Maybe I'm Naive
I guess I took things for granted. Within the last month or so, I have come to the realization that many (and I mean MANY) Baptists hold to Calvinism. Many conservative scholars, of whom I still appreciate for their insight in other issues, hold to the teaching of Calvinism. While I do not desire to degrade these men, I do believe that they are in error (or heresy?).
The teaching of Calvinism forces the Bible to contradict itself, so therefore we can be assured that no such doctrine is found in the Bible. (Besides, the Bible is clear in its teaching of election, foreknowledge, etc.) Without delving into this issue further, why is there such a resurgence among Baptists of the teaching of Calvinism. And yes, I have been on many conservative Baptist blogs, websites and read many of their books, and seen a huge surge towards this teaching. Maybe I'm missing something. I don't know. After all, I am a bit naive!
Posts
Come, brethren, ye who love the Lord
8 hours ago
134 comments:
"Most rejections of Calvinism are based on wrong assumptions about what we believe," says a friend of mine. Do you have specific points of contention?
Most Calvinists I know teach that God has chosen who will be saved and who will not be saved. He has elected (chosen) them, and there is no freewill involved. I do not argue that God already knows who will accept Him, but foreknowledge does not mean He has forced them to accept Him. Without freewill, then man is no more than a robot. If God knows that someone will accept Christ (foreknowledge), can He, or will He, make sure that person has the opportunity to hear the gospel? Yes. But that is much different than God picking and choosing who will be saved.
That is the hardcore Calvinist teaching that I am familiar with. Maybe your friend has some variation, so let me know.
Well, I can say for myself, that I don't think that Scripture at all teaches at we are without freewill, but rather, that our will is never to follow him. We are inherently evil, and always choose evil apart from God giving us the ability to choose Him.
John Piper says that is important to realize that we don't really want to take final credit for our coming to Christ (i.e. I "accepted" Jesus). We don't want to stand before God at the judgment day and respond to the question, "Why did you believe and others with your opportunities didn't?" with the answer, "Well, I guess I was smarter, or more spiritual." We want to, in great humility and thankfulness, say, "By grace I was brought to faith." Which is "irresistible grace." That is, grace that triumphs over all resistance in the end.
Does not "irresistable grace" trump freewill though?
No. He doesn't squelch our will. He changes it. "We are a new creation."
More thoughts...
Bottom line regarding free will is that we're free, but we're only free to act according to what we are. For instance, I can wish to high heaven that I could fly, but I am not a bird capable of flying. Is my free will somehow hindered because I can't sprout wings and fly? No. But, my free will is bound according to the fact that I'm human.
Are the wills of unregenerate men hindered? No. They're just bound to what they are. After God changes who we are, the possibilities of our free will choices are changed as well.
Irresistible Grace doesn't work against Free Will. It simply changes the heart, which changes what you want, and then you freely and gladly choose God, a la Acts 11:18.
(mad props to my friend who helped me form these thoughts)
That's all for now. I promise. :)
"for those he predestined he also foreknew"
yes its the most overused arguement for Calvinists, but hey, why change if it hasn't been bunked?
predestined, meaning previous to actual occurence, God ordained the salvation of those he foreknew. not simply those he foreknew would choose him, he simply foreknew the ones he was going to ordain.
I'm Todd, BTW. sorry to bust in here without in introduction.
you will not here a true calvinist say "election trumps free will" free will is most assuredly in scripture. the whole point of irresistable grace is that if shown the awesome goodness of God in its fullness, the only logical choice is to seek after it.
lets say i have some fries, and i want them to be saltier. now there is a salt and pepper shaker in front of me. you would think me daft if i chose the pepper over the salt, hoping that it would taste like salt. in the same way, if God shows me the fullness of himself, i am still free to choose the wickedness of this world, but in the end my pursuit of joy will draw me closer to that which it knows will truely give me joy.
hope that made sense, and sorry for just jumping in here.
Good stuff! I am back in the bloging world now matt
Okay, I'm not sure why the other person deleted his posts because there were some good questions and thoughts, but oh well (by the way, I receive an email telling me what is posted, even if it is deleted).
Let me ask a question. How can Calvinism "jive" with the teaching God is not willing that any should perish? How can that work together with Calvinism, if God does not want any to perish and then He chooses some to save and the rest to...well, perish?
I think he felt weird because he doesn't know you. But yes, they were good questions, IMO.
(Hi Stubb!)
Here is what I can offer to answer your question, and I'm not claiming it to be complete or to satisfactorily answer what you're asking. In a conversation I had recently, this is what was discussed... so a lot of this comes from this conversation, and others have helped me form these thoughts. Just so you don't think I'm as smart (or dumb) as I may come off. HA! ;)
How can Calvinism "jive" with the teaching God is not willing that any should perish?
2 Peter 3:9 is what you're referencing, right? I believe this verse is referring to perseverence of the saints, 'once saved, always saved'. It seems that the "any" is a direct reference to the "you." So Peter is saying that God does not wish that "any" of "you" should perish. So who is the "you"? The audience of Peter is the Church, or the elect, or the saved. He is saying that God does not wish that any of the elect should perish. This is God's promise to His sheep that He will not let them go astray, and that all things work toward our sanctification and ultimate justification. There are all sorts of bad implications If God willed everyone in the world to come to salvation (in the way you're thinking of "will").
Stephanie
He dose not use the word "You" he used the word "any" in the greek that word means "man, thing, thing at all" God was not willing that ANY of the people in that church (all the saved dont make up the church by the way) should perish and He is not willing that ANY one should perish . Back to the greek wording any= "man, thing, thing at all". Then we come across another phrase in that VS " that all" in the greek that means "all, any, every, the whole" God wants the "whole, every, and all" to come to repentance.
The whole idea that God is making people stay lost are that he is only choosing a few dose not match the scriptures.
just one more thing, if calvinism is true, why do we do mission work?? if everyone that is going to be saved is just saved becasue God picked them out, why do we waste money and waist time telling people about Jesus??
Sorry Matt for praching, i could go on and on about this, but for now i wont:)
Quite a prideful response, Stubb. I must respectfully disagree on all counts.
The "you" that I refered to comes before the phrase that Matt cited. The full verse reads, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." Go back and check the grammatical context there.
I'd also ask that you take a good, hard look at Romans 9 before making presumptuous statements about what God does or does not intend to do. It is indeed very prideful and sinful (idolotrous, even) to speak of our feelings about how things should be in place of what Scripture really says (i.e. Rom. 9:19-29).
Regarding who is and is not in the Church... well... I'm SO not going there today. That's a whole other issue. Let's just leave it at polar disagreement.
Regarding missions-- You and I have had this discussion before, and my answer remains the same! We do missions because we are commanded to do so. We evangelize because this is what Christ commanded us to do. This is how He has instructed us to be tools of his grace and mercy-- by sharing the AMAZING news that even though we are not good enough to get to Heaven on our own, our good, and awe-inspiringly gracious Father IS, and PAID the debt we owed. We share this very good news because we aren't the ones who dictate who is of the remnant and who is not. It is God, and this is what He calls us to do!
And for the record, I love and respect both of you a great deal. I don't pretend to be a Bible scholar in any sense of the word, but I know what I believe, and I live my life the way that I do because of that belief and the assurance that God has granted me through Scripture. Grace is all we have, guys.
That being said, let me refer you to a book and a statement, both written by people FAR smarter than I-- that I found particularly helpful when I began unpacking all of my thoughts on these topics.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581342993
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1985/1487_What_We_Believe_About_the_Five_Points_of_Calvinism/
God has called me to preach His word and if I knew that all the elect had a yellow stripe painted down their backs, then I would give up preaching the gospel and go lift up shirt tails! ... I do not come into this pulpit hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, "You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for myself." My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will. Free will carried many a soul to hell, but never a soul to heaven." - C. H. Spurgeon
"Then we come across another phrase in that VS " that all" in the greek that means "all, any, every, the whole" God wants the "whole, every, and all" to come to repentance.
The whole idea that God is making people stay lost are that he is only choosing a few dose not match the scriptures."
last time, promise.
so what you're saying is that God, Soveriegn, Omnipotent GOD, wants something to happen, but doesn't have the power to make it so? it seems that Your God is too weak to do what he says he will, where as the God of Calvinism is just, and Christs blood atones for exactly who it says it will. for you to be consistent in your ethic, you have to believe in the universal atonement, which is clearly denounced in scripture
"The whole idea that God is making people stay lost are that he is only choosing a few dose not match the scriptures. "
if you're goi9ng to appeal to scripture, it would help to cite some.
quick question, if God desires for all to come to repentance, then how did he hate esau?
the intern
God dose have the power but he is not going to violate mans free will, He wants man to love him, but he dose not MAKE him love him.
You want scripturs for my what i am saying, just read the book of John, matter of fact just read any of the bible!!!!
Stephanie,
II Cor 5:14 "Christ died for all" the last time i checked all ment all even in the greek that is what it means, so for some one to say that christ only died for the elect dose NOT match scriptures.. And not only did he die for all but he will save ALL!!! Read John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
"whosoever" You know what that means??? It means what it says!! It dose not mean that only the elect will not perish!
This is the last post i will post on this subject, I too stephanie love you, and respect you, at least you know what you beleave even though i disagree. God Bless yall and i hope the Lord works in your lifes
Matt, I realize quite a few comments have been made, but I first want to go back and address a couple of things in the original post. Then perhaps I'll catch up with the rest of y'all.
Are Baptists who hold Calvinism guilty of heresy? I think that has pretty much been the position of both the ABA and BMAA of the past. Ben Bogard and D. N. Jackson would be two representative writers one could check on this. This creates a precarious predicament for Baptists who hold successionism. While what we don't know might not hurt us, what we do know might. The clear fact that we cannot get around is that our heritage, baptism and origins come from the Particular/Regular Baptists. American Baptist forebears to whom we so proudly point -- John Leland, Isaac Backus, John Clarke, Obabiah Holmes, Shubal Stearns, Silas & Jesse Mercer, etc. -- held the five points we most often identify as Calvinism. Even when we look at J. R. Graves' soteriology (He wasn't a 5-point Calvinist) in his "Seven Dispensations" (at least I think that's the name of it) we find terminology used that, if preached in an ABA church, would get one run out on a rail. I'd be loathe to call Holmes, a forefather who was whipped for his Baptist beliefs, a heretic. Anyway, if we conclude that Calvinistic Baptists are heretics, we are the descendants of heretics. What does that make us?
Why is there such a resurgence among Baptists of the teaching of Calvinism? There are probably several factors. Two factors I can think of are (1) an increased reading of Baptist forefathers who were Calvinists, and thereby an increase in leaders favorable to Calvinism (or Calvinists; Al Mohler & John Piper, e.g.); (2) a reaction against non-Calvinists who have a low view of God, who have run toward liberalism on the one hand or Arminianism and Pelagianism on the other hand. How often do we hear loose statements like "God doesn't send anyone to Hell" (of course He does, according to both Calvinism and Arminianism), God can't do this or that, God is trying to do this or that. Again, whether or not one is a Calvinist, or how we can conceive of His doing it, God is working all things after the council of His own will (not trying to). I think such "wimpy" religion helps drive folks to look for a something more substantial.
p.s sorry for my spelling, its past my bed time:)
You're correct Robert. I don't really view those who hold to Calvinism as heretics (well, at least the Baptist ones). But I am concerned about the prevalence of this teaching.
Michael,
I too believe in free grace but that does not contradict freewill. God draws all men to Him, but some accept Christ and others reject. If there was irresistible grace, then the Scripture concerning Christ drawing all men to Him would mean that all people would be saved. For if they are drawn, and cannot resist, then they are, by implication, ones who will accept.
Thanks everyone for your posts. I hope we can keep discussing this issue.
"You want scripturs for my what i am saying, just read the book of John, matter of fact just read any of the bible!!!!"
why don't we start with John first?
John 6:37-40
37"(AY)All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
38"For (AZ)I have come down from heaven, (BA)not to do My own will, but (BB)the will of Him who (BC)sent Me.
39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of (BD)all that He has given Me I (BE)lose nothing, but (BF)raise it up on the last day.
40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who (BG)beholds the Son and (BH)believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will (BI)raise him up on the last day."
seems that God had something to do with it, the whole "has given me" seems to mean its already happened, past tense, chosen before the foundations of the earth thing.
and how about the book of the life of the lamb that was slain?
Revelation17:8
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
everyone whose name does not appear in a book that was written from the foundations of the earth will bow to the beast, but those who are written in it will not. and elsewhere it talks about all who were written in the lambs book of life, which was written previous to you doing jack to attain your salvation, will enter heaven.
and we've already shown that he doesn't violate free will. you continue to make these statements as if you've backed them up. would you mind being so gracious as to do so?
14For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
this is clearly talking about the us that is refered to at the beginning of the verse. who does the love of christ control? us, ie, regenerates. who's concluded this? we have. who no longer live for themselves? regenerates don't.
i don't even need the greek here, i just need to understand sentence structure.
Wow. Guess I'm coming into the conversation a bit late.
This is what I found on a Calvinist site (www.jesussaidfollowme.org) -
"There are 2 popular views of how God saves sinners:
1. Some believe all sinners are born with the desire and ability to cooperate with the Holy Spirit, and exercise their own "free will" to choose Christ. (Arminianism)
2. Some believe that in the Fall, all sinners lost the desire and ability to come to Christ. So, God graciously gives to some both the desire and ability to freely will to choose Christ. (Calvinism)"
I do understand that this site only represents ONE view of Calvinism, but let me illustrate a point - Stephanie said that her friend told her "Most rejections of Calvinism are based on wrong assumptions about what we believe." Maybe Stephanie should ask her friend if they agree with the absurd misrepresentation (and wrong assumptions) of Arminianism in the quoted statement. NONE of us in this discussion believes that man has an inherent DESIRE to cooperate with the Holy Spirit. Man has an inherent REBELLIOUS nature. That is what sin is, and that ultimately is what seperates us from God.
The second half of the quote states that in the Fall, man lost the desire and ability to come to Christ. -" So, God graciously gives to some both the desire and ability to freely will to choose Christ. (Calvinism)" - Also a rediculous statement.
If man's choosing plays no part in salvation (and we can all agree that the only true ACT of salvation is performed solely by Christ Jesus), then why are "some (given) both the desire and ability to freely will to choose Christ."? This author believes that FREE WILL is meted out by God to a select few. Are these, then, the Sub-Elect? Almost saved? Does God then choose from these? Are ALL of these "irresistably" forced to recieve salvation? According to Calvinism, yes. They will ALL "choose" salvation. It is silly to call it "free will" or "choice." That's no choice at all.
To believe that God gives free will only to those He will ultimately save is to believe that God chooses to condemn others for no good reason. Calvinists will say God does indeed condemn those He chooses. This is partially correct. He chooses to condemn those who reject Him. Paul made it clear that God has revealed Himself to man from the beginning, and even imprinted the knowledge of Him on our hearts (Romans 1:18-32). That's not giving us all a choice?
If God can grant free will to some, why not all? If man cannot choose God, then man has no free will. God would not, in any sense of the word, be JUST. He would be a tyrant.
Free will is granted TO ALL at birth, then at the moment of choice, salvation. Calvinism puts so much power into the words "free will" and "choice" that it misses the point of both. God grants choice so that reward and punishment are both just. The choice for salvation is NO ACT or WORK. And, yes, it is absolutely aided by the ministering of the Holy Spirit. But the choice was still two-sided (yes or no), or else it wasn't a choice at all. "Free will" means "choice." Pure and simple.
"But Phil, you just admitted that salvation is aided by the ministery of the Holy Spirit!" Of course. It's true. That does not, however, mean that we do not have a choice to reject the ministery of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit ministers to all. Only some accept Him, but it does not neccessitate that those who reject Him were in some way forced by God to do so. He allowed it. He allows a yes or no choice.
Choice was granted to Adam and Eve even before the fall. Follow God's rule, or perish. Why would He grant them a choice if not the rest of us? Are we not "sons of Adam?" Have we not inherited his nature? This inherited nature is called SIN. We recieve this nature without choosing it. We act upon it when we willfully rebel against God. For God to remove the possibility for EVERY person born with this nature to recieve salvation and only grant this choice to a select few is a logical absurdity. "You all are guilty. Pardons are available, but I'm only gonna allow these guys over here to get them. I'm not even gonna send my Spirit to tell the rest of you, just the few I pick."
Whew. Think I beat that dead horse enough?
Now, briefly, "ABILITY." Calvinism teaches that unregenerate man has no ability to choose Christ of his own. This is almost accurate. Without the shed blood of Christ and the convicting work of the Spirit, man has NO ABILITY.
Where we'll part ways is "availability." The Blood Sacrifice was for us all. Even those that reject. They were granted the ability and given availability at "It is finished!" The Spirit whispers to them. Ministers, evangelists, and missionaries preach to them. Yet they excercise their right to deny. C'est la vie. Some choose, others reject, but the ability was granted long ago by Christ.
Now regeneration. To believe that God begins work in the lives of the elect even before they choose Christ is a true statement. This is not, however, to be confused with regeneration. "Regeneration... is an instantaneous work of the Holy Spirit in originating a new nature in the believing sinner so as to transform the believer from a state of spiritual death to spiritual life (cf. John 3:5, 10:10,28; 1 John 5:11-12)" - Dr. Duane Lindsey
I believe this definition to be accurate. Most Calvinists would, to some extent, agree. I think the problem might be a timing issue. I believe that God births within us a "new man (nature)" at the moment of salvation. Calvinists might argue that this process began BEFORE the new birth. In other words, the Spirit was birthing the new man in order to open the eyes of the old unto salvation. Is that accurate? If so, it seems like you're putting the cart before the horse. But, then again, if the horse has no choice...
Final thought. I love God because He first loved me. That's not a cliche. It's solemn, serious, and sacred truth. In the final analysis, I would hate to think that the only reason I have such love was willful coersion. Doesn't seem like much of relationship.
Peace, Phil
Calvinism is silly! Usually people with enlarged intellectual pride seem to succumb to it. Notice I said intellectual pride not actual intelligence.
Here is something for the intellectual calvinist to chew on!
Calvinists insist that God chose then man chose...in otherwords predestination before knowledge.
Seeing God is eternal past and eternal future how is there a time that his predestination could ever come before his knowledge or his knowledge before his predestination. God has always known and God has always predestined! Therefore this argument is silly from either side!
The real question is what part does man play in his salvation? If God does everything including changing peoples minds then why does the bible "Command all men everywhere to Repent"? If God knows that he is going to make people repent anyway then why does he command them all to do it? And if you answer that with "the command is part of the process by which he makes them repent" then that means everyone will get saved because he commanded it to everyone and they are all part of the process! Why would God make some people repent and not others! Bottom line is that Calvinists still have God predestinating people to Hell!!!! No matter what little slick terminology they put on it that is exactly what they do!
The bible clearly states that "God is not willing that any should perish" So if this be true and it is God that makes people get saved then he is making everyone get saved!
I knew a man that never got saved because he was waiting for irresistable grace to overcome him!
Was he predestined to Hell or will his blood be on the hands of Calvinists......maybe God predestined that man to hell and used Calvinists to accomplish his purpose? Find a calvinist that isn't too righteous in his own mind to accept that!
I like r l vaughns comments....except that the idea that all of our ancestors that perpetuated our faith were without heresy. Many of the churches that gave birth to us were in doctrinal error. There was one area they were not in error though and that was salvation through Jesus Christ alone through Repentance and Faith apart from the Catholic Church! Even though we don't like to call ourselves protestant isn't our line really the line of protestors! Even in Europe the Waldenses who date back to 1170 are called protestant...not because they came out of the reformation but because they protested Rome?
II Peter 3:6 is talking about the judgement of the World---perish!
The context of the rest of the passage is in relation to the world perishing in the flood! IIPeter 3:9 is talking about his longsuffering to Christians so that they won't be judged for not witnessing to the World(not having blood on their hands)because God is not willing that any should--- perish-- referring back to verse 6 and a world judgement!
1.Predestination or Foreknowledge have always been so neither came first...so stop arguing it
2. What part does man play in his own salvation? The answer is simple ....Jesus said "Repent and Believe the Gospel"
Just do it and don't worry if God is making you do it or not! And stop overanalysing things to the extent that you are discouraging people from doing what God told them to do!
Steph is right, I backed out because I really don't have a dog in this fight.
But here I am again.
I have always considered the whole thing to boil down to a couple of starting questions that I would challenge everyone to answer as honestly and as biblically as they can:
1. How can God be God (eternal, immutable, all powerful, omnipresent, etc.) and there be any kind of disconnect between His knowledge of a thing coming to pass and His will that it in fact do so? And if you think this is being unduly "natural" then please provide a biblical example where He does so.
I would humbly suggest that when He says that He declares the ends from the beginning and that He does not consult man when implementing the works of His Providence and that even the death of Christ, the most evil act in history, came about according to His "definite plan" that He is Himself, and in His Word dismantling any boastful claim of so called "free will".
and
2. Which comes first logically (by which I don't necessarily mean in time but which must be in place first as a basis for the second):
Faith or Regeneration?
I contend that if you answer, with the Bible, that regeneration comes first, some kind of monergism necessarily follows, whether you call it Calvinism or puffed rice. I contend further that the system commonly known as Calvinism is, in fact, the biblical system of soteriology so that all those the Spirit guides and prompts end up in it.
"Here is something for the intellectual calvinist to chew on!
Calvinists insist that God chose then man chose...in otherwords predestination before knowledge.
Seeing God is eternal past and eternal future how is there a time that his predestination could ever come before his knowledge or his knowledge before his predestination. God has always known and God has always predestined! Therefore this argument is silly from either side!"
hmm, thanks for posting Anonymous guy. I do contend that GOD Predestined before MAN knew. now what you're argueing for, or against, isn't even logical, and no one would say that it is. but it has nothing to do with Calvinism. Scripture makes countless references to God doing things "before the foundations of the earth", such as, oh, I don't know, choosing those he would save. now, you can't argue with it, because its scripture. it says it.
Ephesians
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
so you can continue your arguement with.....yourself, but the fact remains that the verse i just posted, wins.
I haven't read through all of this yet... Today's a busy day at work. But I did want to respond to Phillip. I, nor my friend, even for a second, think that if you're not Calvinist, that you're automatically Arminian. In fact, there are only a tiny sample of Christians who are actually Arminian. Arminianism is the polar opposite of Calvinism, and that's why it's often the spinoff point in explaining what we believe. So, your entire commentary on how the view of Arminianism is unneeded... because true Arminianism is all of those things. I just don't think that Matt or Stubb (the only people in this discussion whom I know) are anywhere close to being true Arminians. At all.
You're right Steph. Neither Stubb nor I are Arminians. However, I'm not Calvinist either. Neither camp accurately explains the fullness of God and His glorious work in salvation.
According to some of you, everything that has happened, in all time, has been directly instituted by God. He made Satan rebel against Him. He made Adam & Eve sin. He made some drunk guy drink and then kill another person. Furthermore, He makes us sin. Because, according to some of your "logic" He knows all, thus He has divinely caused all things to happen. Thus, He has caused to sin which is in direct violation of His command for us to be holy and sin not.
Now I do believe that God does know all things. He does allow things to happen that are in His will. But that does not mean He has caused them to happen. He has allowed them to happen to further His plan.
I realize there are some semantic problems here so don't go "ape" on me.
I'm also afraid that some of you are confusing parts of this argument with security of the believer, which is two different arguments.
Yes, I'm working on Scriptures for a good response, but I'm also working on 1500 other things - so give me time please.
Intern,
I think you didn't read my post very carefully. Calvinists believe that God predestined first then knew what would happen second based on his predestination of it! Others believe he knew and then he predestined! My contention is that they are both silly! God has always known and God has always predestined.....one does not come before the other! God is eternal and God is omnicient--He has always known and he has always predestined!
When you apply that to your "before the foundation" arguments it means that your verses prove nothing except that God has always known and that God has always predestined!
That's why its not a matter of winning or losing the argument! Its a matter of it being a silly argument to begin with. The bible says for young preachers to "Avoid foolish questions"
The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God!
Ah yes, anonymous, but does this issue not deserve some debate. After all, if God divinely appointed some to eternal life and some to Hell, then why do we do the things we do (i.e. mission work, etc.)?
Interesting quote from John Calvin himself:
[John Calvin believed that predestination was not distributed upon equal considerations.] Calvin said, “All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.” [Institutes, Bk 3, Chapter 21, sec 5]
On commenting on the Calvinistic predestination, Arminius wrote, “FIRST, it makes God to be the author of sin, and man to be exempt from blame. SECONDLY, it constitutes God as the real, proper and only sinner: Because when there is a fixed law which forbids this act, and when there is such ‘a fore-determination’ as makes it ‘impossible for this act not to be committed,’ it follows as a natural consequence, that it is God himself who transgresses the law, since he is the person who performs this deed against the law. For though this be immediately perpetrated by the creature, yet, with regard to it, the creature cannot have any consideration of sin; because this act was unavoidable on the part of man, after such ‘fore-determination’ had been fixed. THIRDLY, because, according to this dogma, God needed sinful man and his sin, for the illustration of his justice and mercy. FOURTHLY. And, from its terms, sin is no longer sin.” [The Works of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), Vol. 1]
Anon- Todd wouldn't disagree with you on this point, I don't think. I think you may have misunderstood his. He's saying that God predestined/knew and then WE knew.
And, by the way, a lot of what you'll find on the net about Calvinism is actually hyper-Calvinism. Let's make sure we get this straight, too.
And Matticus- I've answered the mission question, at least from my point of view already. I said, "We do missions because we are commanded to do so. We evangelize because this is what Christ commanded us to do. This is how He has instructed us to be tools of his grace and mercy-- by sharing the AMAZING news that even though we are not good enough to get to Heaven on our own, our good, and awe-inspiringly gracious Father IS, and PAID the debt we owed. We share this very good news because we aren't the ones who dictate who is of the remnant and who is not. It is God, and this is what He calls us to do!"
There are Calvinists who refuse to do missions and evangelize, but again, those are hyper-Calvinists who pervert the Word of God and justify their pride and laziness by manipulating Scripture.
Here's a few Scriptures.
1 Timothy 4:10: "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of ALL MEN, specially of those that believe."
Rom 11:32 “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For [there] [is] one God and one Mediator between God and men, [the] Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." [Rom 5:18]
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. [Heb_2:9]
Since when do we go to Arminius for our info, Matt? No, no, no!
Seriously, though. None of us are calling anyone Arminian. I don't believe that there are either of the polar opposites (Arminians, Hyper-Calvinists) involved in this conversation.
"The Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation"
"The sword of the Spirit is the Word of God"
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word"
"Sanctify them by thy truth, Thy word is truth"
There is no work in the spirit of man that effects salvation apart from the Word of God
There is no sanctification of the spirit of man by the Holy Spirit without the Word of God. One can not hear the word of God until they are born and can understand it!
Therefore no one can be sanctified by the spirit until a finite moment during this life!
Steph you said, "We do missions because we are commanded to do so. We evangelize because this is what Christ commanded us to do. This is how He has instructed us to be tools of his grace and mercy-- by sharing the AMAZING news that even though we are not good enough to get to Heaven on our own, our good, and awe-inspiringly gracious Father IS, and PAID the debt we owed. We share this very good news because we aren't the ones who dictate who is of the remnant and who is not. It is God, and this is what He calls us to do!"
But why would we be commanded to do something that is totally unnecessary? If someone has been elected to be saved, then they have no choice but to be saved. Therefore, they have no need to hear the Gospel for they do not have to choose - they have already been chosen!
So, anonymous, you have no faith until you are already born again?
"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." [Rev 22:17]
ezcxqylanonymous, me thinks you are missing the point. Calvinist do not believe that God predestined before he knew anything, its merely that he predestined for nothing other than his good and perfect will, regardless of what he already knew.
the whole point is that before joe blow ever steps foot on the earth, God knows whether or not he's been elected to salvation or not. so yeah, your blatant mischaracterization of calvinism is silly, but calvinism isn't.
bro. matt, thank you for being so gracious in all of this and will try not to go ape on you ;-) but the fact remains that Gods allowing something is causal, therefore, even if you only say that he allows it, you really can't get around the fact that his alleged "allowance" causes the actions to happen. as jacob told his brothers "what you intended for evil, God intended for Good." God is fully capable of using evil for his greater Glory and good, and does so throughout scripture.
"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." [Rev 22:17]
"bro. matt, thank you for being so gracious in all of this and will try not to go ape on you ;-) but the fact remains that Gods allowing something is causal, therefore, even if you only say that he allows it, you really can't get around the fact that his alleged "allowance" causes the actions to happen. as jacob told his brothers "what you intended for evil, God intended for Good." God is fully capable of using evil for his greater Glory and good, and does so throughout scripture."
Well, now we are getting so close that it hurts. There are some semantics problems here, but for the most part we almost agree! Now isn't that scary!
Hahaha...
Heb 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
Romans 12:3 “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.”
Faith comes not by regeneration but by hearing God's Word. The ability to hear God's Word is given to all men (man also has a soul to differentiate between good and evil.) [Rom 2:14-15]) Romans 10:17 So then faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. {22} But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” [James 1:21-22]
Something I found that I thought y'all might want to respond to:
In Scripture, God always advised individuals to do right. If there was a Total Inability, do you not think there would be examples of God telling people so. However, we not only have Scriptures where God confirms Total Ability [Deut 30:11-14], but we also have multiple examples of God commanding people as if it were so. For instance, before Cain had slain his brother Abel, God counseled Cain to be accepted by God. God did not say, "Cain, there is no way I'll ever elect you, so keep on hating me bro." But rather God said, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." [Genesis 4:6-7] Another example is when the rich young ruler, whom Jesus loved, asked Jesus, "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" Jesus did not respond with an explanation of the Calvinistic doctrine of election. Instead, Jesus asked of the rich young ruler things that he could have done. Mark 10:21 records, "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." Another example, when Jesus implied Total Ability, is when some Jews asked Jesus about working the works of God to attain salvation. Jesus did not say, "You can't do squat, so bug off." Rather, Jesus told them the work of God that they may do it. "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." [John 6:28-29]
why did Christ have to die? I mean really, couldn't God have just sprayed us with a hose of grace and said "done, sinless!"? the answer to this is the same as the answer to why we evangelize. Christ died because it was Gods will that he do so, and we evangelize because we are the instrument he chooses to use in spreading the Gospel.
Just so everybody knows - I've really enjoyed the discussion, even when we disagree! I think it is good for us to look at God's Word and see what it teaches. Thanks to everyone who has participated, and I hope that I've not said anything to offend you because I am not trying to offend anyone. (Now I will state my opinion, etc. but I'm not doing it in a "better than thou" manner.)
God is perfectly within his rights to ask us to do something we are incapable of doing.
matt, it would be helpful for the clarity of the discussion if when you post scripture to also post what exactly your trying to get at. as it is, I have no idea what exactly your trying to say with the verses you posted. thanks
Todd
Well, I am no one to question the Father's motives in commanding us to do something. Why should the people of the OT break pots that touched the dirt, lest they be damned to hell? Doesn't make sense to us, and I'm sure it probably didn't to them, either, but God commanded it and He has a reason. I'd go so far as to say that we will not fully understand most things until we're glorified in Heaven. We are His instruments, and for whatever reason He has decided that we will be the carriers of the message. He uses the community of believers (the Church) to sanctify one another in equally as mysterious ways. As iron sharpens iron, ya know?
Ah, intern, there is a point missed though.
Christ died to make a substitutionary atonement (whether for all or some is debatable...obviously!) There was no other way for God's justice, God's holiness, and God's mercy to be reconciled. Yet, when dealing with the "elect," according to Calvinism, God has already chosen, and it's a done deal. There is no changing it. So why tell all those people who are going to hell that they're going to hell? That seems to be mean doesn't it? If God has chosen, the work is done and we are working for no reason.
(Now I do agree that if God commands something, then we better do it. We just differ on the details I guess you could say.)
Well, Steph. I can go with that.
Intern,
Will do for future reference.
was Jesus calling the pharisee's a brood of vipers mean? uh, in a word, yeah.
and the only reason there was "no other way" is because God chose it to be so. do you not think that God could have made it so he did not need to have a substitute atonement?
John 6:37; [All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;] Before Jesus was lifted up, the Father drew men to salvation. John 6:44 says, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." Those who are willing to "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart" [Jer 4:4], are reeled in by the Father. They have willingly learned. Therefore, these are they whom the Father "giveth me (Christ)." [John 6:37] and whom the Father directs to "cometh unto me (Christ)." [John 6:45b]
After Jesus was lifted up, Jesus drew men to salvation. Jesus said in John 12:32, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." The ones that respond to Jesus' drawing are reeled in and given to the Father. Jesus is the mediator. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" [1Ti 2:5]
John 6:44; The Father draws [John 6:44-45] those to Himself by the Gospel. "It is the power of God unto salvation" [Rom 1:16] All men have been taught enough of the Gospel to come to God. "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." [John 6:45] Those who are willing to "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart" [Jer 4:4], are reeled in by the Father. They have willingly learned. Therefore, these are those who "cometh unto me (Christ)." [John 6:45b]
Intern,
I think I'll defer that question to God...hahaha.
Intern,
At least we agree that there is only one way!
Okay all,
I'll be away from the computer for awhile, but keep blogging, and I'll be back to "talk at ya" later.
yes we do, but again, If God is soveriegn and omniscient, if there was a better way to glorify himself, he would choose it. but we must conclude that if God is all powerful, that the way he has chosen is best suited to glorify himself, ie. evangelism
yeah, lunch break is over.
intern,
You have avoided my argument completely by saying
"ezcxqylanonymous, me thinks you are missing the point. Calvinist do not believe that God predestined before he knew anything, its merely that he predestined for nothing other than his good and perfect will, regardless of what he already knew.
the whole point is that before joe blow ever steps foot on the earth, God knows whether or not he's been elected to salvation or not. so yeah, your blatant mischaracterization of calvinism is silly, but calvinism isn't."
I am not arguing that point with you! I think everyone here believes that God knows who is going to be saved or not! And I haven't mischaracterized calvinism! What you just said was that God overlooked his knowledge of what man would do and inserted his own will! Does this include causing some who would serve him to not serve him? What I've done is show the sillyness of the whole argument from either side!
Who has taught the spirit of the Lord...Who has been his counsellor!
Who is Calvin even to think that he can understand the depths and the unsearchable things of God!
We know two things
1.God was always knew who would be saved and God has always predestined who would be saved and one did not come before the other
2.Sanctification unto Salvation in any man can not be effected with out the hearing of the word, and the use of that word by the Spirit to convict!
These two things can be agreed upon by both sides of the aisle! Making it for the most part a silly argument!
if the arguement is so silly, then stop engaging in it. you seem to think it important enough to tell me how silly I am. and avoiding what arguement? the one that has nothing to do with calvinism that you seem to think is what I believe? I will not defend something I don't believe.
I am not arguing that point with you! I think everyone here believes that God knows who is going to be saved or not! And I haven't mischaracterized calvinism! What you just said was that God overlooked his knowledge of what man would do and inserted his own will! Does this include causing some who would serve him to not serve him? What I've done is show the sillyness of the whole argument from either side!
silly silly man/woman/whatever. how do you think he foreknows anything? because he predestined it to be so. so ts not a question of what joe blow would have done had not god intervened, since left to our own devices, we eat the apple. its not like god merely observes time and what happens and inserts himself into it, he is intricatley apart of it. creating it, molding it, so that it best glorify's himself.
Ok, so Todd (the intern) and I have decided to bow out of the conversation for a while.
Both he and I feel like we're battling sinful pride issues in ourselves, which can happen in debates such as this.. but we want the conversation to be God honoring and that can't happen when our hearts aren't right.
This topic is very much NOT about us, and it needs to stay that way.
Excellent questions all. We both encourage anyone who is interested to check out the links I left somewhere in the middle of all of this mess to gain a better understanding of what we're trying to communicate from men who know a hundred times more than we do.
God bless!
Matt,
I just stumbled upon this blog :) I hope you don't mind me jumping in. It seems you have garnered quite the response, so if you don't feel like responding I completely understand.
From reading your post and the following comments (though I should admit I read the comments VERY quickly), it seems the major hang-up is "free will."
Although Stephanie already commented that Calvinists do not deny free will, I have two questions...
How would you define free will?
How/why does your definition of free will not work with Calvinism?
Blessings,
Ward
Hey Ward,
Glad to have you here! And yes, I seem to have stumbled upon a prolific post haven't I? Hahaha...In fact, I think this post has garnered more comments than all my other posts combined! So keep coming back and we'll see what else we can "argue" about.
I will try to define what I mean by free will in a simplistic way (not because you can't understand anything in depth, but because I'm not sure how to say, or type, it in the proper words sometimes!). When I am considering free will, I am primarily looking at the individual's freedom to choose between accepting Christ as Savior or rejecting Him as Savior (since that is your only two options). In essence, you are not forced to choose something. However, with Calvinism (or at least pure Calvinism) the choice has already been made for you. God has already chosen who will accept Him and who will not. Furthermore, if His grace is irresistable (and God is all-powerful, right?), then you have no choice. You will not be able to say, "I, of my own free will, followed the conviction of the Holy Spirit and accepted Christ as my Savior." Yes, God does all the work in salvation, but He does give us a choice in the matter. Otherwise, we are as robots.
So, in essence, Calvinism says one person is saved not because they chose to be, but because God said they had to be. Also, Calvinsim says another person is not saved not because they chose not to believe, but because God said they couldn't be.
[Note for all: Just so you know, I'm not an Arminianist either. In fact, I'm trying to find out the exact name of the position I hold to (if there's not a name for it Philip, maybe we need to make one!).]
Here I go! I tried to stay away, but there was a fire burning in my bones! =)
A couple of verses to consider: Ezekiel 33:11, Romans 16:7, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 and 1 Timothy 4:8-9.
Ezekiel 33:11, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked! Therefore, if God delivers one from hell, but doesn't deliver the other, wouldn't He be guilty of taking pleasure in something that he created the He knew would go to Hell? I know, I know...God can do with His Creation what He wishes to do with them. He created us for a relationship, not so we would be cast away!
Romans 16:7, "Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ BEFORE I was." NIV
Paul said that these believers were in Christ BEFORE he was...if you believe in Predestination (like the Calvinist) wouldn't they all be in CHRIST at the same time? This Scripture declares that each person is confronted with the gospel at different times, and when they repent and believe in Christ, then they are in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17-21).
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, tells us how "from the beginning" we were chosen to salvation. Three things in these verses. Verse 14...He called us through the gospel message (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 10:17). He chose us through sanctification of the Spirit AND BELIEF on the truth.
1 Timothy 4:9-10, Jesus is the Savior of ALL men, especially to those who believe!
Now, permission to speak frankly...it doesn't matter what John Pipper, C.H. Spurgeon, or John McArthur or any other intelligent person says, the question we should ask ourselves is, What does the Bible Say? Out of 73 Posts there are only 35 (if I counted correctly) Bible verses in this entire Arguement. Stop Quoting books and start quoting the BOOK!
Sorry for the spelling on John Piper! I said Pipper! :)
Good Stuff Sheff!
Stubb
Jason,
It's okay. We all know that t.u. supporters can't count! Hahaha...
Otherwise, excellent thoughts.
The free will question is a good one! Here is an interesting way of looking at it that few have ever delved into!
If Jesus had actually gone to Hell and not only preached there but suffered for our sins by burning there(which I believe he did not suffer for our sins there) then no one would ever go to Hell. Even if they rejected him as Savior. No one goes to Hell because of Adams sin because that has been paid for. No one goes to Hell because of being seperated from God by Adam but for not accepting Christ. If Christ had gone to Hell to pay for the sin of not accepting Him then no one would go to Hell! Could Jesus have paid for that sin too.....yes...except for one problem... in so doing he would have negated a persons free will of choosing to go to Hell! Therefore he did not!
Jesus could have universalized salvation except it would have negated Free Will.
I would love to hear arguments against this!!!
I do agree that the only reason a person goes to Hell is for blaspheming the Holy Spirit which is rejection of Jesus Christ. So, all the people in Hell are there for one sin - the rejection of Jesus Christ as their Savior.
Y'all are going to hate me for this but here is an interesting article I found. Tell me what you think.
"Freewill Belief: Is It a Saving Work?
Many Calvinists are quite fond of equating belief with works in regard to the matter of salvation. In my conversations with Calvinists they have often tried to assert that salvation by freewill is the same as salvation by works. I cannot necessarily presume that this is a doctrine universally upheld by all Calvinists, but the basic concept is as follows.
Calvinists define a work as anything man does on his own, particularly for the purpose of obtaining salvation. "Freewill" implies that God is not involved in the choices we make and, therefore, according to a Calvinist definition of works, free human choice is a work. Since we know that we are not saved by works, we know also that our free choice must not play a part in our salvation.
The Calvinist premises in this argument fall into two sets. Let's see if we can outline them.
Set A - The Definition of a "Work."
1. A "Work" is anything done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, which originates from man, not God.
2. A ("Freewill") choice to believe originates with man, not God.
Conclusion A: A ("Freewill") choice to believe is a work.
Set B - Salvation by Works.
1. Men aren't saved by works.
2. The ("Freewill") choice to believe is a work.
Conclusion B: Men cannot be saved by their own choice to believe.
Set A-1 is a purposefully broad definition, and from a Calvinist perspective it has to be. If there is anything done for the purpose of obtaining salvation that originates from man and does not fall into the category of "works" then this entire Calvinist argument falls apart. Or in other words, if the ("Freewill") choice to believe is not a work, then we have no reason to reject that man could be saved by such a choice.
And there is also a hidden premise to this Calvinist argument. The hidden premise also involves the definition of a "work" as it applies to Set B-1. Set B-1 states that "men aren't saved by works." The question is, does this apply to all "works" or did Paul have a particular set or kind of works in mind?
We can easily dismantle this Calvinist argument. We will start by assuming that the Calvinist definition found in Set A-1 is correct. We will assume that a "work" is accurately defined as "anything done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, which originates from man, not God."
By assuming this definition is accurate, we will now demonstrate that there are at least two categories of works in the New Testament. Thus, the Calvinists are in error by assuming that all "works" are included in the New Testament category of "things which cannot save."
We cannot emphasize strongly enough that the Calvinist argument on this issue requires that the definition found in Set A-1 is correct and, therefore, "the choice to believe" is appropriately categorized as a work. If there is any "work" which originates from man that can bring him salvation, then the Calvinists argument crumbles.
So, let's look at some scripture and ask, is there any work a man can do to obtain eternal salvation?
John 6:27 Labour [2038] not for the meat [1035] which perisheth, but for that meat [1035] which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work [2038] the works [2041] of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work [2041] of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Let's do some vocabulary. First, the word "Labor" in verse 27 is the same Greek word as "work" in verse 28.
2038 ergazomai {er-gad'-zom-ahee}
middle voice from 2041; TDNT - 2:635,251; v AV - work 22, wrought 7, do 3, minister about 1, forbear working + 3361 1, labour for 1, labour 1, commit 1, trade by 1, trade 1; 39
1) to work, labour, do work
2) to trade, to make gains by trading, "do business"
3) to do, work out
3a) exercise, perform, commit
3b) to cause to exist, produce
4) to work for, earn by working, to acquire
Second, the words "labor" (verse 27) and "work" (verse 28, 29) are directly related to the noun "work(s)" in verse 28 and 29. One is simply a noun and the other a verb.
2041 ergon {er'-gon}
from a primary (but obsolete) ergo (to work); TDNT - 2:635,251; n n AV - work 152, deed 22, doing 1, labour 1; 176
1) business, employment, that which any one is occupied
1a) that which one undertakes to do, enterprise, undertaking
2) any product whatever, any thing accomplished by hand, art, industry, or mind
3) an act, deed, thing done: the idea of working is emphasised in opp. to that which is less than work
The word "meat" in verse 27 is defined as follows.
1035 brosis {bro'-sis}
from the base of 977; TDNT - 1:642,111; n f AV - meat 6, rust 2, morsel of meat 1, eating 1, food 1; 11
1) act of eating
1a) in a wider sense, corrosion
2) that which is eaten, food, ailment
2a) of the soul's food, either which refreshes the soul, or nourishes and supports it
Here in John 6, Jesus tells the crowds that he will give them everlasting life but that they must labor (or work) to obtain it. In fact, we know Jesus is talking about the "works" men do because he starts off in verse 27 saying, "Labor for," and labor is the same Greek word as "work" in this passage. So, Jesus is instructing his listeners to work that they might received eternal salvation from him.
In response to this, Jesus is asked a very simple question "what works are the works of God that we might do them?" Or in other words, Jesus has just advised the crowd to work not for material things, but to work for eternal life. He is then asked, what works should we do? And he answers this question directly in verse 29, telling his listeners specifically what work they must do to obtain eternal salvation from him.
And according to Jesus, what work should men do that they might have "everlasting life?" In verse 28, Jesus clearly states that the work men should do to obtain everlasting life is the work of belief. This does two things to the Calvinist argument.
1. It tells us that everlasting life is obtained by a "work."
2. It tells us that the "work," which saves is the work of belief.
Remember that the Calvinist's argument does not work unless we define a work as "anything done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, which originates from man, not God." If we assume their definition is correct then we are left with the following.
Number 1 destroys the Calvinist's hidden premise that all "works" are of the same category, the category of "those which cannot save." According to Jesus, belief is a work that does bring eternal salvation. Number 2 destroys the Calvinist's Conclusion B that men cannot be saved by their choice to believe.
What this passage from John 6 really shows us is that the Calvinists have erred by assuming that all "works" are of the same category. In reality, belief is considered its own special category of a "work." And this is made even more clear as we examine the New Testament origination of the doctrine that we are saved "not by works."
This essential orthodox doctrine is found in the epistles of Paul.
Romans 4: 1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. " 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Galatians 3: 5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because youbelieve what you heard?
NIV - Ephesians 2: 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
KJV - Ephesians 2: 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
We should also note that in the New Testament, the words "faith" and "belief" are really the same word in two different forms, noun and verb.
Romans 4: 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth [4100] on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith [4102] is counted for righteousness.
4102 pistis {pis'-tis}
from 3982; TDNT - 6:174,849; n f AV - faith 239, assurance 1, believe + 1537 1, belief 1, them that believe 1, fidelity 1; 244
1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1a) relating to God
1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
1b) relating to Christ
1b1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
1c) the religious beliefs of Christians
1d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2) fidelity, faithfulness
2a) the character of one who can be relied on
4100 pisteuo {pist-yoo'-o}
from 4102; TDNT - 6:174,849; v AV - believe 239, commit unto 4, commit to (one's) trust 1, be committed unto 1, be put in trust with 1, be commit to one's trust 1, believer 1; 248
1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in
1a) of the thing believed
1a1) to credit, have confidence
1b) in a moral or religious reference
1b1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul
1b2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith
1bc) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith
2) to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity
2a) to be intrusted with a thing
As is made clearly evident from Galatians 3:5, the "works" which cannot save are the "works of the law." From the words of Jesus Christ in John 6, we know that belief is a "work." And from the words of both Jesus and Paul, we know that it is by belief that we are made righteous and obtain salvation. Therefore, the when Paul writes that we are saved "not by works" he has in mind only the specific works prescribed by the Law. Paul is not including the "work" of belief in this category of "unsaving" works.
And notice that when writing in Romans, Paul equates justification by works as a wage and salvation by belief as a gift. Paul is using faith/belief as the opposite of works. Therefore, Calvinists cannot equate "salvation by free human choice" with "salvation by works." For, scripture clearly distinguishes the "work" of belief from the unsaving works of the law. It is the "work" of belief that saves, while the works of the law do not.
And notice in Romans 4:3-5 that God credits Abraham for his faith. You wouldn't credit Abraham for something he had no choice about or for something you made him do. Such things wouldn't be to his credit at all. If Abraham's faith weren't of his own choosing, then it would not be a credit for him in any way.
Notice also that the comment in Ephesians parallels the account in Romans 4. In Romans 4 the gift is righteousness, not faith. Faith is trusting for the gift. But even if faith were the "gift" that still would not prove man has no choice in the matter. For the idea of a "gift" does not negate the freewill of a person to accept or reject it. What gift has any of us received in our lives that we could not choose to accept or reject? Even the natural abilities we have received are ours to develop and share or neglect and lose.
If for Calvinists, the free human choice to believe is a work AND works are defined by their origination from man (not God), then Calvinism is proven wrong by John 6. For, in John 6, Jesus clearly tells us that it is by a work, the work of belief that men obtain eternal salvation. And in that passage, Jesus tells us to do this work, attesting not only to man's responsibility to believe but also his ability to believe.
In reality, the "works" which DO NOT save are the works of the Old Covenant Law. That is not to say we are saved by works of any kind, except for the "work" of belief. And on this point, we would not disagree with the Calvinist definition of a work described at the start of this argument. Belief is a "work done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, which originates from man, not God." Man himself freely chooses to believe and rely on Jesus Christ of his own accord. This is the work required by God."
excellent article Matt...I am going to copy it and keep it in my files!! Thanks!
Wow, 81 comments up to this point! Keep it up and you'll be the most popular Baptist blogger this side of SBC IMB trustee Wade Burleson, whose posts usually garners 100-150 responses. Think I'll go start a fight over Calvinism over on my blog!! It's been kinda slow lately.
I'm not sure whether the three in a row anonymous posts, approx numbers 28-30, were by the same person. I found some of it annoying, not the least of which was misunderstanding what I said about heretics!! ;-) But there are a couple of things there with which I agree, at least partly.
This anon wrote, "Usually people with enlarged intellectual pride seem to succumb to it." I started to include something on that line concerning why is there is a resurgence among Baptists of the teaching of Calvinism. I didn't because I thought it could be misunderstood, but anon went all out to be offensive. We need to drop the "enlarged intellectual pride" bit, because folks all along the Calvinist-Arminian spectrum, from one end to the other, can be guilty of intellectual pride. But I do believe there is an intellectual appeal of Calvinism. Part of that is probably because it is a "logical system" of soteriology. It seems to all fit together without contradictions. Another related thing is that other "systems" may seem sloppy, with loose ends, because they have not been systematized to the degree of the TULIP formula. Just some thoughts that may go toward explaining the resurgence.
Anonymous also wrote, "stop overanalysing things." I think this is good advice. Some of this argument is really about overanalyzing things the Bible doesn't explain in detail. We are given very little insight into the councils of God before the foundation of the world, except to know that Jesus stood a Lamb slain even then. Truth be told, whether one accepts only the omniscient foreknowledge of God or the eternal election of some to salvation, all those who will be saved are known to God and no one not known in that sense is going to accidentally get saved with God having not foreknown it.
If we can agree that God alone saves through Jesus Christ and that we are commanded to preach the gospel of that salvation, the rest becomes an interesting discussion of the details of how God did/does something we don't fully know and don't fully understand.
And isn't it usually in the details where we fight the most?!?
the intern said...
"quick question, if God desires for all to come to repentance, then how did he hate esau? "
Do you not think it is God's desire for all to come to repentacne?? If you dont then you are not reading 2 peter 3:9
That is no doubt God desire, and if you say it is not, then your saying that his word is not Holy and that HE is a lier.
The thing is that some of us are such mild Calvinists. In a way you've been fortunate that our more pathological brethren haven't shown up.
Some Calvinists are just ornery.
They're a bit of a blight and an embarrassment to those of us who tend to like people.
Anoetos said - "Some Calvinists are just ornery.
They're a bit of a blight and an embarrassment to those of us who tend to like people."
That's hysterical!! You should meet some of my American Baptist friends and family. Uh, wait, you already have. But I guess WE'RE the mild ones on our side.
Oh, and so everyone knows, this discussion hasn't been fruitless arguing. I've learned quite a bit from everyone here, especially about attitudes and "degrees" of disagreement. Calvinists I've known tended to lean more to the "hyper" side. I guess they don't represent every school of thought in their theology.
Once again, nice to meet all of you.
"You should meet some of my American Baptist friends and family. Uh, wait, you already have. But I guess WE'RE the mild ones on our side."
You can say that again. After 23 years of membership in the ABA... I have stories. I think Matt probably has some of the same stories. It was startling when I joined another denomination four years ago.
You joined another denomination?!? Why you know that means you are cursed and will go to Hades. I'll pray for you...
1. Free will theology absolutizes the will of man and thereby reduces God to ontological equality with man. The knowledge of God is bound to the temporal actions of men. God cannot know the future acts and actions of men because those actions, being the products of a libertarian volition, do not yet exist in time to be known. Thus God cannot know the future.
2. Since a libertarian will (absolutely free) renders foreknowledge impossible, God's knowledge is contingent on future potentials. God must learn from actions of men that occur outside of His mind and independent of His will. God cannot know all things, for His knowledge is dependent on the arbitrary and indeterminate choices of the libertarian will of man. Thus God cannot be omniscient.
3. God is then not sovereign in all spheres and therefore not sovereign at all as sovereignty is understood in the classical Christian sense. God is limited and no longer all powerful. This is not the Christian God who declares the end from the beginning or who works all things after the counsel of His will. This is a God who learns and reacts to events that occur in a creation that has an existence independent of Himself. Thus God is not omnipotent.
4. Since there are conditions that occur outside of Himself, conditions which of necessity cannot be known in advance, events which He must learn as they occur, God must react and change to adapt to these circumstances. Thus God is not immutable.
5. Therefore in order to keep the creation moving towards His desired end, He must of necessity intercede at times and violate the indeterminate will of man. But this is the very will that is said to be inviolable in the soteriological act. Thus God is compromised and inconsistent. God is arbitrary and capricious. God is confused and contradictory.
6. Christ, it is said, has died for all men for all time, knowing full well that His plan of salvation will not save all men. So while some men decry the determinate God of Calvinism, they are more than willing to accept a God who knows the future infallibly, knows his plan will be ineffective for the majority of mankind yet institutes this plan anyway knowing full well that it's result will be the death of most who have ever lived.
7. Free will adherents reject a God who determines all things. But they are willing to accept a God who knows all things and chooses to do nothing about them. This is, so they say, because the will of man is free. God knows full well that terrorists will fly a jet into the WTC and yet He chooses to do nothing. He is capable of doing something but values the libertarian choices of the terrorists above the eternal destiny of all those in the buildings and so chooses, by His refusal to intercede, to consign most of those inhabitants to eternal death. If I observe a crime and have the ability to do something to prevent it, or know in advance of it's occurrence and fail to notify the proper authorities I am as guilty as those that perpetrated the crime. Thus God is guilty of complicity. He is an accessory before the fact.
8. God potentially died for no one. The atonement is universal in scope. God has not done anything more for one person than He has done for any other person and the one thing he has not done for those who are lost is to save them. Salvation is for everyone in general, but for no one in particular. Thus God is dependent and ineffective.
9. Free will in the libertarian sense is a tacit rejection of total depravity. Man is not dead in sin but merely sick. He is inclined to do evil but is not in fact evil. Salvation is a potential that must be appropriated by the individual. Man cannot be wholly dead in sin and make this choice. The potential for good must be present. Man must overcome the inclination to reject God in order to accept the offer of the Gospel. Unfortunately the Gospel itself, while evidently powerful enough to save those who choose to accept it, is impotent to convert the hearts of most of mankind. Free will theology suffers from it’s own type of particularism, but it’s an arbitrary particularism dependent on the condition of the individual. Salvation is "available" only for the ethically advantaged.
10. No wonder then that the evangel is often reduced to begging and pleading. God is not going to do anything but offer a potential. MAN is the decisive factor. Man is the determinative agent. We must convince man to make a positive decision for Christ. Better salespersons are more effective evangelists. Solus Christos is lost as salvation is synergistic.
Did John Knox come back to from the dead to post that??!
Well, most ABA-ers would consider an SBC church another denomination, don't you agree, Matt?
Many Calvinists are quite fond of equating belief with works in regard to the matter of salvation. In my conversations with Calvinists they have often tried to assert that salvation by freewill is the same as salvation by works. I cannot necessarily presume that this is a doctrine universally upheld by all Calvinists, but the basic concept is as follows.
The above is wrong. One wonders why anyone would critique a theology based on what some ostensible adherents say rather than going to the sources. It is simpler I suppose than doing the hard work of study and research. At any rate a knowledgeable Calvinist does not say that free will theologies (classical Arminianism for example) are works based but rather are synergistic. Salvation is a co-operative effort. The possibility (potential) is made available by the cross with the appropriation of that potential wholly dependent on the individual. This is a tacit denial of (1) total depravity and (2) Solus Christos.
Also it is left to explain why some men choose Christ and others don’t. If Christ’s death provides only the possibility of salvation then the sole determining factor in the act of salvation is the individual choice. We are left with the fact that some folks are just better than others.
Since the argument is based on a false premise it is irrelevant. Indeed it is a painfully long straw man.
Welcome Knox. Hope you enjoy the site.
Now concerning what you said - "This is a tacit denial of (1) total depravity"
Does not Christ's perfection stand in stark contrast to our total depravity? This is a light to the darkened world. We are drawn to God but not forced to choose Him. We make the choice of whether or not to stay in our sin or accept Christ's free grace.
"Also it is left to explain why some men choose Christ and others don’t. If Christ’s death provides only the possibility of salvation then the sole determining factor in the act of salvation is the individual choice. We are left with the fact that some folks are just better than others."
How can Christ die for all men (He redeemed all of creation) but then only pick a few to receive eternal life. This has nothing to do with whether or not someone is better than another, it has to do with what we do about God. Also, Christ's death does not provide only for the possibility of salvation. It also provides for the possibility of judgement. In fact, the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit is the denial of Jesus Christ (i.e., rejecting the witness of the Holy Spirit and rejecting His salvation). People are sent to Hell for rejecting Christ. Their other sins are paid for.
"Do you not think it is God's desire for all to come to repentacne?? If you dont then you are not reading 2 peter 3:9
That is no doubt God desire, and if you say it is not, then your saying that his word is not Holy and that HE is a lier." -stubb82
most of the discussion has been pretty polite with understanding as a goal...even if we're still a long way from agreement. i hope stubb will eventually understand that calvinists have an extremely high regard for God and His Word...and that is why they believe as they do (even if they are mistaken in their conclusions.)
but stubb's simplistic reading of 2 peter 3:9 aside, i don't believe the scripture teaches that God wants "every single person" to come to repentance. scripture teaches that repentance is a gift from God (acts 5:31;2tim2:25) which means it is also His to withhold. (1sam2:22-25) the same is also true of belief/faith. (phil 1:28-29)
in john 17, we see Jesus specifically excluding "the world" from His prayer for protection and unity: "I pray for them (i.e. the 11 disciples with Him.) I am not praying for the world, but for those You have given Me, for they are Yours...My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in Me." looking further into the scriptures, we find God actively "sending a powerful delusion" (2 thes 2:11) so that some will continue to believe the lie and be condemned. "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts" so that some would not turn and be healed. (john 12:40) we find in the story of pharoah that God actually hardened him to his own destruction - so how can you say that God simultaneously "desired him to come to repentance?"
you will correctly point out that scripture also says that these men are generally shown to initiate hatred towards God before God hardens them in that hatred. (pharoah is an interesting case, though, as God raised him up specifically to oppose Him (rom9:17) and promised moses before any mention of hardening that pharoah would certainly refuse to cooperate until God forced him to do so (exod3:19-20) - so any argument that pharoah was "free" to choose doesn't come from the scriptures...as calvinists say, pharoah was only "free" to choose according to his will, but his will was naturally unfavorably disposed or "bent away" from God...but i digress...) what you seem to deny is that this initial hatred of God is common to all of us. (rom3:10-12)
virtually all the pharisees were guilty of killing the prophets and stoning those sent to them. (matt23:37) and that's especially true of paul. (acts22:20) unlike the other pharisees (who presumably are included in those that paul describes as "having zeal without knowledge" as he once was. rom10:1-2;phil3:4-7), paul was forcibly enlightened - ironically - by getting knocked off his camel and blinded to turn him to the purpose for which he was "set apart from birth." (gal1:15) in a human court, could the other pharisees contend that it's not fair that paul received miraculous intervention while they received hardening, even as they committed the same crimes? maybe (rom9:19) ...but God will not submit to any human court. rather, God is free to "have mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and harden whom he wants to harden." (rom9:18)
or compare the apparent absence of Jesus' concern for judas ("whatever you are going to do, do quickly") with His concern for peter ("I have prayed for you, simon, that your faith may not fail...even though I know you are going to deny Me.") or the fact that God revealed Himself pretty much exclusively to israel for thousands of years. imposing a modern human notion of "fairness" on the God of the scriptures won't get you very far. rather, "His dominion is an eternal dominion; His kingdom endures from generation to generation. all the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as He pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back His hand or say to Him: 'what have You done?' " (dan4:34-35)
i would also add that i don't get the continual misrepresentation of calvinists with regard to missions: "But why would we be commanded to do something that is totally unnecessary? If someone has been elected to be saved, then they have no choice but to be saved. Therefore, they have no need to hear the Gospel for they do not have to choose - they have already been chosen!" -bro. matt
paul taught that we are saved by faith in Christ and His finished work on the cross and not by our works or obedience. human logic similar to brother matt's and stubb's concluded that a "logical" conclusion of paul's teaching was that "if obedience is 'unnecessary' to salvation, then paul is teaching license...and even must be saying that sin is desirable as it increases the grace extended." (rom 3:8,6:1-2) that sort of logic was pretty soundly condemned in scripture. calvinists on down the line such as spurgeon and piper would eagerly agree with rom 10 that preaching and missions work are the normative way to reach the elect: "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved...for there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!' " (...and these calvinists probably also noticed the irony that the same paul who commended preaching the gospel to the lost, did not in fact receive the gospel from a human preacher (gal1:11-12) ;-) ) OTOH, if you're looking for those who deny the need for preaching, you can find some hypercalvinists who do so...along with many arminians, including c.s. lewis and billy graham, who in their desire to defend the "fairness" of God are willing to throw out the need for preaching and confession of the name of Christ for salvation...believing instead that "there are people in other religions who...belong to Christ without knowing it."
http://www.biblebb.com/files/tonyqa/tc00-105.htm
so in short, calvinists do not deny that there is a need to choose Christ...but we do affirm that He enables His sheep to hear His voice unmistakeably. they are certain to hear and receive the gospel with joy. like the disciples, they choose...only to find that the foundation was God's choice and not fundamentally theirs. paul was a great preacher but he admitted that it's not preaching, teaching (or even apparently free will of the listeners) but God who gives church growth (1cor3:6)
it's interesting, though, that you seem affirm a variation on calvinism's "perseverance of the saints." "once saved, always saved?" that once a decision is made for Christ, then it is acceptable for the Spirit to do "violence" against your "free will" and compel you into conformity with the likeness of the Son (2cor3:17-18;rom8:29) and even (fatalistically? ;-) ) agree with the calvinists that God is preparing good works for you to do in the future? such that, once you are in heaven, you will be unable to sin (i.e. not "free" to sin) yet still able to love. given that so many claim that freedom is necessary for love...it seems inconsistent that they aren't afraid that God will turn us all into "robots" in heaven.
be sure to keep reading (spurgeon and piper...also james white...are terrific starting points) before you condemn us all as "heretics."
-charles
I Peter 1:20-21 - "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God."
Jesus was foreordained before the foundation of the world. "Foreordain" means to designate beforehand. Jesus stood as our sacrifice before we ever needed one (Rev. 13:8). Christ's offering Himself before the foundation of the world made salvation free for all mankind, Adam and you. He in no way forced man to sin. He did have a way of escape ready because He knew man was going to sin.
Charles,
enjoyed the post, however, there are some problems. When you accept Christ as your Savior, then you are born of an incorruptible seed (I Peter). Thus the inner man partakes of the divine nature (I John) of God. In other words, he receives some of the attributes of God, but not all of them. The inner man (saved man, spiritual man, whatever you wish to call him) is not omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent, he is however, holy, sinless, and perfect in other moral attributes. Thus we have the struggle between the outer, fleshly, sinful man, and the inner, spiritual, holy man. The inner man is the one who will inherit heaven. He is the one who has no desire to sin against God. His nature is perfect as Adam's was before the fall. It is my belief that if Adam had not failed that one time, he would not have been tempted again (but that is another post!). The angels were given one chance at choosing or rejecting God. When they chose, that is where they stayed. Our inner man is safe in that he has "cast his lot" with the Lord. He has no desire to leave.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no need for missions according to strict Calvinism. Why? They are already saved! What more do you have to do? Unless, they have a choice.
Anyway, I'll let you chew on this stuff for awhile and then see where we are going from here!
Still enjoying the discussion!
Below is an excerpt from John Phillips' commentary on the Epistles of Peter.
"Peter bluntly declares that our election is based on God's foreknowledge. God has elected a certain compnay to become members of the royal family of heaven. However, He never violates our own volition. God woos; He does not ravish. He does not endow His creatures with wills of their own, with the power of choice and personal accountability for their behavior, and then act as though they had no such thing. God's election of certain members of the human family to become members of the heavenly family takes into full account the response of each individual when confronted by the Holy Spirit with the offer of salvation.
There is a difference between human knowledge of a fact and God's knowledge of that same fact. Human knowledge is essentially after-knowledge; the fact has to be established before we can know it. God's knowledge is not so limited. He also has foreknowledge - He can foreknow things, but the things He foreknows are things that do happen. Morever, the ability of God to look ahead with such precision, to see future facts, and even accurately predict them (as is evident in Bible prophecy), does not mean that He makes them happen. He just knows about them.
In a very limited way, we can understand how God's foreknowledge worsk because we have foreknowledge ourselves in some matters. For instance, we can know today the exact time the sun will rise tomorrow morning, etc...of course, some cosmic catastrophe could prove our calculations to be wrong, but we have no way of knowing that. But God does. God can - and does - foretell how the world and universe will end, and He lets Peter into the secret (2 Peter 3:10-13).
God's omniscience enables Him to know all of the facts, both of history and of the future of the universe. God's omniscience enables Him to know all of the details of redemption, just as He knows all of the details of creation. It is this kind of knowledge, what Peter calls "foreknowledge," that enables God to elect people to became a part of His eternal purpose. He knows exactly how many people will accept Christ. he knows who they are, where they live, the various circumstancess of their lives, and how to fit them into His wider purposes in time and eternity.
The Holy Spirit enlightens every person born on this planet (John 1:9). Some respond. Some do not respond. God knows just who will respond to the conviction, quickening work of the Holy Spirit, and He knows who will not. As each one accepts or rejects God's offer, according to the degree of light they have and the activity of their own wills, each creates facts that can be known. God is able to foreknow them. It is this unerring, omniscient foreknowledge of God that enables Him to elect people to be partakers of all of the wonderful plans He has in mind for His own."
the intern said...
"quick question, if God desires for all to come to repentance, then how did he hate esau? "
Do you not think it is God's desire for all to come to repentacne?? If you dont then you are not reading 2 peter 3:9
That is no doubt God desire, and if you say it is not, then your saying that his word is not Holy and that HE is a lier."
I am not about to enter into the conversation again, but did want to say something about this.
no I am not calling God a liAr. I was asking you a question. i know how I can reconcile the 2 logically and with scripture, I was merely asking you how you did.
"People are sent to Hell for rejecting Christ. Their other sins are paid for."
this is a popular arminian view, but i'm not sure you can defend it from scripture. mark 9:24 suggests that unbelief is not beyond Jesus' power to fix. but i'll try to respond in more detail later.
a couple of points that are foundational to this discussion.
1) human philosophy tells us that if a person is to be held responsible for behaving in a certain way, then they must have the capacity to do so. calvinist belief - based on scripture - denies this tenet of human philosophy.
God can and does command obedience well beyond our capacity. (i.e. "be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.") the bible teaches that we are responsible to obey even if we are not capable. pharoah could not have immediately chosen to let moses and israel go - he was simply not "free" to do so - yet his guilt remained. (and it is important to note that it is also true that pharoah's will, while not "free", did not require any coercion to oppose moses. pharoah was doing exactly as he wanted...he was not "free" to act against his very nature.)
anyway, this is one foundational issue that you need to be aware of.
2) "all", "the (whole) world", etc.
while it seems natural to modern americans to interpret these words in an egalitarian fashion and conclude that they must mean "every single person" (unless the context clearly makes you look foolish for assuming that...such as john 12:19.)
OTOH, calvinists tend to look at many instances of these words primarily in a 1st century context: israel was no longer the exclusive people of God but the gentiles were now being grafted in...paul was routinely squaring off against judaizers who wanted jewish customs to remain in the forefront...it was a huge change for the jews to accept that they were no longer unique...the words used to describe them in the OT scriptures ("holy nation", "kingdom of priests", "bride of God", "son" (hos.11:1)) were now extended to gentiles.
so, for example, calvinists will look at 1john2:2 ("He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.") and note that john was primarily an apostle to the gentiles (gal2:9)and conclude that john is reminding his primarily jewish readers that Jesus' sacrifice was "not for the jewish believers only but also for gentile believers." similarly, Jesus comment in john 12:32 ("I will draw all men") is shown to be in the context of john 12:20, "all men" meaning greeks as well as jews.
i can sympathize with how you may not agree at all with this hermeneutic but you should at least make an effort to understand it.
one last comment, you believe that God offers the gospel to "whosoever will" (as do the calvinists...we just believe that those who will accept it are also called "the elect.") the question is are you reading uncertainty into that category of "whosoever will." do you have confidence that God has known for certain from eternity past who will and who will not accept Him? does it bother you that God still allows those to be born and live full lives knowing that they will always reject Him? just curious.
-charles
"God woos; He does not ravish."
still not sure how knocking paul to the ground and blinding him could be considered "wooing."
(though i should say that calvinists generally consider God's replacing our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh - ezek36 - as a less violent experience than paul's.)
The question was asked:
"Do you have confidence that God has known for certain from eternity past who will and who will not accept Him?"
My answer to that is an emphatic yes. The point of disagreement is whether or not God chose some and not others for salvation, etc.
Oh, by the way, this is the 100th comment! Woo-Hoo!
does it count as your 100th if your own comments constitue for at least a 3rd of the discussion?
;-) I kid, I kid
Now concerning what you said - "This is a tacit denial of (1) total depravity"
Does not Christ's perfection stand in stark contrast to our total depravity? This is a light to the darkened world. We are drawn to God but not forced to choose Him. We make the choice of whether or not to stay in our sin or accept Christ's free grace.
Matt, I am at a loss to understand why you think that addresses the problems outlined in my two posts. Here you seem to be laboring under the assumption that force is the operative factor in divine determinism. But there is no force involved. The elect are not forced to choose Christ, nor are the reprobate forced to reject Him. And no Calvinist would deny that men are free to accept or reject the Gospel. That false conception of Calvinism is usually rooted in a failure to properly distinguish between freedom and ability.
And Christ is indeed the light. But how much light can penetrate the eyes of the dead? What ability do dead men have Matt?
1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
What do you think that means?
How can Christ die for all men (He redeemed all of creation) but then only pick a few to receive eternal life.
Because it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs but on God who has mercy, right? Doesn’t the potter have the right to do whatever he wishes with the clay? Matt if Christ redeemed all of creation then all of creation is redeemed, if we accept that all of creation means every individual without exception. But not all are redeemed are they? And if Christ died for all men without exception, as opposed to all men without distinction, then all men are saved. But not all are saved are they? You’re not dealing with the problems presented in my posts. Why don’t you take each point and address it?
This has nothing to do with whether or not someone is better than another, it has to do with what we do about God.
I’m sorry but it certainly does. If two men are presented with the same Gospel message and one accepts and the other rejects the ONLY difference possible is the difference between the men themselves. One man is disposed to accept and the other to reject. As I said, the Gospel goes to the ethically advantaged.
Also, Christ's death does not provide only for the possibility of salvation. It also provides for the possibility of judgement.
This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Since Adam, all men are under condemnation. The whole world is guilty. What has that to do with this?
In fact, the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit is the denial of Jesus Christ (i.e., rejecting the witness of the Holy Spirit and rejecting His salvation). People are sent to Hell for rejecting Christ. Their other sins are paid for.
The dickens you say? That is a rather novel interpretation. Where does it come from? My Bible says that in Adam all die. All men are dead in trespasses and sins Matt. Or are you suggesting that the only grounds for hell is the rejection of Christ? Are you then saying that those who have never heard the Gospel are heaven bound?
Matt you have already stated that you believe that God knows all things; that He is omniscient knowing all that will ever occur. To create, fully knowing that which will occur, is to create fully intending that which is known. Unless you’re willing to affirm that God does what He doesn’t intend.
I'll take 100 comments anyway I can get them! hahaha...
Knox,
I hate to tell you this, but you are wrong on about half of your post. I have addressed the topics, though it seems you do not understand what I am saying.
On your comment:
"The elect are not forced to choose Christ, nor are the reprobate forced to reject Him. And no Calvinist would deny that men are free to accept or reject the Gospel."
All I have to say to that is...what?!? What does Calvinism teach besides irresistable grace? If you cannot resist it, then are you not forced into accepting it?
You also said - "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."
I take it you believe that you are regenrated, and then you place your faith in Christ, which makes absolutely no sense. What happens if you are regenerated and then do not place your faith in Christ?
If you don't believe that Christ redeemed all of creation, then there is a problem. However, I'm not teaching that all of mankind is saved. He must accept the payment of Christ.
You said - "Are you suggesting that the only grounds for hell is the rejection of Christ? Are you then saying that those who have never heard the Gospel are heaven bound?"
The only grounds for someone going to hell is not accepting Christ as their Savior. There are two ways, two choices, two destinations. You either go to Heaven or hell. You either are on the straight and narrow or the broad path. You either accept Christ or you reject Christ.
I do not really have the time to discuss all of it now, but I will later. Knox, thanks for the stimulating comments.
Knox,
Sorry about not answering some of my own points on the last post. I forgot to finish this one.
Concerning "those who have never heard the gospel." Everyone is given enough, let's say, knowledge to realize there is a Creator. If they accept this fact and pursue God, He will reveal Himself to them. Then of course, that is when we get into our argument!
Knox,
you are assuming that total depravity as a non-calvinist sees it is contradictory to all works when the truth is it is only contradictory as it pertains to the works of the flesh and the law.
Faith Comes by Hearing but it is not effected to Salvation by Hearing. Faith that comes by hearing is effected to salvation by the will of man. Whosoever Will my brother! Repent and Believe the Gospel!
How do Calvinists answer John 3:16?
For God so loved the WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Calvinists love John 3:16. It says that anyone who wants to be saved will be saved. "Whosoever believes..will not perish, but have everlasting life." Totally true. That's a totally separate question from, "What sort of person will have faith?" If your question is about the word "world" (Greek kosmos) and how it impacts this question, you would do well to look through the rest of the gospel of John (and 1 John, for that matter) to see what kosmos means. I trust we agree it's not talking about the planet on which we live. What is it talking about, based on the many times John uses it?
All I have to say to that is...what?!? What does Calvinism teach besides irresistable grace? If you cannot resist it, then are you not forced into accepting it?
The answer is no. TULIP is a acronym, an acronym Matt, and is used a matter of convenience. Do you think French or German or Dutch Calvinists use the acronym? Have you ever read the Canons of Dort from which the 5 points come? Do you think you could actually give a coherent outline of Reformed theology? Based on your input here I don’t think so.
Apparently the term irresistible conjures up ideas of God overcoming the intentional resistance of human volition. Where does that idea come from Matt? From a reputable Reformed Systematic Theology? Have you ever read one? Based on the things you say I highly doubt it. Your whole conception of Calvinistic theology is false.
Perhaps you could offer a detailed explanation of the Calvinistic view of salvation. You might outline the “Ordo Salutis” and point out where the term force is to be appropriately applied.
So "world" according to Calvinism must mean "the elect", right?
Knox,
If "irresistable grace" is wrong, then change your acronym.
If at any time God chooses who will and who will not be saved, then He has imposed His will upon that person. You cannot get around this argument!
Also, yes, I have studied different theologies, and am still studying. But since I seem to not understand Calvinism ("Your whole conception of Calvinistic theology is false"), then explain the idea of unconditional election to me in concise words.
Romans 10:13 - WHOSOEVER shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How do Calvinists answer this?
MATT.
We are not arguing what those verses say. We're arguing WHO causes the "whosoever".
If God intends to save the whole world then why isn't the whole world saved?
Seems like a pretty elementary question, I know, but I'd be interested in hearing you on it, Matt.
(I think I know what you'll say and when you say it, we'll have come full circle.)
Matt said, So "world" according to Calvinism must mean "the elect", right?
This must not be in response to those verses I posted, because what I get out of them is that "the world" is the sinful society of men, the "world system" which Christ's work is to remedy. First, Christ will save "whosoever will believe" from that system. Ultimately, Christ's redemptive work will result in the complete eradication of the sinful system of this world, when he returns again to comprehensively transform "the kingdom of the world" into "the kingdom of our God and of his Christ."
Rberman,
Sorry for the inability to type sarcastically. I meant the previous post about the "world" and the "elect" as a tongue-in-cheek comment.
God in His foreknowledge, before the time ages began, knew who would, under the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, repent of his sins and trust Jesus Christ. God elected them to salvation. That election is consistent with the doctrine that a sinner must, of his own will, choose to receive Christ, and that election does not prohibit any sinner from being saved. The only thing that prohibits any sinner from being saved is his own obstinate pride and willful rejection of mercy and salvation in Jesus Christ (John 3:14-21, John 5:39-40, Matthew 23:33-37). [Taken from J.R. Alexander.]
Another good text to read is Isaiah 66:1-4.
Matt said, Sorry for the inability to type sarcastically. I meant the previous post about the "world" and the "elect" as a tongue-in-cheek comment.
OK. At any rate, God's love for "the world" as described in John 3:16 poses no conflict with Calvinism's understanding that God's plan for redeeming and restoring the whole of creation includes the election of some people to glory, and some to destruction.
God in His foreknowledge, before the time ages began, knew who would, under the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, repent of his sins and trust Jesus Christ. God elected them to salvation. That election is consistent with the doctrine that a sinner must, of his own will, choose to receive Christ, and that election does not prohibit any sinner from being saved. The only thing that prohibits any sinner from being saved is his own obstinate pride and willful rejection of mercy and salvation in Jesus Christ (John 3:14-21, John 5:39-40, Matthew 23:33-37). [Taken from J.R. Alexander.]
So, the saved sinner saves himself by his choice?
Thanks for the JR Alexander quotation. It appears to confuse primary and secondary causes. God is the Prime Mover, the ultimate cause of all creation. Job knew that when the house fell on his family, and the Chaldeans upon his flock, God was the cause. God works through all things, including the good and evil choices of men. So Alexander is true that as far as secondary causes go, men are responsible (and thus culpable) for their own lack of faith. No one is saved, but those who wish to be saved. No one is damned, but those who refuse to be saved. But election is not a secondary cause. It's part of God's decree, which is comprehensive over creation. Nothing can happen outside of God's decree, by definition.
Most things which God decrees actually happen through secondary causes like the forces of nature or the free choices of men. Sometimes God intervenes personally, like making an axehead float (2 Kings 6), raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11), or giving the gifts of faith and repentance to a spiritually dead heart (Ephesians 2:8,9; Acts 11:18). Then God "steps back" again and allows secondary causes to work whatever happens next. But in all cases, it's God's decree unfolding before our eyes. We see this "compatiblism" between God's sovereignty and man's free will in Proverbs 16:9, which says, "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps." Are a man's steps the result of the man's planning, or of God's determining? Yes, to both.
If "irresistable grace" is wrong, then change your acronym.
It isn’t MY acronym Matt. I didn’t invent it, I only have to deal with it. And it isn’t wrong when properly understood, but it does invite misunderstandings for those that are casual about serious research.
If at any time God chooses who will and who will not be saved, then He has imposed His will upon that person. You cannot get around this argument!
God DOES impose his will Matt. This whole creation, down to the hairs on your head and the number of breaths you will take is a matter of God’s decretive will. He does what he will in the hosts of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; (Dan 4:35) He makes vessels for honor and vessels for dishonor (Rom 9:21) and ordained all of your days. (Psalm 139:16) But he does it all without violating the free choices of men. He determines by providence, not force and he elects via the creative act of regeneration. The new birth is antecedent to a positive response to the Gospel.
Also, yes, I have studied different theologies, and am still studying. But since I seem to not understand Calvinism ("Your whole conception of Calvinistic theology is false"), then explain the idea of unconditional election to me in concise words.
See above. Men are dead in their trespasses and sins. Read Romans 3. There are none who seek and none who understand. The natural man cannot understand the things of the spirit. You cannot hear the voice of the savior if you are not first one of his sheep and he has mercy on whomever he will have mercy.
Romans 10:13 - WHOSOEVER shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How do Calvinists answer this?
What is to answer Matt? One cannot infer an indicative from an imperative. Ought does not imply can. Ability does not follow necessarily from a command. Men are free to receive Christ. But depraved men are not able to do so apart from the antecedent regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. One must be given eyes to see before he can apprehend the light. So God does not force, He creates anew. He called you from death to life and when he opened your eyes you saw. And when you see, you receive. It is his life in you. Whosoever will does not mean anybody can. That is a non sequitur. When you received Christ, you were already a new creation.
-----Arminianism, like the Molinist theology on which it drew, is little more than the recrudescence of the late medieval semi-Pelagianism against which the Reformers struggled. It’s tenets are inimical to the Pauline and Augustinian foundation of Reformed Protestantism.
[…]The God who antecedently wills the salvation of all knowingly provides a pattern of salvation that is suitable only to the salvation of some. This [is a] doctrinal juxtaposition of an antecedent, and never effectuated, divine will to save all and a consequent, effectuated, divine will to save some on the foreknown condition of their acceptance of faith……..The foreknowledge of God consists in part in a knowledge of contingent [chance] events that lie outside of God’s willing and, in the case of the divine foreknowledge, of the rejection of grace by some, of contingent events that not only thwart the antecedent divine will to save all people, but also are capable of thwarting it because of the divinely foreknown resistibility of the gift of grace. In other words, God is locked into the inconsistency of genuinely willing to save all people while at the same time binding himself to a plan of salvation that he foreknows with certainty cannot effectuate his will. This divine inability results from the necessity of those events that lie within the divine foreknowledge but outside of the divine willing remaining outside of the effective will of God. This results in the ultimate contradiction that God’s antecedent will genuinely wills what he foreknows cannot come to pass and that his consequent will effects something other than his ultimate intention. In other words God is either ineffectual or self-contradictory. Reformed doctrine on the other hand, respects the ultimate mystery of the infinite will of God, affirms the sovereignty and efficacy of God, and teaches the soteriological consistency of the divine intention and will with it’s effects.
From Grace, Election and Contingent Choice by Richard Muller
"God DOES impose his will Matt. This whole creation, down to the hairs on your head and the number of breaths you will take is a matter of God’s decretive will. He does what he will in the hosts of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; (Dan 4:35) He makes vessels for honor and vessels for dishonor (Rom 9:21) and ordained all of your days. (Psalm 139:16) But he does it all without violating the free choices of men. He determines by providence, not force and he elects via the creative act of regeneration. The new birth is antecedent to a positive response to the Gospel."
I do agree with much of your statement except for this part. "God DOES impose his will...but He does it all without violating the free choices of men." How can that possibly work? Furthermore, what if someone does not want to be part of the elect, but God chooses him anyway? Then a free choice has been denied. Also, you're putting the cart before the horse. You are not regenerated first. If you were regenerated first, then why is there a need for faith? The Bible clearly teaches that you are regenerated at the moment you accept Christ as your Savior, not the other way around.
Can God not willfully choose to restrain His will? Can He not choose to allow us free will?
Romans 5:18 - Therefore as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
I John 2:2 - "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
Now the question before us is whether or not the death of Christ was on behalf of all men. Did christ die for all the members of Adam's race? Or did He die for the elect only?
Well, Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden brought condemnation upon all men - all the human race. That includes infants and people whose bodies have grown to maturity but whose minds are yet the minds of infants, people who are not capable of responding to the influence of the Spirit of God; people who, as we say, do not know right from wrong. The entire human race was brought under condemnation by Adam's transgression. God cannot tolerate or accept sin even in an infant. Romans 5:12 - Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world...
That means just what it says. It means that God judged the entire human race - condemented the entire human race because of the offence of Adam's transgression. But, thank God, the story doesn't end there. Romans 5:18 - Therefore as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." It is evident, in the light of such Scriptures as II Corinthians 5:18-21 and Romans 5:10 that the "one righteous act" refers to the act of Christ dying for sinners. Romans 5:10 states - For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled we shall be saved by his life.
The death of Jesus Christ brought justification upon the entire human race from the Adamic condemnation. It justified all men from the Adamic transgression, and nobody will go to hell because of the Adamic transgression.
John 1:29 - "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." The word "sin" used here is singular. Not sins plural, but sin singular. What is the sin of the world? It is the Adamic transgression that brought condemnation upon all the members of Adam's race.
In connection with John's announcement read Paul's words to Timothy in I Timothy 4:10 - "For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the savior of all men, specially of thost that believe." In what sense is Jesus the Savior of all men? He is the Savior of all men in that His death justified all men from the Adamic transgression. It removed that condemnation.
The fact that Jesus, the Lamb of God, took away the sin of the world, as John the Baptist announced, and removed the condemnation of the Adamic transgression from the entire human race, justifying all of Adam's race from that condemnation, thus becoming the Savior of all men, necessitated the death of Christ on behalf of the entire human race. There is no other sense in which Jesus could be the Savior of all men in view of the fact that some men will be cast into hell. But, if He did take away the sin of the world, and if the free gift did come upon all men to justification of life, and if He is the Savior of all men, then clearly Jesus died for all men, else God has justified and saved some on some other ground than the death of Christ.
Furthermore, the fact that Jesus took away the sin of the world and jsutified all men from the condemnation of the Adamic transgression, puts the condemnation that now exists, the condemnation of unbelief, squarely upon the shoulders of every individual responsible sinner. The only sin that condemns a sinner to hell now is personal unbelief in the name of, or in the saving authority of the only begotten Son of God. Jesus told Nicodemus: "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemnt the world; but that the world through him might be saved." The word "kosmos" is used there again, and means the aggregate of mankind. Now, listen to vs. 18: "He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already..." Why? Is it because he is born a sinner? No. Is it because he got drunk? No. Why is he condemned? "...because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:16-18) That is the sin that sends men to hell. And that is the only sin that condemns and sends to hell. Thus the principle of universal condemnation and universal justification presented in Romans 5:18 proves that the Son of God died for all men.
(More will come tomorrow.)
Can God not willfully choose to restrain His will? Can He not choose to allow us free will?
The questions is not "can He", the question is "has He".
Matt,
That's all fine and good but God still only established His covenant with one man, Abraham and with His progeny. He did not establish it with all mankind even though all mankind was cursed at the fall.
The new covenant is similar in scope. There is no reason to believe that it encompasses all mankind especially when we consider what it is meant to convey; i.e. the favor of God, salvation, eternal life.
What you are saying is that God is thwarted or confirmed in His intention to save everyone by the will of the creature.
This makes the creature, not God, the ultimate acting agent in the salvation of sinners.
Anoetos,
Believe it or not, I think we agree on something (it just happens to be on the baptism post! Hahaha...)
Anyway, you said:
"What you are saying is that God is thwarted or confirmed in His intention to save everyone by the will of the creature. This makes the creature, not God, the ultimate acting agent in the salvation of sinners."
I believe this gets right back to what Philip and you have asked each other:
"Can God not willfully choose to restrain His will? Can He not choose to allow us free will?" (Philip)
"The questions is not "can He", the question is "has He"." (Anoetos)
So, we have come full circle, right? Has God willfully chosen to restrain His will?
I don't know about you, but I am certainly glad that God has it all figured out regardless of what we say!
(FYI: At least for me, this has been very good discussion. I have learned quite a bit and hope to continue pursuing the learning concerning this subject.)
Here's something funny I found on another website. In fact, it had nothing to do with Calvinism per se. The following is written by Macolm Yarnell (www.baptisttheology.org).
My contribution to the theological flower debate is the LILY:
Lord: Jesus Christ Alone
Integrity: Say what you mean, and Mean what you say
Love: The ethics of our Savior
Yieldedness: Discipleship is the Call of God upon us
Notice that this is not a TULIP, for it is not indebted to the speculation of the Dutch, whether economic or theological. Indeed, lilies grow quite well in water, just like Baptists.
When He tells us that He declares the ends from the beginning, and that His word does not return void but accomplishes all it purpose, and when Jesus tells us that none will be snatched out of His hand, and when He says that all whom the Father has drawn will come to Him, and when we consider that God chose Abraham and him alone and that His covenant and redeeming love was given to Israel alone, then...
No, we cannot say that God has "willfully chosen to restrain His will".
Anoetos - "No, we cannot say that God has "willfully chosen to restrain His will"."
In regard to His Will, as in Master Plan (or "definite plan," as you stated earlier), you, sir, are absolutely correct.
R.L. Vaughn, in an earlier comment -
"Again, whether or not one is a Calvinist, or how we can conceive of His doing it, God is working all things after the council of His own will (not trying to)."
What I was intending to refer to was the will as defined as "desire."
He has indeed resrained His own will (desire). A few examples -
1. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemene - "Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done." (Lk. 22:42) Jesus clearly desired another way, yet submitted His will to that of the Father in order to retain unity in the Godhead, and to carry out the Definite (Master) Plan (God's Will).
2. Moses is commanded by God to leave Him alone, so that He may burn with anger and consume the Israelites as they worshipped the golden calf. He even stated that He would fulfill His promise to Abraham through Moses alone after He carried out this genocide. Yet, He relented when Moses pleaded for the people. (Duet. 32:10-14)
3. Isaiah 48 speaks to several issues already dicussed. God declares that He has known all things from the beginning, including the state of the people's hearts. He knew they would be stubborn, and would be trangressors from birth. Vs. 9 (NKJ) - "For My name's sake I will defer my anger, And for My praise I will restrain it from you, so that I do not cut you off."
Had God followed through with His desire to "consume" the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, for instance, would that have defeated His Plan? No. He clearly states that He would continue the bloodline through Moses.
God will accomplish His Will no matter what. However, He knew Moses' response before the beginning of time. His will (in the temporal) is not limited by His Will (in the eternal), at least from the temporal (our) perspective. No matter His will now, it will not change His ultimate Will for eternity.
Likewise, since He already knows all ultimate outcomes to all ultimate questions, why is it neccessary to say that for God to allow us a choice would violate His omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence? If He knows the question, the answer and the result, He has ultimately Planned that result (as we understand it). He is still the 3 O's.
So, Matt, we're now "LILY-live-ers?" What are you trying to do to my rep, Homes? I'll never have any street cred now!
This discussion will have difficulty moving forward so long as the antithesis of "Man's will vs God's will" is the prevailing paradigm. As I said in my post about JR Alexander, those two forces are not opposed. They operate on different levels of causation. You might as well argue whether a man was killed by a bullet, or by a gun, or by a man who pulled the trigger, or by blood ceasing to flow from the heart to the brain. All of those things are true, at different levels of causation. Same thing with man's will and God's will. God realizes his sovereign will through the free choices of men.
But the question that ought to be discussed is whether an unregenerate heart, a spiritually dead man, will ever seek God, or righteousness, or faith. Sure, such a man may want to escape the penalty of his sin, just like a robber hopes he doesn't get caught. But can such a man actually repent, actually see sin as ugly and God as beautiful, unless God has worked a miracle in that man's heart, birthing faith and obedience?
Well, I guess the question is whether or not a "dead" man can do anything.
True enough. It seems pretty apparent to Calvinists that just as a dead man won't ask to be brought back to life, a spiritually dead heart will not look for salvation from sin and desire to be united to Christ by faith. "Unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God," said Jesus to Nicodemus. Regeneration, the miraculous transformation of a dead heart to a living one, is a prerequisite of true faith, not the reward God gives men who make the morally proper choice and exercise true faith. Faith is a gift of God, lest any man should boast that he was saved because he was smart enough to accept God's offer.
Post a Comment