because he sees the future and knows that I will be 5’6″. It’s not a choice at all. Now perhaps we are wrong and God does not choose individuals, but rather nations/groups. I can live with that.
Bill: Then you are denying that genuine free will exists as nothing we do matters. Apparently God gave Adam and Eve free will, enabling them to sin, then withdrew it for their descendants. If nothing I do matters to God why should I bother? God elects us all, as it is not His will that any should perish. However we are free to reject His offer of grace, just as did Adam and Eve. God thought so much of giving man free will that He allowed sin to be possible, thus giving man a genuine choice.
Walt: I feel like your last comment is at the tail end of a long conversation that I can’t seem to remember. I’m not sure how we got from my last comment to your last comment.
I don’t think the term unconditional is used by Calvinists the way you are using it. Election, the way we are thinking of it, is not a transaction. Election is not a reaction by God to some action by us (either present or future). We could be wrong about that, but that is the way we are using the word.
If God elects every human being, then election has no meaning. Why even introduce the word? And Jesus clearly uses the word elect in distinction to the unsaved. Calvinists may well be wrong about what election means, but it clearly doesn’t mean every person. There are no elect in hell.
Then how do you deal with http://bible.cc/2_peter/3-9.htm? Election clearly has meaning if God gave us genuine free will, enabling one effectively to resist the Holy Spirit’s call. God will not force conversion on the unwilling.
Walt: I’m still not following you. Are you saying God’s choice of us is in response to our free will choice of Him?
Regarding the passage in Peter, he is talking about God delaying the second coming of Christ, because there are yet people to be saved during that time period. But all along that time delay, people are and will be perishing, so I don’t think he means it the way you are taking it. If in fact the way most people think it goes, far more people will perish because of that delay than will be saved. (I’m a bit of a post-mil, so I’m not sure I believe that).
Perhaps you can just tell me straight out what you think election means, because I’m not catching it.
Bill: The reason for our frustration in communicating is that of two finite minds trying to understand how an infinite, omniscient mind works. My best understanding of election is that the omniscient mind considered every possible permutation and combination when electing to predestine some for heaven and others to hell. I understand your point about Peter but I also point out that it is not His will that any should perish.
Walt,
you said:
“God thought so much of giving man free will that He allowed sin to be possible, thus giving man a genuine choice.”
Choice in matters of morality are of the LAW.
God choosing to save us is not LAW but GRACE.
NOT law.
GRACE!
What you do matters for you [and I] will be judged for every careless word and action and much more for our deliberate ones.
But God saving you has nothing to do with your character, or your ability to make right choices. To claim that your salvation hinges on you [because of your right moral choice] is to actually reciprocal two things:
[1] That salvation comes by obedience, i.e. law.
[2] That you have a reason to boast. For after all, millions have rejected what you accepted, and your acceptance [and their rejection] makes all the difference.
peace brother
Mike:
I have NO reason to boast because my salvation would not have been possible without the grace of the Holy Spirit. Your premise that God deems His own foreknowledge irrelevant in predetermining my eternal fate and makes His decision arbitrarily regardless of my foreknown actions seems to me to assail God’s character of fairness and mercy and love.
Randall: Good analysis. If I may presume to speak for Jeff I think he was distinguishing between God’s permissive vs. perfect will, not stating that God doesn’t perfectly know the future. Jeff can correct me if I am wrong.
I don’t know if you noticed my earlier mention of the Matthew 23:37 statement as a further clarification on the will of God not always being realized. If God is indeed going to give us real choice in a meaningful way that isn’t an illusion it follows that some will chose the opposite of what God would have wanted us to chose. Either there is real choice at some point or there isn’t. This doesn’t prevent God from working all things together for good. In fact, if it weren’t for us making a mess of things in the first place it would likely be unnecessary for Him to do so in the first place.
You are going to have to help me out with what you mean here. Are you simply referring to Romans 11:36 or something more than that? I am of the opinion that the “Pauline paradigm” that is usually used in Christian theology is slightly skewed from what he was actually trying to say. I would back up that assertion with another quote from Peter (2 Peter 3:15-17)
To wit, the whole scope of Romans 9-11 is an explanatory journey to explain how Paul can assert what he just said at the end of Romans 8 about being inseparable from the love of God with the apparent separation of much of Israel (who were the point of God’s promises in the first place) from God via their rejection of the Gospel. Romans 9-11 is all about Israel and how God has dealt with them and the Gentiles are really only mentioned in passing during the whole argument. Thus the election that Paul keeps referring to is specifically about Israel as a nation and how it can be that some from that nation can be “unelected” and not thus nullify God’s promises to them. Paul’s warning to Gentiles about being careful not to get “cocky” in their position based on God’s willingness to break off some of the branches of Israel should be all the more sobering and a hard blast against the idea of unconditional election in fact. If even some of the unconditionally elected Israelites could be cut off, then no one would be safe. And yet, they are still not without hope in the end. On that we all have hope and are therefore encouraged to offer our lives to God as living sacrifices on that basis (Romans 12:1).
As for the “punt” statement, he flatly says that we don’t know the mind of God and can’t, so why do we keep trying to define who is what and how all the time?
Hi Jeff,
Many thanks for your reply, brother.
I was referring to Paul’s paradigm in 11:36 as it accords with God’s overwhelming revelation of Himself in Scripture as the Eternal, Immutable, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of Heaven and Earth.
Shouldn’t the primacy of God’s revelation of these majestic attributes regulate our interpretation of any passage that speaks of His purpose/will/desire? This is how He begins to reveal Himself in the opening chapters of Genesis, and this revelation is both enriched and consistent throughout the canon.
Doesn’t the idea of anything (or anyone) being able to frustrate His purpose/will/desire seem contradictory to God’s revelation of His own attributes?
I know that there are a handful of passages (such as Mt. 23:37) that create a tension with the larger corpus of revelation. But must we yield the greater to the lesser and determine that Almighty God’s will may be frustrated? His Sovereignty seems unassailable in Scripture. Can’t we say, with Paul, that even this (e.g. Mt. 23:37) is from God, through God, and to God to the glory of God, though in a way that is inscrutable to us?
I’m just extremely uncomfortable with saying that God’s purpose/will/desire can be frustrated or that He can fail in anything He has purposed/willed/desired to do.
Grace to you, brother
The semantics of the statement may make us feel better or worse, but the question is really this. Does God actually allow any freedom of choice or not? If we say yes, then the possibility, nay the probability then becomes that at some point, some one chooses some thing that goes against what God would have wanted. The fact that God would allow such a thing does not diminish His power or His sovereignty in any way as it is still His call to do as He desires. The fact that His desire to do this allows something that goes against His will might be the hardest thing of all for us to ever comprehend.
This is scarcely different than what the Calvinist doctrine of perfect vs. permissive will tries to accomplish or explain. The fact that God can do something doesn’t mean that He must do something. His failure to act is not a failure of power or will, rather it is a calculated restraint on His part for His own reasons, which we cannot and do not know or understand.
Jeff,
you said,
“Does God actually allow any freedom of choice or not? If we say yes, then the possibility, nay the probability then becomes that at some point, some one chooses some thing that goes against what God would have wanted. ”
God doesn’t want us to sin, yet we do. We have that freedom. But God also constrains our sin and limits it. He has that freedom.
Salvation is all of God. He has that freedom.
We sinful rebels can not ascend to God unless He allows it, yea moves in us to bring it real. We don’t have that freedom.
Obedience to God can not bring us salvation. We would have reason to boast. Therefore it can nor be by our choice that we cross that great divide, but only by His choice.
peace b rother
I think the better way of saying “You’re Irrelevant” would be…
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
Makes sense to me, but then that was a gift of God as well.
Adam,
I have to ask rather than presume. So does that mean that you think the Y is Scriptural and valid? This could be a problem for all of those folks that claim that people who believe that way don’t exist, so I am just wanting to make absolutely sure.
I’m not saying that these “TULIPY” Calvinists are more prevalent than Bigfoot, but if they do exist, they are not following the teachings of the Bible.
As a “TULIP” Calvinist myself I can understand how some might look at Ephesians 2 and think that they are Irrelevant, but there are many more chapters in the Bible.
I exist, but definitely not in the way you describe.
Evangelize! Preach! Sow the seed!
I guess I would rather be called a “sasquatch”.
Adam,
Thanks for answering. I didn’t presume that you were trying to uphold the Y without asking to clarify and I have no intention of calling you anything, that’s why I asked the question.
Besides, the last time I called anyone sasquatch it was a rather unfortunate group taunt at a basketball game when I was in college. 🙂
I have come to believe that many Southern Baptists are practicing Open Theists with Semi-Pelagian leanings. I firmly believe this is due to a lack of teaching consistent theology (Calvinist or not) from the pulpits of our churches.
Certainly, when confronted with these concerns, these Brothers and Sisters will deny these unorthodox views. But in practicing their religion, BOOM!!!! there it is!!!!!
disclaimer: I do not mean to imply that anyone is a REAL open theist nor a semi-pelagian….nor do I mean to offend anyone by this comment….and my apologies for splintering off on a tangent but some of the responses I have been reading sparked my semi-irresistible desire to spout off and I didn’t find a “Spout Off Here” post on the home page.
Anthony, I would go a step further and state that some Southern Baptists are universalists with practical atheism leanings. I firmly believe that this is due to a lack of really wanting to listen to the consistent theology and Bible teaching that IS presented from the pulpits of our churches (Calvinist or not).
They want to believe that everything is going to work out for everyone to get to go to heaven. This is evidenced by the fact that, in spite of the consistent theology of salvation by grace through faith alone that is preached from every pulpit I know anything about in SBC circles, some people still want to believe that Aunt Betty, who never acknowledged anything close to confessing Jesus as Lord and believing in the resurrection (my simple take on what it means to be a Christian from Ro. 10), held her own beliefs and was “Okay” with God (my apologies for the run on sentence there). So she must have gone to heaven, right?
As to the practical atheism charge, some Southern Baptists simply act like God doesn’t matter. This isn’t just a Southern Baptist problem. People go to church week after week yet they still live their daily routines giving no thought of His presence or work in their lives. Church is just fine and dandy, but don’t expect them to get too excited about actually committing to fully devoted discipleship. Nothing in their lives ever really changes. Daily life is never subjected to the standards of Scripture. Prayer is limited to “OMG”. Habits and attitudes are never submitted to the work of the Holy Spirit. For them, God just really doesn’t matter.
The fact is that I get sick and tired of hearing about the dearth of “theological” substance from our pulpits. I recognize that not every pastor is well-equipped theologically. I realize that there is probably a lot of “fluff” in some preacher’s sermons. I know that some guys have their “pet” issues (cigarettes, alcohol, politics, etc. ad nauseum). But I also know that, in Southern Baptist circles anyway, the Bible is taught and preached. People are presented with the Gospel. Life transforming truths are presented. And people leave those churches Sunday after Sunday with no intent whatsoever of actually making a commitment to allow the Holy Spirit to work in their lives.
So I guess there should be a “Spout Off Here” post somewhere. By the way, this isn’t aimed at you, Anthony. Your comment precipitated it, but I’m not leveling any kind of charge or disputing your statement at all.
To equate rejection of unconditional election as universalism is such an overreach that I feel no need to defend it.
I NEVER equated rejection of unconditional election with universalism. I NEVER mentioned unconditional election.
The overreach is in your assertion.
What I am “spouting off” about is the general lack of some Christians to “man up” to a theology that is plainly preached in every SBC church I know of–to wit, that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Him.
Don’t say that I’m saying what I’m not saying.
Thanks.
I have never attended an SBC church that didn’t “man up” to that clear biblical truth.
For the record–I REJECT unconditional election.
Just an FYI…..
Read what I wrote, Walt. I haven’t either. But the fact remains that some in our churches refuse to believe it and embrace a universalism that basically says, “Everything is going to work out if a person claims to be ‘okay’ in their relationship to God,” even though there is no evidence of such in their lives.
I wrote–“What I am “spouting off” about is the general lack of some Christians to “man up” to a theology that is plainly preached in every SBC church.” I’m not talking about our churches. I’m talking about individuals. I plainly said “some Christians,” not “some churches.”
Again, you have stated that I’m equating a rejection of unconditional election, a doctrinal stance which I personally reject, with universalism. I did not. To do such would be gross error. I think you have misread my original comment. My apologies for not communicating more clearly.
“…But the fact remains that some in OUR churches refuse to believe it and embrace a universalism that basically says, “Everything is going to work out if a person claims to be ‘okay’ in their relations…”
I repeat, I have never heard universalism preached in any of our churches.
And I repeat that I didn’t say that they did. I said that there are individuals within our churches who embrace it even though the preaching from the pulpits is in obvious contradiction to it. If you’re going to inject my statement with meaning that is plainly not there, I don’t know what else to say.
I’m not a universalist. I don’t preach universalism. I don’t know of any SBC churches that preach universalism. I don’t believe in unconditional election. I do, however, deal with people on a regular basis who embrace universalism in spite of those facts.
Oh well, I guess I’ll just resign myself to the fact that you and I aren’t communicating…….
And let me clarify that I should have said “some INDIVIDUALS in our churches…….” You’re emphasizing the wrong syllable, brother. I’ll take responsibility for the misunderstanding.
It’s subtle at times. And other times not subtle at all. But I hear Calvinist preachers (all the time) preaching about how you must feel about God (Piper is great at this). Or how to examine yourselves to make sure that you really (just dreadful) are in Christ.
There’s no assurance. How could there be when they’ve got that unbiblical doctrine that Christ only died for the elect. (it’s the “whole world” by the way)
Just because Christ forgave the “sins of the world”…and just because that death was for “the world”, does not mean that everyone is or will be saved.
Does everything always have to line up exactly with ‘our reason’? When it comes to God… no it does not.
Steve,
You were probably listening to one of those “dreadful” expository preachers…….”Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith.”….yes, I do believe I’ve read that somewhere before. There’s nothing about this statement that requires a person to doubt their salvation.
I’ve read this somewhere in this comment thread
And Steve,
Why does anyone spend eternity in perdition if Jesus “forgave the sins of the world”? What is God punishing? How can God be righteous and just in your scheme of justice?
I found brother Jeff’s post to be enlightening and again illustrative of the common misunderstandings found in explaining and reconciling Calvinism and the Tulip for non-adherents. I classify myself as a biblical Christian and pastor who merely understands and teaches the doctrines of Grace and the sovereignty of God in salvation, eschewing labels that bring confusion and disunity (while not disparing those that disagree).
Below, are a few remarks for each of Jeff’s TULIP pedals that may bring some clarity…
T – Total Depravity
” Ok, I think we all pretty much get that and know what it means I would think. Man is totally depraved. Scripture makes this point repeatedly, and one episode of Jerry Springer will drive this point home to even the most reluctant of individuals I would think. The additional teaching behind this however is that man is completely helpless regarding his salvation. We don’t even look for salvation on our own.”
BD: Very Good Jeff.. however if man is in a ‘Springer-like’, state of depravity and gospel disdain, how can he “even look for salvation on his own?” What do you do with Romans 3?
U – Unconditional Election
“We can not earn God’s grace and cannot merit salvation. There is nothing within us that makes God love us, He just does. All our righteousness is filthy rags type of things are the general point of this point. From my perspective, the idea behind this is generally right, but I hesitate to do much explaining about how God does these things. Even Paul was eventually rendered speechless in this regard (see the end of Romans 11). Pushing this doctrine to its limit starts to move into double predestination and things that I generally disagree with as well.”
BD: Well said- Double predestination aside, noting that you generally are in agreement with the T and U, how can one deny the whole package? This is hand in glove stuff. As to disagreement, viscerally or emotionally we may disagree with this doctrine among others, but the point must be driven home- what does the plain, face-value reading of the scripture say? What is the truth regardless of how it makes us feel?
L – Limited Atonement
“Since not everyone is saved according to the words of Jesus, it follows that Jesus’ death must not be effective for all people in the end of all things. This particular point is generally arrived at through logical means in my experience. Both those who support it and those who argue against it can cite John 3:16 as it becomes a discussion/argument of who is covered by whosoever. We have had plenty of those exact arguments here in fact.”
BD: this should not be a complicated as it is made by many. I once struggled with it until I understood what atonement (see its OT applications or efficacy) is and realize that we have a cross and atonement of Christ which was sufficient for all (Jo.3:16) but only efficient (applying) for the elect. This should be more of a both/and than either/or position.
I – Irresistible Grace
“This is the teaching that God’s grace is irresistible to those who are elected to salvation and they will respond to the call of God through the Spirit. This is also a hotly debatable topic, mostly because simple observation yields plenty of examples of people who hear the clear Gospel message and don’t respond to it. Frankly, I think it is more amazing that anyone can reject God at all. This doctrine reflects that in some means, but I think any attempt to explain why some reject God’s call by placing them in a category of “unelected” or whatever is not correct.”
BD: again, this goes to being able to make and understand distinctions (see the “L”). This doctrine then reflects the difference between a general call given to the world (all) and the effective or effectual call given to the elect (some or the relatively “few” in the narrow gate). This makes sense if again the T and U are correct.
P – Perseverance of the Saints
“This doctrine simply states that those who are called, elected and chosen will remain in the faith without fail as God is capable of keeping them. This sentiment is perfectly biblical and true as far as it goes. I think the main problem in applying it stems from the fact that we never can know who is who from our limited perspective. In fact, many of the problems of Calvinist theology and much of the rest of theology is due to our extremely limited understanding and perspective.”
BD: generally true and agreed. We cannot know with absolute certainity who the elect are, however there is assurance nonetheless for those that are.
Y – You’re Irrelevant
“This addition is all mine, but you may have seen it coming. Given all of the above as absolutely true, many have moved on to another very logical point. It doesn’t matter what we do, since God has planned it all ahead of time. This comes out in various ways. I have seen a church that did no external evangelism. They preached the Gospel in Sunday morning service and expected God to draw those who were called to their building. I have seen others who assume that because everything is up to God, it absolutely doesn’t matter what you do about anything. Ultimately you are either chosen or not chosen, so just live your life and trust God(I mean why not do it anyway right) and He will do everything. I couldn’t disagree more with this idea and I know that most Calvinists don’t agree with it either. But I can assure you that I have known people who do think this way, and they weren’t all Calvinists either.”
BD: this addition of the proverbial hyper-Calivnist in my experience is actually more of a straw-man or mythical argument against the TULIP than reality- at least in any significant number. Were this true and prevalent, how do we explain the effective and zealous evangelistic ministries and efforts of Calvinists like Spurgeon and D. James Kennedy?
“Let me say it once again. I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I will work alongside you all day long to share the Gospel and make disciples for Jesus Christ. I just wanted to write a post that points out the all too real end of taking this theology to its logical conclusions (I have seen it far too often for my liking). The only thing that can keep us from going there is the reminder that while all of these points may be true from God’s perspective; we are not God and they don’t work from our limited perspective. So let’s just do what He has called us to do. Go and make disciples of all the nations.”
BD: All agreed…that’s precisely why these doctrines of grace can be discussed, even properly debated and longed to be properly understood, but should not be the cause of division in the body. SBC resolutions dealing with this issue will only hurt the denomination more than help it.
What do I do with Romans 3? I am afraid you will have to be a bit more specific with that question as there is a whole lot in that chapter and I have no inclination to write a commentary on the whole thing with all that I have going on right now.
This really does get back to the Y, which is why the Y is there at all. If total depravity means that there is absolutely no way that man can ever respond to God then the Y is a valid tautology of its own also. If we compound that by saying that God just elects whom He elects regardless of man, then Y is validated again. Do our choices make a difference in anything or not? That is the crux of this whole matter.
Jeff,
Your choices make a difference in your life as you live it. For as you know, to be able to make choices gives you responsibility. Responsibility brings merit or dis-merit depending on how you chose. You choose to speed as you drive, you might get a ticket. You choose to step out on your wife, you cause hurt and pain. You chose to walk in obedience to God you get blessed. And by our choices we will be judged.
Now what are the right choices? We have our consciences. We have our governmental law books. We have the Commandments of God. We are to be responsible and do right in every are we have understanding and knowledge. Romans 3:
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
But as you know, we all sinned and came short of His glory. No amount of being responsible can make up for one sin. That is why salvation is by faith not by our being responsible by choosing right.
Choosing right is obedience to the law.
Salvation is by faith, and faith leads to right choice…
NOT choice leads to faith.
“I just wanted to write a post that points out the all too real end of taking this theology to its logical conclusions”
This is where I see the issue. The cognitive framework of many non-Calvinists seem to be in believing that holding the first five points necessarily means that one must believe the sixth point as a logical end and to deny the sixth point is incoherent.
However, since many thoughtful Calvinists exist, it should be reasonable to think that a philosophical understanding exists that allows the first five points with a denial of the sixth to be coherent. Most thoughtful Calvinists seek this because they believe the first five to be Biblical while the sixth is not Biblical.
The Y seems to some to be a logical extension of calvinist belief but is not supported or supportable with scripture. It’s an extension of logic, not an premise of biblical theology.
In my experience the Y is more of a slur than a tenet of actual belief by flesh and blood calvinists.
But if we want to talk about the functional theology of the folks in the pews, there is a pretty wide range and some of it ain’t pretty.
I believe in total depravity/inability. The Fall of man is the most overlooked and/or misunderstood truth of the word of God. Man’s fall, his first sin, that of Adam in the Garden resulted in his death, immediately, that is, his spiritual death. He died spiritual the moment he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That is why Jesus could say of the Pharisees, “You are graves that appear not, and the men who walk over them are not aware of them.” That is also why our Lord said, Jn.5:25, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and they that hear shall live. Man is also described as a slave of sin, a child of the devil, by nature a child of wrath, lacking in the power to respond (no one can come to Christ, Jn.6:44,65), blind, deaf, dumb, and, again, dead. So any election of such creatures is bound to be unconditional, because man is utterly unable to respond on his own. God does not choose any one due to foreseen good, faith, or whatever. He chooses the person and causes the person (Ps.65:4) to approach unto Him. Grace is irresistible, because it is so wonderful, so charming, so attractive, so winsome, so appealing, luring, magnetic, compelling in the freest sense of the word. Particular redemption or limited atonement merely tells us that the power is in the blood, not the individual. And all of these doctrines are invitations; they invite people to trust Christ, to come to Christ. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry with you and you perish in the way.
Great post James.
There are only two choices:
[1] Salvation is all of God alone.
[2] Salvation is of God and man.
If [1] salvation is all of God, then he gets all the glory, honor and praise. Our boast is only in Him.
“He alone saved me. God is my savior!”
if [2] salvation is of God and man, then He has to share the honor and praise and glory with the person, for He could not save the person without that person’s help. Our boast in in us as well as in God. “With God’s help, i ascended to heaven, with His help I am saved”
But then is salvation against our will?
No for as Dr. James writes so well:
Grace is irresistible, because it is so wonderful, so charming, so attractive, so winsome, so appealing, luring, magnetic, compelling in the freest sense of the word. Particular redemption or limited atonement merely tells us that the power is in the blood, not the individual.
And we read in the Word:
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
From this we see that God does NOT shine the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God into every heart. But to do those He does, they see the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
And that is what is irresistible, because Jesus is so wonderful, so charming, so attractive, so winsome, so appealing, luring, magnetic, so need fulfilling, and so compelling in the freest sense of the word.
peace brothers
Mike:
You could not have explained hyper-Calvinism any better. Since this grace is so irresistible for the elect why did Christ command missions?
Walt,
I guess you and I have a different definition for hyperC.
Why did Christ command missions?
Because God uses the foolishness of preaching to save. How can they believe if they do not hear? How can they gear if no one speaks? How can they speak unless they are sent?
My church is mission minded. We give to missions and we go on missions. They have gone to Peru and Africa several times each in the three years plus that I have been there.
peace brother
Mike:
I commend your missions effort. I merely point out that grace is resistible if they never hear. The natural conclusion of hyperC is that there is no need for missions. Calvin himself rejected this notion. I suppose the problem is the definition of the adjective “irresistible.”
I think the issue is that non-hyper Calvinists understand that God primarily uses second causes. Many non-Calvinists think Calvinists believe that God primarily uses Himself as a first cause. Men preach by the power of the same Holy Spirit that works in the hearts of hearers. But the Holy Spirit uses the preaching.
I could be wrong, but it appears that non-Calvinists typically evaluate only second-causes without considering the relationship between second causes and the first cause.
Walt: Look back at the first comment in response to Jeff’s blog. I mentioned a soul winning hyper calvinist, my ordaining pastor. You might be interested to know Lottie Moon was of the same persuasion. And calvinists, even hyper calvinists, were involved in the launching of the Great Century of Missions. Consider Dr. John Thomas, cahrged with hyper calvinist, going insane with elation at the first convert after 14 years of labors to win on fellow from India to Christ. His going insane with joy was why William Carey baptized Krishna Pal.
James:
My point is that these people were not hyperC’s despite their claims. Missions to a hyperC is a contradiction in terms. To them, if grace is irresistible the elect will be saved regardless of our efforts.
There are reasons why man is unable to respond to the Gospel, but it is never because of man’s “total inability.” Every man has the ability to respond to the Gospel. The ability to believe is in the Gospel itself. One is not regenerated in order to believe, he is regenerated because he believes.
You ask: What are the reasons man is unable to respond to the Gospel if it’s not because of man being “dead” and incapable responding? I’m glad you asked. There are at least three, but we’ll start with one, because I do not like long posts.
Please consider: “Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” John 12:39, 40
The above is a prophecy from Isaiah 6, and only pertains to Jews. However, the principle can be carried over to Gentiles. The text states “they could not believe.” Why they could not believe is a separate subject, which should have it’s own thread, as ties together John 6, 10, 12, 17.
Please note the reason “Therefore, they could not believe.” According to the text and not our systematic theologies, in vs. 40 what did Jesus say was the reason they couldn’t believe? Answer, God blinded their minds and hardened their hearts. Notice it doesn’t say they were “dead” – “had inbility” – “can’t seek” – “unregenerate” – “in the flesh”! God had to blind them so they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts, and be converted and He should heal them.
These Jews did not need “irresistible grace” or to be “regenerated” in order to believe and be converted. They needed to be blinded so they couldn’t believe and be converted.
I think clearly the text shows man has been given the “ability” to believe the Gospel. In this case some Jews were not allowed to believe. They had the ability to believe, but at least in this instance, it was God who would not let them use it.
Don,
“There are reasons why man is unable to respond to the Gospel, but it is never because of man’s “total inability.” Every man has the ability to respond to the Gospel.”
Though I disagree with you about man’s ability or inability, I’m curious. You also said, “Answer, God blinded their minds and hardened their hearts.”
Are you affirming that the reason man, any man, does not believe is because “God blinded their minds and hardened their hearts?”
I haven’t really followed all or many of your posts, or I cannot remember…are you a self professed non-Calvinist? If so, are you not here jumping from one horrible (per NCs) idea (Cs doctrine of TD and TI) to another horrible (per NCs) fire…man is in hell because of God?
I’m not trying to be combative. Just curious how you see it.
I appreciate your reply.
Grace,
Les
Not The Original Les,
You are correct, I am not a Calvinist. It hurts that you didn’t remember.
No, I am not affirming the reason ANY MAN does not believe is because of God blinding and hardening.
I probably didn’t make myself clear on the matter. Let me restate: God only blinds SOME JEWS to the Gospel. This blinding was a prophecy of Isaiah which started being fulfilled in the days of Christ, and continues today. God does not blind Gentiles to the Gospel. I repeat it is only SOME JEWS. I didn’t state the reason why God blinds some Jews, because it would have diverted attention from the text. Not to mention a very long post.
It’s not mentioned in Acts, but I think God blinded many of the Jews in Thessalonica, but not in Berea. And it has nothing to do with being “elect.”
One more thing the Jews who were blinded, brought it on themselves.
Funny, how the idea of inability can be explained away by introducing various rules for understanding how the words of our Lord apply. Jn.6:44, 65, plainly state, “no one can come” to Christ. In I Cors.2:14, Paul says, the natural man cannot know the things of the spirit of God: “neither can he know them.” Well, if man lacks the power to know the spiritual things, it seems just like the folks in Jn.6:44, 65 not being able to come to Christ. And we know the Jews were not the persons referenced in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, but the natural man (Gentile and Jew). And in Ephs.2:1,5, we find God quickening the dead in trespasses and sins, people who walked according to the course of this world, the prince of the power of the air, the children of disobedience, by nature the children of wrath(2-3). Here no distinction for Jew and Gentile applies – only the differences between the saved and the lost, the spiritual and the natural man. In Ephs.5:14 we read, “Wherefore he is saying, Awake you who are sleeping, and Arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon you.” The old Puritan, Thomas Manton made the astute observation, that one might suppose man is so bad, because it says he is sleeping. Therefore we must take in the expression that says he is dead. On the other hand, we might think that God only deals with man like sticks and stones, because it says he is dead. Therefore we must take in the part that says he sleeps. I remember thinking, when I came across the above summary, “That is one of the most astute summaries of the text, a profound insight, balanced, cognizant of both sides of the issue.”
Dr. Willingham,
I noticed you mentioned 1 Cor. 2:14, it seems to be a favorite of Calvinists. I’ve never really understood why they believe this verse seems to teach an inability to believe the Gospel. Could you in simple terms tell me why you believe it to be so? Thanks
ou dunatai (english transliteration of the greek term for no power, no ability, what the Sandy Creek called man’s impotence. The term is used by our Lord in Jn.6:44,65 as well as by Paul in I Cors. 2:14 which suggests that the Apostle was following in the steps of His Lord in looking at the matter of the effect of sin upon man’s power. Now the difference between may and will was brought home to me in my childhood by the teacher, when I would asked, “Can I go get a drink of water.” She would reply, “The question is not one of ability. You have the ability. What you need is permission. It is: ‘May I go get a drink of water?'” Jesus did not say no one is permitted to come; He said that the individual has no power, no ability to come, and the Apostle Paul said the same thing. It is like asking the question, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?”(Jer. 13:23) And the rest of that verse pushes the issue to its very limits: When the Ethiopian can and the Leopard can is the implication behind this statement: “Then may you do good that are accustomed to do evil.” i.e., you will have permission to do good, when the Ethiopian can change his skin and the Leopard his spots. The real trouble, dear brother, is that you like a multitude of others have underestimated the effect of original sin upon the nature and will of man. Man’s fall was not absolute, but it was total; he was affected in every part of his being; he was made helpless, and Jesus is the helper of the helpless. The problem is that most people do not know or acknowledge their helplessness. Like Eccles. 9:3 says: “yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.” When have we recognized that we have a heart full of evil, that there is madness in our heart? And who, but God, can truly over come madness? The madness in the heart of the shooter in Colorado today is suggestive, and the madness in the heart of the German people in World War Ii was revealed to me in nightmares after I viewed some photographs one of my church members in my second pastorate showed me (which he had taken with an old Browning Box camera, when he was with an Advanced Army Group that captured one of the small concentration camps). That evil in their hearts is the same evil in our hearts, the evil of which our Lord spoke in Mt.15:19/ Don have you ever faced your spiritual inability. When Jesus came and knocked at my door, literally, spiritually, I did not admit Him. I could not. I ran the other way. But He followed me and two blocks from my house He must have opened the door to overcome the inability for me, for I decided to tell my mother (Acts 16:14 tells exactly what happened to me, just as Rev. 3:20 did at the YFC meeting where I saw Christ knocking at my door which was bound fast, shut tight, and, as James Petigru Boyce, the first President of Southern Seminary is reported in his biography by Dr. John A. Broadus to have said in a sermon on Rev. 3:20, my door was so tightly shut, bound by years of neglect, that no human hand could open it. I dare say Boyce got the idea of an evangelistic sermon on Rev. 3:20 from his pastor in his childhood, Dr. Basil Manley, Sr., who had two outlines of Rev. 3:20 in his sermons that he had preached. Also even Spurgeon who did not approve of using Rev. 3:20 as an evangelistic text did expound the text in an evangelistic manner in a sermon on Rev.12:12:
Satan is still more convinced of the shortness of his possession of a
a man’s heart when he hears knocking at that heart’s door a hand
whose power he has felt. He know the kind of knock it is: a gentle
but irresistible knocking upon the heart. Continual, perpetual, per-
severing is the knock of One who means to enter. The knock is by
One who has a hold in His hand. He knocks not as one whose power
lies in a blow, but as one whose tears and love are his batter of at-
tack. He has an energy of compassion, an irresistibleness of gentle
love….
There is more, but you can look it up in the MTP, vol.25, pp613ff.
Dr. Willingham,
Were you already a believer like Lydia of Acts 16:14, before God opened the door of your inability?
I was an atheist, and believing as Lydia did was not enough obviously in the light of the fact that God opened her heart. I can still remember the youth minister of Calvary Baptist Church in St. Louis, Rev. Bob Kleinschmidt give a three point calvinistic sermon on Acts. 16:14: 1. Her hands were stilled. 2. Her heart was opened. 3. Her house was saved.
Dr. Willingham,
You’re right about Lydia, she needed something else just as the disciples needed something else in Luke 24:45. Good point. Thanks
Don: I noticed that you never responded to my explanation about I Cors.2:14 and the word that the natural man cannot know spiritual things, and the close resemblance of the Greek wording to our Lord’s words in Jn.6:44,65. Can means ability, and cannot means no ability. What then, Don? Does it not take a supernatural act of God to cause man to believe, to come, to understand? Does any one read the little words carefully and grasp that they clear state man’s ruin, his inability to respond, his deadness, slavery, natural indisposition to respond, etc.?
Dr. Willingham,
Before we continue on with 1 Cor 2:14, are you saying we are in agreement with my post #72. Since you didn’t comment, I’m assuming you agree with my statement. Is that correct?
Walt,
you said…
Grace is resistable if they never hear.
I’m sorry Walt, I do not see what you mean.
What are you trying to say
If they never hear, it is because there is no grace.
peace brother
Mike: I’m merely trying to point out the inherent inconsistency in the hyperC claim that missions is not necessary.
Baloney, Walt: The hyper calvinist believes the God ordained him or her as a part of the process of missions. The first convert of the Great Century of Missions was the result of the soul winning effort of a hyper calvinist, Dr. John Thomas. He was actually tabbed with that due to his protests over some remarks of some of the brethren that he did not consider calvinistic enough. And William Carey is often credited with the conversion of Krishna Pal..as he had been witnessing to him, but John Thomas was setting his arm one day and witnessing to him, when Pal indicated that he would go all the way…And that hyper calvinist went out of his mind with elation and joy, popped out of his mind on the upsurge of joy, Think of that. Brother, your blitherings about hypers bares no resemblance to those that I have known. Now there are fatalists. Perhaps that is really whom you are talking about. Some folks infiltrated Baptists and other denominations in order to divide and blunt the powerful theology of the Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions, because it threatened their control of the world (in their minds they think they really do and they act accordingly, planning things like wars, socialism, and the extermination of 5.5 billion people. The Third Great Awakening could well be the means of God God to sweep that outfit away and begin the 1000 generations of converts, covering 20,000+ years in order to provide enough of the redeemed in Heaven to make up God’s good humored remark about them being such a number no one can number.
Baloney James? Is that intellectual observation how you got your doctorate?
“…Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism were both among the historical errors battled by Charles Spurgeon, who was himself a 5-point Calvinist. He vigilantly fought these twin errors on both sides of the spectrum. One of Hyper-Calvinism’s main errors is to declare that, because of God’s sovereignty, we should not evangelize the lost. Spurgeon rejected such nonsense as do the large majority of people who would call themselves Calvinists today (such as R.C. Sproul, John Piper, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg and many others) We believe the doctrine of election should be declared strongly because the Bible does and because man’s affections are enslaved to sin. He cannot save himself but needs the effectual working of the Holy Spirit if he is to have ears to hear when we preach the gospel. The preacher casts forth the seed of the gospel (the command to believe) indiscriminately but the Holy Spirit germinates the Word (so to speak) in the hearts of those he intends to save; i.e. those given to the Son by the Father in the eternal covenant made before time (John 6:37, 39, Eph 1, 4). Many Christian missionaries whom most would consider heroes held to the five point of Calvinism: William Carrey (he was opposed by a Hyper-Calvinist), Jonathan Edwards & David Brainard (missionaries to native Americans) just to name 3.”
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/HyperCalvinism/
Walt, Double Baloney to you, brother. I don’t go to a source on the internet and cite it as proof. I go to the originals, the primary sources, like any good historian who knows how to do research. There can be folks promoting Sovereign Grace who do not do the research. For instance, the hyper-calvinist ( I forget his name just now) who spoke to Carey about sitting down and being silent, that if God wanted to He would handle it, turned out to be a strong supported of Carey!!! And the source re: Dr. John Thomas that I mentioned happened to be a two volume biography on him in the library at SEBTS which I read about 40 years ago. I also have a brief biography of Thomas in my library. As to my doctorate it is a mere Doctor of Ministry from SEBTS, when it was the most liberal seminary in the SBC. My project for the Doctorate was on Christian Love & Race Relations which I did without the support of the seminary (my director said, “You ought to know better than to choose a controversial topic like this. If that church fires you, I will be right there behind them, supporting them.” When I finished the project without getting fired, he started nit-picking my writing up of the project until I blew up and threatened the seminary with a idea that I would go to the floor of the convention and raise one of the biggest stinks ever seen. My project got approved. And by the way I have 18 hrs. toward a Ph.D. in history with 12 hrs. at Columbia Univ. in NYC where I wrote a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation in Black History. And as to church history, I did 6 years of research in Baptist and Church History and possess some 3000 5×8 notecards covering more than 250 vols. of books. In addition, I did 2 years of research on Agape love in I Cors.13 and have 2000 5×8 notecards. For all of my researches, I probably have in excess of 10,000 5×8 notecards. I have many note books on many subjects, taught history, philosophy, and political science in college, and systematic theology, preaching, Baptist history, church history, Hebrews, Isaiah, New Testament Theology in seminary extension. Your reference to the link and citation from Monergism, while I like their theological view point, I prefer research to establish the facts from the primary sources. Sometimes even folks with worthy view points can make serious mistakes due to a failure to do research in the primary sources, and secondary sources are to be handled carefully.
James: You’re good at spreading baloney, that’s for sure. Would you accept a source such as “Got Questions.org” who have demonstrated a profundity of biblical understanding?
“…
What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical?
Question: “What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical?”
Answer: A simple and general definition is this: hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God saves the elect through His sovereign will with little or no use of the methods of bringing about salvation (such as evangelism, preaching, and prayer for the lost). To an unbiblical fault, the hyper-Calvinist over-emphasizes God’s sovereignty and under-emphasizes man’s responsibility in the work of salvation.
An obvious ramification of this is that the hyper-Calvinist has little, if any, desire to evangelize the lost. Or, if he does, he will not attempt to persuade the unbeliever to faith. Most churches or denominations that hold to hyper-Calvinistic theology are marked by fatalism, coldness, and a lack of assurance of faith. There is little emphasis upon God’s love for the lost and His own people but rather an unbiblical and destructive emphasis upon God’s sovereignty, His election of the saved, and His wrath for the lost. The gospel of the hyper-Calvinist is a declaration of God’s salvation of the elect and His damnation of the lost…”
http://www.gotquestions.org/hyper-calvinism.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/about.html
James:
Perhaps you will accept the research of Dr. Philip Johnson of the Spurgeon organization who warns against 5 different types of hyper-Calvinist teaching and says:
“…I wrote and posted this article because I am concerned about some subtle trends that seem to signal a rising tide of hyper-Calvinism, especially within the ranks of young Calvinists and the newly Reformed. I have seen these trends in numerous Reformed theological forums on the Internet, including mailing lists, Web sites, and Usenet forums.
Lest anyone wonder where my own convictions lie, I am a Calvinist. I am a five-point Calvinist, affirming without reservation the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. And when I speak of hyper-Calvinism, I am not using the term as a careless pejorative. I’m not an Arminian who labels all Calvinism “hyper.” When I employ the term, I am using it in its historical sense.
History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends. ”
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
The word inability conjurs images of the man who wants to respond but is prevented, and that is a false image. The man does not want to respond.
Ultimately, the question is, what is the difference between the man who wants to respond and the one who does not? Or, what has changed in the man who resisted the Gospel, but suddenly does not? Is God the difference, or something within the man?
Calvinists say that God is the difference. I think some non-Calvinists might say God is the difference also, but I think that is inconsistent.
So that is my question to non-Calvinists: Two men attend revival services for a week. Both reject the Gospel on Mon, but the second man responds to the Gospel on Tuesday. The first man never responds. Both are exercising their free will.
Question: What is the difference between Man 1 and 2? What is the difference between Man 2 on Mon and Man 2 on Tuesday? What is the difference? Is it God, or something within the man?
Anyone?
Bill Mac,
One thing we know for sure. On Monday neither one were Christ’s sheep.
It is God. What we don’t know is WHY God made the decision as Scripture is silent on this. And exercising one’s God-given faith is NOT works, as Paul made clear.
Actually, EXERCISING one’s faith is works.
We read:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
One way to exercise your dog is take her for a walk.
We are to walk in good works.
Thus we read:
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
What Paul tells us is that faith is not a work. Thus it is not an action or something we choose. Rather it is something we have that leads to works. We choose good works BECAUSE of faith. Thus we read:
Excerpts from Hebrews 11:
By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain…
By faith Noah, being warned by God … in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household…
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out …
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac…
By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.
That chapter starts out with these words:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Faith is not what we do, it is what we have that leads to what we do.
We read:
…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved…
Confession without faith is empty. But true confession is done BECAUSE you have faith. That is what we choose, and we choose it because we believe.
I said:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Faith is not what we do, it is what we have that leads to what we do
To that i should have added:
Because we have the assurance of things hoped for, and we have the conviction of things unseen, we put off our old man and walk in the new man that is being conformed to the Lord.
Walt,
in response to:
“I have NO reason to boast because my salvation would not have been possible without the grace of the Holy Spirit. Your premise that God deems His own foreknowledge irrelevant in predetermining my eternal fate and makes His decision arbitrarily regardless of my foreknown actions seems to me to assail God’s character of fairness and mercy and love.”
First i did not deny that synergists agree that salvation is only possible because of the grace of God.
What I did say is that IF you are a synergist [one who believes that he has a small but indispensable part in getting saved] that since your salvation must and does depend on you, then you a have a reason to boast, and in fact are boasting.
If you have no reason to boast then it is because your salvation depends NOT AT ALL on you, your choices, or as you say, your actions.
Second, my premise is not that God deems His own foreknowledge irrelevant in predetermining your eternal fate. I said nothing of the kind, nor did I imply it.
Third, just because I do not know why he makes His decisions, does not imply that they are made arbitrarily. Again, I said nothing of the kind. You really need to read a little more closely brother and quit adding your own presumptions as MY position. Stick to what I said. If you want to draw conclusions, let it be known that they are your conclusions.
Fourth, it seems that you are saying that God makes His decision whether to save you or not based on your actions. To me that sounds like salvation by works. Is that what you believe, that God saved you because of your future actions?
Fifth, Fairness has to do with the LAW. If God was fair with you or me, we would go to Hell now.
Sixth, God’s mercy and love are free to whomever He wishes to pour them into.
peace brother
Sixth should read:
Sixth, God is free to pour His mercy and love into whomever He wishes.
Mike: Now I’m confused. You state that you don’t know why God makes His decision yet you deny that my actions could have conceivably played any part in it. Which is it?
I have NO reason to boast because God granted me the necessary faith to accept His gift of Christ. He does this for all so they have no excuse.
Walt,
yes you are confused.
You assume that just because I know one thing that God does not base His, decision on, that I should on what He does base it on.
God tells us Walt that salvation is not based on our works.
You said,
“I have NO reason to boast because God granted me the necessary faith to accept His gift of Christ. He does this for all so they have no excuse.”
You remain confused. Are all saved? Nope. Why then are you saved? The answer you can not give is that God granted me the necessary faith to accept His gift of Christ, because he also gave that gift, according to you, to all and all are not saved.
So why is Walt saved? According to Walt you are saved because you did what others did not. There is your boast on you.
Stop boasting on yourself.
peace brother
P.S.
He saved you by shining in your heart to give you the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Mike: Paul said
…”Not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Are you saying that faith is a “work?” I was saved because of the faith God enabled in me. As it was a gift I have no reason to boast.
Walt,
I don’t think anyone here thinks you are boasting. You need to remember that there are those amongst the brethren who accuse others in order to show how “humble” they are. I’m sorry, I should have spoken up earlier.
Don’t get me wrong Don. I’d love to be able to boast. It’s just that for the life of me I can’t figure out what I have to boast about.
Walt: God gives faith to everyone?
Bill: The evidence for the truth of the Christian faith is so overwhelming that if one rejects this evidence he is not living up to the light God has provided. As finite creatures we must by definition have faith in something or we have no world view. Even a mustard seed of faith is sufficient, and if one rejects God he has rejected the faith endemic to the human condition. I call these people “God haters.”
Walt,
They certainly are God haters.
But do not confuse Law with Grace.
One must see themselves as a needy sinner condemned by the Law before one can see their need for a savior. Thus they reject the light of the Law in their lives and with it also reject the words of the cross.
As to boasting. If one says that salvation depends on themselves in any way, they are boasting. For even our acceptance of Jesus is all of God moving in our heart and mind.
Don J.,
Boasting is not a bad thing if it is warranted.
We are to boast are we not?
Therefore, to avoid works lest we should boast we should not exercise our faith? Is that what Paul meant when he said that faith is not of works?
Boasting is not bad Walt as long as you boast properly. Our boasting is to be in Jesus alone. We read:
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
It is because of God and Him alone that we are saved. It is not because we chose God that we are saved. That is what unconditional election is all about: God chose us irregardless of anything good we did or will do.
We read:
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. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 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.”
As you rightly put it: unsaved sinners hate God. As we were once haters of God. But good works are done because of God. We therefore do not boast in our good works, because we realize that they are but filthy rags before the holiness of God. But of course we should do them.
“Exercising one’s faith” is what one does after JUSTIFICATION. Having faith means you are justified. You don’t get faith because you choose it. But you exercise it after you receive it.
Boasting not in self refers to getting saved. God saves unilaterally. He doesn’t use our help. You are not saved because you chose God. You are saved because God chose you.
I am talking about the kind of boasting Paul condemns. If I cannot be saved without exercising my God-given faith, which you deem works, you are teaching that works is necessary for salvation. Paul says it is not. Whom should I believe?
Mike and Walt,
I wanted to offer a little possible help for this part of your discussion. When Paul makes reference to the “works of the Law” and also on some occasions when he shortens that phrase to simply “works” when talking about salvation, it is important to remember what Paul’s main crusade was about. Paul was fighting for Gentile inclusion in the people of God without the need for formal conversion via circumcision. This fight is formally decided in Acts 15, but Paul wrote the bulk of Galatians presenting his case for this essential truth of the Gospel. Thus, often when Paul uses the phrasing “works of the Law” it can be helpful to insert the phrase “becoming legally Jewish” in its place. This is what he is trying to communicate most of the time. Take for instance, the end of Romans chapter 3 to see this in stark contrast.
Paul does this a lot throughout Galatians and elsewhere as shorthand for Jewish conversion. If you go around and try inserting this phrase in its place it is amazing how much clarity in brings to those statements.
Walt,
Let me say it a different way, since you keep asking questions as to what I am saying BUT your questions are not really of what I am saying, but from what it seems just your spin on what I am saying.
For example, you just asked this:
“If I cannot be saved without exercising my God-given faith, which you deem works, you are teaching that works is necessary for salvation. Paul says it is not. Whom should I believe?”
Now you prefaced the question with an “if”.:
“If I cannot be saved without exercising my God-given faith, which you deem works…”
But why did you phrase the question like that? That is not my position at all. That is something you added in. Why?
I said that we are justified by faith which leads to works.
My last post:
“Exercising one’s faith” is what one does after JUSTIFICATION. Having faith means you are justified.”
The fact that you have God-given faith means you are already justified. The exercising of it is the fruit of having it, not the cause of salvation.
Jeff: Thanks for that input. However it would appear that circumcision of Gentiles was but an example of works and was not intended to be the exclusive definition. “Not of works” means precisely that. No works are necessary or even possible in our salvation. What I am trying to do is point out the inherent contradiction in Mike’s statement that the exercise of one’s faith is a work. If that is true, then Paul is contradicting himself as he says salvation is not of works. If Mike is right, Paul apparently intended that no one could get saved.
Walt,
Really?
You said:
What I am trying to do is point out the inherent contradiction in Mike’s statement that the exercise of one’s faith is a work. If that is true, then Paul is contradicting himself as he says salvation is not of works. If Mike is right, Paul apparently intended that no one could get saved.
To exercise one’s faith is to do a work. It can only happen because you are justified by faith in the first place.
Give your definition of what you think the phrase “evercise your faith” means.
Thanks.
Jeff,
I also give you thanks in your attempt.
And Walt is right about the circumcision of the Gentiles not being an exclusive definition.
Maybe you could tell us what you think it means to “exercise your faith”?
It seems Walt I are not on the same page.
Thanks
But I am glad we are in the same Book and are brothers in Christ.
Mike: Really.
“81 mike white July 21, 2012 at 11:24 am. Actually, EXERCISING one’s faith is works.” How can I be justified until I have exercised my option of accepting Christ’s offer, which you call a “work?” By using that definition you are stating that one cannot be saved without committing a “work,” which directly contradicts Paul’s “not of works.”
Walt,
You said,
“How can I be justified until I have exercised my option of accepting Christ’s offer, which you call a “work?” By using that definition you are stating that one cannot be saved without committing a “work,” which directly contradicts Paul’s “not of works.””
First, I asked you for a definition of what you mean by exercising faith. You have yet to reply.
Second, I gave you my definition which you, for all that I can tell, are ignoring, and instead of dealing with what I am actually saying, you are dealing with me by plugging in your definition of “exercising faith” when I speak of that idea.
Walt, you don’t exercise faith to get saved. God saves you unilaterally. You are the recipient of His saving work, and in no way the cause.
So what I am saying, brother, is that your phrase “exercising faith” is what I call walking in faith, or in doing the works of faith set before us.
And, that the idea of ‘exercise’, as defined by the Free Online Dictionary: “An act of employing or putting into play”, is just that: an act or deed or work [for they are but synonyms of DO]. Furthermore to ACT, or to DEED, or to WORK, or to DO in any way is NOT how we get saved. It is what we do once we are saved. We DO baptism. We ACT Christlike. We WORK in the kingdom as God calls us. We do DEEDS of holiness in imitation of our Lord and to His glory. These things are the EXERCISING of our faith.
We don’t DO faith, we have it. It is not a DEED but something in which we do deeds. It is not an ACT, but by it we do many acts.. It is not a WORK so we CAN’T EXERCISE it to be saved.
You accept Christ’ offer BECAUSE you believe [have faith]. You then show that faith and define it by your exercising of it through confession of it, by word, by deed, by baptism, by communion, by obedience to the Lord.
Faith comes before any Act. Faith comes before any deed. Faith comes before any work. Faith comes before exercising it. You have faith -then you are justified. You will, by that new nature, exercise it.
The thief on the cross believed then spoke.
Thus we read:
Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we also believe, and so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.
The thief had faith, that is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. So he spoke: he confessed Jesus as King and Lord.
Only those God is saving have faith. The rest think the words of the cross foolishness.
Peace brother.
Mike:
“…Walt, you don’t exercise faith to get saved. God saves you unilaterally. ..”
So my assent isn’t required? God will save me over my objections?
Walt,
What objections?
here is what we were before God saved us:
We were dead in the trespasses and sins in which we once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind;
And while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life;
And wasn’t our minds set on the flesh, and were hostile to God, for they do not submit to God’s law; indeed, they cannot;
And we were gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
And were we not all that by out own nature?
As proud, as haters of God, hostile to God, enemies of God, and followers of Satan, why does one humble themselves to accept Jesus as Lord UNLESS they have faith, the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen?
Tell me why as that proud hater of God, as His enemy, and as hostile to Him, tell me why you accepted Jesus as Lord?
My answer? Because I believed.
Mike:
Right. Because I believed, which means my assent was required. Yet you would describe this simple act of exercising my faith as a “work?”
Walt,
You said and asked:
“Right. Because I believed, which means my assent was required. Yet you would describe this simple act of exercising my faith as a “work?””
Well Walt, since you have not yet defined what “exercising your faith” means to you, I will use my definition.
The very words, “exercising my faith” equals work. And as I have said, faith precedes works, yea, to have faith is to be justified. So if you believed, then logically prior to your acceptance, you were justified. And therefore what you did after is a work, to accept Jesus. Is accepting Jesus something you DID? Yes; and so by definition, it was an act or deed, or a work.
You did not cause Jesus to save you by accepting Him as Lord, as you even said, you already believed, and so accepted Him , as you said, because you believed. Thus your choice, even as per your own words, followed your faith.
Faith precedes choice [which is a work].
As your testimony indicates, your faith preceded your acceptance.
This is true of every Christian.
This is how people get saved.
Those unsaved, by definition, are unbelievers- they do not have faith.
peace brother
Mike:
I thought I was pretty clear that exercising my faith meant believing and accepting Christ. Do you define that as a “work?”
Walt,
I can only assume you haven’t really read what I have written.
But since you posted a link to Scripture, let’s read it. I’m not sure why you didn’t just post the Scripture, but oh wells.
You posted this:
“Mike: If exercising the faith given me is a work, what did Paul mean when he said it wasn’t?”
with this link:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-9&version=KJV
Which gives us this:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Now Walt, please point out the word Paul used for ‘exercise’, since you say, Paul said in this passage, to exercise faith isn’t a work.
Peace brother
Mike:I don’t6 know why you keep beating on this dead horse but since I defined exercising one’s faith as believing and accepting Christ it is entailed in the word “saved,” or do you believe that one can be saved without belief and acceptance of Christ?
Walt,
The problem is that your definition makes faith a work.
Words have meanings.
No matter what your meaning, your words make faith a work.
And since i have repeatedly explained how I believe one gets saved, and yet you ask that question, shows that either you have a reading comprehension problem, or you are not debating in good faith.
I guess the latter.
Now you said that Ephesians 2:8 showed we are saved by exercising our faith. And so I ask you again, Walt, as your brother in Christ, and as you a son of the Holy God, which word in that passage corresponds to your word’ exercise’?
Mike:
When you say I am not debating in good faith you are assailing my character as did James Willingham. Hardly an example of pastoral characteristics or care by either of you.
I think, Walt, that you are in over your head. Mike is pointing out your problems with what faith is. It is the gift of God, a power to trust, believe in, rely upon the Lord Jesus Christ. God has to give that ability, that power to trust as man does not have it naturally though he does have a natural faith; it is not one to which the Lord jesus will commit Himself, Jn,.2:23-25, It is given to us to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ…as well as to suffer, Phils.1:29.
James: So my act of believing with the faith giving me is not necessary for my salvation.?
Mike: Please refer to the current 148 for my response.
Walt,
You said,
“I thought I was pretty clear that exercising my faith meant believing and accepting Christ. Do you define that as a “work?””
I must have missed that. My apologies.
But here was the sequence:
I said…
Tell me why as that proud hater of God, as His enemy, and as hostile to Him, tell me why you accepted Jesus as Lord?
My answer? Because I believed.
and you replied:
[108 Walt Carpenter July 21, 2012 at 4:05 pm]
Right. Because I believed…
And now you are saying that “I thought I was pretty clear that exercising my faith meant believing and accepting Christ.”
Now isn’t your faith from God? Accepting is an action, is it not? Exercising is an action is it not? So it seems that from this, it is YOU that is saying that believing and accepting Christ is a work [an exercise].
Here is how I see it, and I will use an example from life to help explain:
A child is a little afraid of the water and is reluctant to just jump in the pool. But then dad wades over and promises to catch her when she jumps. She trusts her dad. She has faith in her dad. She believes in her dad. And since she has this faith, this trust, this belief, she does the act of faith, the act of trust, the act of believing: she jumps. She exercised her faith by jumping. Now because these concepts are, though separate, closely connected, we, and the Bible do not always separate them in speaking about them.
To go back to our example of the girl and her dad. The mom and her friend are watching from their lounge chairs, and the friend remarks that the girl sure does trust her dad. How does she know? Because she saw her first as reluctant, then saw her jump. The dad even said to the girl, trust me. The girl in telling the story to Grandma, says I trusted dad by jumping.
But it would not be wrong to say that she was believing in her dad when she jumped.
To believe or to be believing is a verb. Faith by its nature is something we have that leads to actions. If you have true faith you will be believing. Even in saying it, “I believe”, we are acting on faith.
Acceptance of Jesus [which is your assent] is because you have faith. It is the exercising of your faith and is demonstrated by your confession. It is a work. One could say that they have faith in Jesus all they want, but if they never did a work of faith, they never believed in Him: they never had faith.
Mike: If exercising the faith given me is a work, what did Paul mean when he said it wasn’t?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-9&version=KJV
Walt,
In commenting on my post# 57, you said:
“You could not have explained hyper-Calvinism any better. Since this grace is so irresistible for the elect why did Christ command missions?”
That post of yours is a problem. Instead of engaging with me on the Scripture passage in which it seems you disagree on my take, you instead lower yourself to disparage me by what many consider an offensive label. And to what end brother?
You should not be stooping to such tactics seeing as you are His prince and His witness.
Don’t be part of the problem, instead be part of the solution. Now what about post #57 do you think was wrong?
Mike: Sorry my response was not to your liking. What was wrong? “…6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
“From this we see that God does NOT shine the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God into every heart. But to do those He does, they see the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ…”
Paul merely said that they received the light shone. Where do you get from this that God did not shine the light everywhere? Paul’s statement is silent on this question. That is what I mean when I say UNCONDITIONAL election is made out of whole cloth. That God elects is certain. But as you admitted, we are not privy to His thought processes so you cannot reject any possibility.
Walt,
No need to apologize to me for posting a response not to my liking.
Rather you should apologize for labeling instead of engaging the Scriptures.
Now as to your response, first thanks. It is much better to speak to the Word than speak against each other.
You said:
“Paul merely said that they received the light shone. Where do you get from this that God did not shine the light everywhere? Paul’s statement is silent on this question. That is what I mean when I say UNCONDITIONAL election is made out of whole cloth. That God elects is certain. But as you admitted, we are not privy to His thought processes so you cannot reject any possibility.”
You ask, “Where do you get from this that God did not shine the light everywhere”.
Maybe you did not read enough Scripture:
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Now if the Gospel is veiled to those perishing and their minds have been blinded to keep them from seeing the light of the Gospel, it means straight up that they haven’t seen the light and are still perishing.
If, as you say, God shone it everywhere, and by that I take it to mean to every one, then everyone is not blind to the light, and the Gospel is not veiled to anyone. But alas, the Scripture says the EXACT opposite: those perishing are blind to the Gospel truth.
So Paul’s statement is emphatic, not SILENT, on what you call the question, but rather is in fact, quite plain.
Also compare to 1st Cor. 1:18
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
One who has the light of the glory of God in their heart does not think it foolishness
As far as this goes, “That is what I mean when I say UNCONDITIONAL election is made out of whole cloth. That God elects is certain.”, I do not know what you mean. Please explain what you mean when you say “made out of the whole cloth.”
peace brother
Mike:
Thanks for the lecture on my deportment. I had no intent to offend you.
What continues to amaze me is how Calvinists can interpret effect with cause. I have already said I believe in election, just not UNCONDITIONAL election. NOTHING in the passages you have quoted states God’s reasons for His determination to blind, merely that He does so. And while you admit you don’t know God’s thought processes, you can forcefully rule out that His foreknowledge of our free will actions had anything to do with it. An omniscient mind by definition considers everything. To deny this is unscriptural.
Sorry, “made out of whole cloth” means that Calvin invented an interpretation that is not in Scripture.
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwholec.html
What has Calvin’s inventions have to do with our conversation?
I was under the impression that we were discussing UNCONDITIONAL election.
Walt,
I do not deny that Goad considered everything.
But since God says we are not saved by works, I believe Him.
Why don’t you?
So you consider faith to be works?
Walt,
No I consider faith NOT to be works OR actions. Since actions are works. Do you think faith is an action, a work?
And moral choice is of the Law.
So i consider faith not to be a moral choice, and thus not a choice at all.
If faith is not a choice why is it called one?
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Yep Walt, an ambassador may not know everything the King thinks, but he is duty bound to share what the King has revealed. And since the King is explicit on this subject, I am surprised you take a different tack than He.
Perhaps you should read the Scripture you cite:
“Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?”
Paul specifically says that faith is not a work. That is what the king has revealed.
That is right Walt, faith is not a work. Thus it is not an action, nor it is a choice.
Should read: Thus [Faith] is not an action nor is it a choice.
Why then, in your missions effort, do you urge the lost to make a CHOICE?
Walt,
Faith is what one has.
From faith we choose.
Can they submit to Jesus as Lord unless they believe in their heart that God has raised Him from the dead? Nope.
So we proclaim Jesus as the crucified risen Lord of all, the only path to God, His cross the only remedy for their sin, and invite those that believe to submit themselves to Him.
We trust God that if He so wills that He will open the blinded eyes of rebellious sinners so they too can see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ
peace brother
You see, brother, we don’t rely on the sinner to get himself saved, but on God to save the sinner. Likewise we know that we had no part in our salvation but that it was all of God. So our boast is in Him alone.
And this brings a Scripture to mind…
And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
So we do not expect the one to whom we preach, to, by his own wisdom and understanding, grasp God; but rather, we trust God to grasp the sinner so that their faith would rest on God, not themselves.
peace brother
Mike:
And we received that faith (which we agree is not a work) as a free gift so we have no cause to boast. God has blinded the eyes of those who do not believe but we are not given a full explanation as to why He has done so and we should not make inferences that Scripture does not explicitly support, as did Calvin.
Walt,
i gotta run. be back tonight to catch up.
peace brother
Walt,
you said,
And we received that faith (which we agree is not a work) as a free gift so we have no cause to boast. God has blinded the eyes of those who do not believe but we are not given a full explanation as to why He has done so and we should not make inferences that Scripture does not explicitly support, as did Calvin.
You say it is not a work but you define it as a work. Make up your mind. One post you say you are saved because God foresaw your actions, and another post you say you are saved without action but by faith.
Why don’t you simply be straight with me?
Faith isn’t a work. But then you can’t define faith as you would define a work, it would have to be DIFFERENT than a work for it not to be a work.
A work is defined as an action which includes to choose.
Thus faith is defined as not an action and not a choice, but as a trust one has in their heart. You don’t chose faith. You choose to act on the faith you have.
Are you okay with that definition?
And by the way, you keep mentioning Calvin. I have no idea why or what you are talking about. I did not learn from him. I do not know what he stood for exactly. And Calvinism isn’t all about Calvin.
Mike: I did not say that I am chosen because God foresaw my actions. I simply don’t know as Scripture is silent on why God predestined some for heaven or hell. You are saying that God’s foreknowledge of my actions is irrelevant to His decision, which is what UNCONDITIONAL election means, despite the protests and disclaimers. Thus you are taking on yourself to create a theology where Scripture is silent. If the term “Calvin” offends you let’s call it “TULIP.” BTW, if I CHOOSE to act on the faith given me, as you state, why is that not a “work?”
Walt,
Here is why I thought you said He chose you due to your actions for you said:
“You state that you don’t know why God makes His decision yet you deny that my actions could have conceivably played any part in it. Which is it?”
Since you deny that what you meant was that God chose you due to your actions, I apologize. i mis-read what you were saying.
But again in your last post, you write:
“You are saying that God’s foreknowledge of my actions is irrelevant to His decision…”,
as if possibly your actions influenced His decision. Now why Walt do you continue to say that when the Scripture tells us salvation is not due to our actions [works]?
You continued:
“You are saying that God’s foreknowledge of my actions is irrelevant to His decision, which is what UNCONDITIONAL election means, despite the protests and disclaimers. Thus you are taking on yourself to create a theology where Scripture is silent.”
But as I just showed, Scripture is not silent. Salvation is not due to your works. Do you need me to post them again?
You say you don’t know, but God tells us that our salvation is not due to our actions.
In another post you asked :
“If faith is not a choice why is it called one?”
Because people confuse the choice made because they have faith with faith itself.
And you asked, “BTW, if I CHOOSE to act on the faith given me, as you state, why is that not a “work?””
That is a work. For example, baptism is a work done because you have faith.
peace brother
Mike: I feel like Alice in “Through the Looking Glass” in her argument with Humpty Dumpty after reading your last post. I am too confused to say anything. If you are equating acting based on the faith given me as a “work” then I can merely disagree with your definition of the word. Then you take your definition of “works” and declare God’s foreknowledge of my response based on the faith given me as irrelevant to His decision simply leaves me slack-jawed. I’ll give you the last word as I am far too confused by your arguments to add anything further to the discussion.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
The works or actions we do, we were created in Christ Jesus to do. These acts or works do not save us. Nor does God use our acts or good works as a basis to save us. For example, baptism does not save. It is an act of obedience done because we have faith in the Lord and seek to obey Him.
God does not save us as a response to what we do. We respond because He is saving us.
“For example, baptism does not save.”
I wonder why 1st Peter says, “Baptism now saves you…”?
If Christ commanded it, wouldn’t Christ be in it?
I find it odd that so many Christians believe that Christ can actually be present and living inside their hearts…but then those same folks say that He could not be present in a bowl, or tank of water, accompanied by His Word of promise.
Odd.
The Presence of the Eternal Word in maintaining the existence of His Creation is a teaching in the book of Colossians.
CHRIST is very present in baptism, as He is in all of His Creation, the very atoms of hydrogen and oxygen that form water molecules are ‘held in existence’ by Christ, and He is very present in all things spiritual. It would be very odd to see Christ distant from any part of Christianity indeed, in fact a teaching like that would oddly contradict sacred Scripture, which confirms Him as the Kyrios, the Lord, the great Lord of the Cosmos:
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
People that don’t acknowledge how close God is to them may be missing out on a lot of blessing . . . if God were to remove His Hand from any living thing, it would no longer exist . . . He is being itself. Without the Creator to sustain what ‘IS’, nothing could remain in existence.
Creation was formed ‘ex nihilo’ . . .
Steve,
Baptism is an expression of faith. One does not need to be baptized to be saved. And I imagine that there are many who are baptized and will end up in Hell.
But in any expression of faith, God is there.
We read:
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.
Now anyone can say “Jesus is Lord”, but Paul is speaking not just of words, but of heart felt expressions. One could praise God with just their lips, but such praise is not accepted by God unless it is from their heart as well. So we read:
“The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Thus true faith [from the heart] always has its works [its expressions].
We read:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
True faith always has its works, its expressions, its confirmation by its works. But God does not save you because He fore saw you doing these things. These works, these expressions of faith, are done because God is saving you, and has saved you.
I have been tied up with going to the hospital, sermon preparation, and preaching. I had to put my wife in the hospital on Friday (and spend 8 hrs with her in the emergency room), return to the hospital on Sat. and again today, after church.). I received a phone call on Sat. requesting that I supply a pulpit. and so was up until 2:30 this morning preparing that message. Preached this morning, visited my wife in the hospital this afternoon, went to a drug store, then to a prayer meeting, return home, many phone calls. Finally to the internet. very tired. Noted that Walt claims to be a five point calvinist and yet rejects unconditional election and irresistible grace that he seems to equate the five points with hyper calvinism which is often done. Then he claims to be a five point calvinist. However, when I look closely at his comments, at best he seems to be a Molinist and at worse a hyper arminian. As to his concerns about my not following up on his sources of definitions, the answer is this: “If you let some one else defined the terms, you have already lost the battle.” In addition, Walt never addresses the arguments. The missionaries cited in my comments were five point, TULIP, calvinists, and God’s irresistible grace is suggested by the use of the term “draw”. God draws people like a man draws a sword from the sheath or the people in the biblical accounts who dragged Paul and Silas through the streets. Root words all the same. In God’s case, the drawing is that of sweetness, conviction, etc., and comes under a light so wonderous as to be utterly irresistible. And since, as I have pointed out, the doctrines are each and every one of them invitations to salvation, invitations to the conscious embracing of the truth, and that they are therapeutic paradoxes and I note that Walt never addresses them, it seems a waste of time for any one to answer or comment on what he has said. His skill at progandizing is wanting, especially if he expects he can define the terms for his opponents. – not likely in the light of what the word says, something he never really answers.
James:
I’m sorry to hear about your wife and will be in prayer for her. I never claimed to be a 5 point TULIP Calvinist but I did accept the BACON understanding as it avoids the word “unconditional.” As your remarks are getting defensive and personal I’m leaving you with the last word.
I really am surprised Walt that some one hasn’t clamped down hard on you for your rejection of unconditional election….and pointed out the very obvious: election is a doctrine of grace; it is the election of grace, and grace is unconditional favor. Molinism and hyper-arminianism like to play games to avoid the paradoxes of scripture; they will explain away clear statements like no man can (no man is able). Man is not only totally depraved; he is total disabled. The doctrine is one of total inability, and man’s free will was affected and effected in the Fall, in original sin. His will is still free, free to do what his nature determines. He can choose to stay awake, but how to perform it he finds not as the Bible so states: “To will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.”(Roms.7:18). I might be tired (I did get about 5+ hrs our good sleep), but on my worst days, I think I can answer such failures to grasp the truth as you have manifested. It seems quite clear that you regard five pointers, especially with reference to ULI of the TULIP as the doctrines of hyper-calvinism. All of these doctrines are the doctrines of the Gospel; they are the very heart of the Gospel, and they are all invitations, contrary to what some folks seem to think. They are paradoxical invitations, interventions of a therapeutic nature, designed to make man aware of his true state, his helpless and despicable condition, grace that saved a wretch like me is the way John Newton put it. And these are the doctrines of the First and Second Great Awakenings that transformed Protestantism from its recovery agenda that was fraught so many problems into a outgoing, more healthy minded, we will win you with persuasion of the truth, even the truth that Christ died for the church and no mention of His dying for every one without exception. And if you wonder where that comes from, it comes from the articles of faith of the first baptist church to send out the first Southern Baptist missionary to China in the 1840s, Matthew T. Yates. I think you are playing games with us. We don’t know where you are coming from, except it gives no credit to scripture..like the reference by the church in prayer that Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel gathered together “To do whatsoever your hand and your counsel had determined (foreordained, decided beforehand) to be done, to happen.” Forty years ago, it will be this coming night of Oct.29, I lost my mother and two half sisters and a step-father in a murder-suicide, where, according to the law, my step-father shot my sisters, my mother, set the house afire, and then shot himself. Just before the funeral on Nov.2, I wrote a statement, citing the decrees of God with reference to the sufferings of Christ and how the evil done, freely though foreordained, foreordained though freely, and how God brought good out of the worst evil that ever happened in the history of mankind, the death of Christ on the cross, that we believed, my family and I believed, God would bring good out of that terrible tragedy, though we knew not how or when. Brother, that is hewing the timber of life the way God gives it to us, not blaming Him for sin, though recognizing His right to appoint what shall come to pass, and giving Him all the glory for any salvation and deliverance and for any judgment He chooses to make.Gloria in excelsis Deo!
“….I think you are playing games with us….”
James. When you stoop to doubting my integrity we’re through talking.
Who says I was doubting your integrity. I am questioning your scholarship, your methods of study and interpretation, not your character. I know nothing about your character or even what you do, your education, etc. I did go back and try to read all of your comments above before I wrote the blog to which you replied that I was attacking your character. You attacked my scholarship, and I simply returned the favor.
Mike: When you say I am not arguing in good faith you are attacking my character. I won’t belabor the point as I don’t care. Thanks however, for your admission that your motive was retaliation. Freud would have loved you.
James: When you say I am not arguing in good faith you are attacking my character. I won’t belabor the point as I don’t care. Thanks however, for your admission that your motive was retaliation. Freud would have loved you.
James, I said your scholarship, and your scholarship can be poor without it meaning anything bad about your character. I repeat, I know nothing about your character, except that you are trying to make it the issue when I keep saying as I think Mike has said, it is how your are interpreting scripture. I know the church of Christ people and how they interpret “for” salvation. I remember hearing one of their scholars arguing that eis could not mean because of but only in order to. Hence, you know they had to be right on baptism essential to salvation. But I was thinking of Nineveh repenting at the preaching of Jonah, the were at was from the greek eis, and it simply did not mean that Nineveh repented in order to get Jonah to preach, but because he preached. In this case, the problem is interpretation, not character; it is a scholastic blindness due to having filters in the mind that keep one from seeing any other way but the way that individual prefers for reasons that are no scholastic at all.
Interesting, a note to yourself about poor scholarship. Another Freudian slip? FYI, I am a lawyer and I can assure you that an accusation of bad faith is a declaration of moral turpitude. But as I said, I don’t care so I’ll let it slide
I have not been arguing the merits of hyper-C with you (which I never said included ULI). I have merely been pointing out that a great many, if not most Evangelical scholars consider hyper-C to be grave error if not heresy. I am talking specifically about their claimed lack of need for missions. Dr. Philip Johnson made an impassioned plea about the dangers of hyper-C. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm.
As to whether I will take his word or yours, I’ll’ (one pico-second passes) take his.
Well, if you want to buy the old out-of-date junk and bunk of Freudianism, you go right ahead. I have a Master’s in counseling, and was one of the first 1000 of Licensed Professional Counselors in N.C. Freud is out of date by several generations now. The latest, when I took my degree, 1/88, was Eclectic Psychotherapy which really was training in a variety of counseling approaches and how to diagnosis and assess a counseling situation and design a therapy appropriate to the individual. As to scholarship, I possess a Master’s in American Social & Intellectual History plus 18 hrs toward a Ph.D.,having written a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation in Black History at Columbia Univ., plus an M.Div. and a D. Min. from SEBTS when it was the most liberal in the SBC. I also taught Senior papers at Morehead State U. in Ky. , U.S. History from ’70-72 at South Carolina State (and one course in Philosophy in the Spring of ’71), political Science at Richmond Community College, NC, and about five or six subjects in seminary extension. Scholarship has been my area of study for most of my life, after preaching and pastoring (28 years). After attending 10 colleges and universities and having degrees from four of them, I think I know scholarship, good or bad, when I see it. I also know and detest the idea of judging character, when dealing with scholarship. It won’t work. The sorriest character can be a good scholar. I once persuaded a fellow to apologize to a scholar, when he attacked the man’s character instead of his scholarship. The gentleman apologized. to the professor, publically. Since, I repeat, I don’t know anything about your character, I have not the slightest desire to attack it. My aim is your scholarship, what I consider to be methods that ensure misunderstanding and misinterpretation. As a teacher, I do have some knowledge of such matters. As to Philip Johnson, I have looked at some of the things he has written. Some I like, and some I don’t. Our views do not jive on every point, and hyper calvinism is one of them. But that’s okay by me. We are not having an argument over it like you and myself and Mike. You take a criticism of your scholarship, your methods of interpretation, as an attack on your character. Poor scholarship does not mean bad character. I remember a young man in my poly/sci class who had the sorriest character. He wanted to write a paper on sexual freedom (Hugh Hefner’s Playbody Philosophy), and he was sure I would give him a bad grade because of that. I told him to follow the guidelines for how I wanted the paper written (technical stuff like Turabin (sp) on the writing of term papers or the Chicago Style Manual or Campbell’s thesis guide. The fellow was surely and sorely surprised to find not only had he passed on the paper, he had made a B or an A on it (I can’t remember which it was now after 25-30 years.). As to what most evangelical scholars say, I could care less. My concern is to be right with scripture and whether that makes me right with every one else or not is beside the point.
bad faith 1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” which is breached by acts of bad faith, for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach of contract). The question of bad faith may be raised as a defense to a suit on a contract.
James: As you can see this concept involves moral turpitude.
Walt: between worrying about my wife and how I am to get her transfer to a rehab facility and working on a sermon for Weds. nite prayer meeting where I attend.(and I am retired pastor, I suppose) and preparing for this coming Sun. morning,too, plus spending time in prayer, you want to lay on me the idea of a lawsuit????? There is a little thing call motivation involved, and I have no motive, no desire, and not the slightest bit of interest in judging your character. We are talking about scholarship, where one’s efforts, one’s productions I should say, are the area of interest. The questions there then become: Has the interpreter carefully read, studied, and evaluated the evidence. What were the principles guiding the study, what methods were used, etc.? Something like that. Brother, you are bringing your law practice into an area concerned with scholarship. Law can serve to help with meanings and interpretations. I never said nor intended that you exercised bad faith in your explanations. On the contrary, I would find it hard to believe that you would do that. But any one can make mistakes in understanding, in reasoning, in evaluating the evidence, as you must know from your work in law. However, in the area of faith, while law definitely has its place, here the principles of faith and grace apply. Reason with Mike and me. We have not the slightest bit of interest in putting you down or making you look bad. Truth, be told, we call all do that to ourselves so much more effectively than any one else…except God and He does that in the purest judgment…and justice is not what we want. What we want is mercy and grace at the bar, the opportunity to set down with the judge and get our cases adjudicated (sp?)(any way handled by the judge and our attorney in chambers?). Scriptural background Hebs.12:22; I Pet.4:17; I John 2:1,2. Perhaps a better term for what we are really struggling with is poor scholarship. You know like doing “D” work, when one should be doing “A” work. And sometimes the poorer work is the result of being in over our heads before we are ready for such a thing.
James: After reading your posts you would not have a chance to give me a D as I would never take your class. I do thank you for now understanding the definition of “bad faith” and stating that this accusation was not your intent.
Sorry for the double post. That comment is directed to James.
James,
You said, “”arminianism like to play games to avoid the paradoxes of scripture; they will explain away clear statements like no man can””
I’d say the same thing about Calvinists–like the plain reading of Titus 2:11 in regard to “unlimited atonement.” I can pretty much bet your life (perhaps no my own) that Calvinists would view this Scripture in a way that “fit their view.”
That’s the problem with “doctrines of grace”– many interpret the Scriptures in light of their “view” instead of viewing the Scripture in light of what it clearly says.
I don’t think we will ever eliminate this egocentric predicament in regard to theology–especially in regard to Calvinism.
Frank, Perhaps I should have said some Arminians. However, it has been my experience, generally speaking.
Walt,
Well, first I am not a pastor.
Second, what does the evidence show?
Have you answered my last couple questions?
Nope.
Why not Walt?
Are you engaging with my points?
Nope.
Wh not Walt?
Mike: I am relieved to hear that you are not a pastor. You received an answer. You just didn’t like it. The concept of exercising one’s faith is an entailment (necessary inference) to the word “saved.” This has to be true unless one can be saved without the action of accepting Christ through his God-given faith.
Walt,
Is it necessary for you you to go to Heaven once you are saved?
Yes. But that doesn’t mean you were saved because of that necessity.
Likewise, it is necessary to exercise one’s faith once you are saved.
I have already told you that and showed you Scripturally that is true.
So if anyone is beating a dead horse, it is the one asking the same question over and over. And since you, I assume, passed the bar, I imagine you have no trouble reading with comprehension.
So one is saved, not by their own actions, but their own actions are a necessity if God is saving you.
Walt,
Did you answer my questions and did you address my points?
Nope.
Doing one and not the other doesn’t mean you are okay.
But I don’t mind repeating myself:
If you have faith, you are justified. The exercising of faith is a work.
If one has faith, then they will believe and exercise that faithby doing good works. The only way to be ‘believing’ is by doing a work.
One is saved by God, who in the saving, amd by the saving, brings aperson to.faith and thus to justification. The reaction of the person is believing by confession. Confession is the act of believing and it is a work.
Mike:
You said, “…If you have faith, you are justified. The exercising of faith is a work. If one has faith, then they will believe…”
And the act of believing is not a “work” under your definition?
Mike:
The simple point I am trying to make is that believing using the faith God has given one is necessary and it is NOT a “work.” I am making no claim to any credit for my salvation other than God’s grace which enabled me to believe.
Walt,
Tell me how you are believing using the faith God gave you.
I will tell you how I do it, in fact I will show you:
Jesus is my Lord and Savior, he is God the Son crucified for my sins, who rose from the dead and lives no more to die. He is coming back to judge the living and the dead.
You see Walt, works of faith is how we do believing. Resting in Him is a work of faith. Confession of Him is a work of faith.
Mike:
“…You see Walt, works of faith is how we do believing. Resting in Him is a work of faith…”
So Paul was wrong when he said that salvation is “not of works?”
Walt,
Whether you call it an act of faith or an act of believing, acts are works. One is justified if they HAVE faith. It is evidenced and, in a sense made complete, when by that faith, one does a believing act. But the act is not the faith. The act is a work.
Let me put it in another way. Consider the person, who thinks they have faith, but they never confess Jesus as Lord, they never do any act of faith. Is this person saved? Nope. Because true faith, live faith if you will, always, as a necessity, has its works.
So if the faith is, as you might put it, God-given, than it will by necessity have its works, its expression, its confession, its profession, its exercise. But one is not saved by the work of faith, but by God, who in a sense, saves when He gives one faith.
So in Ephesians 2, Paul is telling us that salvation is not due to our work. And in Romans 10, Paul is telling us that salvation comes to those who do confess [a work]. In James 2, we are told of the necessity of works to salvation.
`
In Titus 3, Paul tells us that we are not saved due to works done by us in righteousness.
The answer is, I repeat, we do the exercising of our faith as a necessity to the faith God gives us as a ‘natural’ consequence of our experience with God. As the Lord said, out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. As Paul said, I believed therefore I spoke. Therefore when God opens our eyes, we see. When God fills our hearts, we speak. This things we do happen necessarily but they are not causes of our salvation.
Mike:
You said, “…Let me put it in another way. Consider the person, who thinks they have faith, but they never confess Jesus as Lord, they never do any act of faith. Is this person saved? Nope…”
Therefore by your definition works are required for salvation?
Walt,
What…
are you reading only half of what I post you?
Is Jesus a crybaby because the Scriptures say, “He wept.”
This is what I am talking about when I say you are not debating in good faith. And unless you really have a reading problem then yes, it speaks to your character.
Mike: Now I am doubly relieved that you are not a pastor.
Walt,
You posted this:
“Mike: Now I am doubly relieved that you are not a pastor”
How is this helpful or constructive?
A pastor’s responsibility, at times, is to correct. But one does not have to be a pastor to reprove.
If I have reproved you erroneously, show me how.
If not, the correct response is repentance.
You can’t understand the biblical doctrines of grace rightly and think that evangelism is unnecessary. Firstly, we believe (as do all Protestants) that our obedience to God’s commands comes out of a loving response to grace and a desire to glorify Him, not to earn any supposed righteousness of our own. So that motive should exist for any regenerate Christian. That being said, while the fruits of the spirit are certainly a way of discerning whether someone is truly a disciple or not, no man has a window into men’s souls. Therefore, as God has ordained the means as well as the ends, we preach Christ and Him crucified until we die and we do it because we know that Jesus is mighty to save and that it depends not on our own ability to be persuasive but on God who draws men to Him so that they can be regenerated and become able to make a free choice to love God once they are no longer dead in their trespasses and sins. That is “Calvinism” understood rightly.
We are not discussing Calvinism but super-Calvinism.
We are?
I was referring to my dialogue with James, not you.
Amen Nick. And we are in deep passionate prayer for those who we minister to.
You don’t accept Christ, friends. Christ IS your king.
You receive Him as your king. And you trust in His righteousness alone.
Every knee shall bow!
Amen to both posts Nick.
Nick,
But although receive is a fine word, since we are speaking of a person who goes from denying the truth to one who is no longer denying the truth, don’t you think that we could use the word ‘accept’ to indicate what that person’s change of disposition is from his POV?
In other words, he is not allowing Christ to be king, but accepting the reality he once denied. In this concept, accept is a bowing down to the Lord and a humbling of one’s self to that Lord, an acknowledgement of their place before the King.
An acceptance of truth.
Mike,
I think you are correct. The Bible has much to say about “receiving the truth” which activates saving grace.
The passage in Philippians about forced submission refers to the consummation of the Kingdom, not the present growth of the Kingdom.
While Jesus every bit as much the King as He ever will be, we can bow now and benefit from His Kingly mercy, or refuse to accept His rule and authority, and one day face His wrath.
That’s how I see it playing out.
I do agree with that usage of accept, Mike. It makes sense when you qualify that from the convert’s point of view, they made a free decision and usually don’t know thing one about the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit on their lives at that point.
James, Mike and Walt,
At this point, the discussion is devolving into the realm of not being helpful or productive any longer. I would like to suggest that you just call it a day before we get into actual name-calling and direct insults in yet another one of these threads.
Thanks.
Excellent counsel Jeff.
Jeff,
I’m late, but just wanted to say you wrote a very good article. As you point out, if we’re not careful, even non-Calvinists can be “Hyper-Calvinist,” in our attitudes and practices.
David R. Brumbelow
Unless I missed it, you are the first person to catch that statement at the end of my Y section or comment on it in any case. I don’t think that problem is limited to hyper-Calvinists at all, even though they are usually the ones that get the rap for it.
David: you hit the nail on the head. Non-calvinists can be hyper-calvinists in practice, that is, if one defines hyper-calvinism as being unconcerned for the glory of God and the good of souls and seeking to advance His cause in this world by ethical means, Gospel means. Int he 1700s, the General Baptists were practical hyper-calvinists. If a person just said I believe in God, they would baptize him or her and admit that person to membership. The Separate and Regular Baptists were evangelising with zeal, but they required evidence of true conversion. On the other hand hyper-calvinism is simply a pejorative term. Dr. Campbell, my ordaining pastor who had a Ph.D. in biblical theology from Bob Jones really knew what the term meant. To him it meant that God’s decrees came first, supralapsarian. Dr. Campbell was a soul winner par excellence. People have called five point calvinists, and I mean the TULIP variety, hyper-calvinists. Some call people hyper-calvinists, if they accept and hold Inability, unconditional election, and irresistible grace, Propaganda techniques have been a factor in all of our discussions, but most people are not aware that it is involved. In any case, I do commend you, Brother David, for your perceptiveness/
Mike,
You stated:
There are a few things wrong with this. When Paul contrasts justification by faith with justification by works, he is speaking of ground and basis for our salvation. What is contrasted is trusting the merit of one’s own works to make them sufficiently righteous in God’s judgment, and trusting only in God’s promise to impute the merits of Christ’s righteousness to us. Therefore, the prospect that faith cannot involve any act on the sinner’s part else it would be disqualified due to being a work is a false dilemma that is not supported anywhere in Paul’s epistles or the remainder of Scripture. Yes, we do find that we are saved by faith as opposed to works; and we also find that faith is the gift of God. But nowhere do we find that faith does not involve the will and act of the converting sinner.
Your argument that faith is what one has, not what one does, also does not follow. The Bible uses more than the word, faith, to convey what is meant. It also uses the word, believe. It could just as easily—and just as erroneously—be claimed that believe is what one does, not what one has.
Jesus did not hesitate to imply that believing in Him was something that one does, and even called it a “work:”
Of course, He was not speaking in a meritorious sense, in which one trusts in the work for salvation; but rather, He was answering their question about working “for the food that endures to eternal life”: What must we do to be doing [these] works of God? Jesus informed them that the only work of God that they can do to gain eternal life is to believe on Him.
This is why the gospel is implorative rather than merely informative. Rather than merely informing men, “Some of you will find that you have faith, and as a result, you will believe,” we instead implore men, “Believe!—and be reconciled to God!” 2 Cor. 5:20ESV, “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
Thanks Ken. You said it better than I was able.
You’re welcome, Walt. The “faith as works” question is not the crux of the issue. It bogs down the debate and diverts time and effort from the real question, which is this: What is the discriminating factor that makes the difference between heaven and hell for a sinner—is it the sinner’s will or is it God. Who ultimately decides?—that is the real issue. As a centrist, I agree with Mike that God is that discriminating factor, and I agree with you that each sinner must come to Christ of his own free will and then be regenerated.
Thanks again Ed. I tied to make clear that I believe in election as the Bible clearly teaches it. My q
Thanks again Ed. I tied to make clear that I believe in election as the Bible clearly teaches it. My quarrel with TULIP is that it goes beyond Paul in trying to assess God’s motives for predestination (unconditional) where Scripture is silent. I cannot believe that an omniscient mind didn’t factor everything, including His foreknowledge, into His decision before time began. Again I can’t state it categorically as Scripture is silent on this issue as well.
I remember the preacher boy son of R. Townley Davis showing me his Bible in which his father had written the five points of tulip as the heart of the Gospel. If there was nothing to it, if it was going beyond the Scripture, rather than being scriptural, why would our Lord preach to a woman of Canaan, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Mt.15:24)And she was not a Jew. Still her response in the face of a hard truth was to come and worship, falling down before the Lord. She even agreed with the image of reprobation which our Lord used, saying, “Truth, Lord.”