Below is the video broadcast walking through 2 Thess. 2:13 with a response to Calvinistic pastor, Paul Washer. Or you can download the podcast version HERE.
2nd Thessalonians 2:13-14
“But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
This is commonly quoted text by Calvinistic scholars seeking to prove that certain individuals were chosen for salvation to the neglect of all others. I, along with many scholars, believe this is very Western individualized interpretation of the scripture, however. We tend to read texts from an individualized (me, I, my) perspective in our egocentric society. This was not the common way of understanding such texts in the first century’s collectivist society where people were seen as under the headship of their cultural heritage, not merely as individuals.
We must understand that the predominately Gentile congregations of Paul’s day were constantly being told they were not the elect of God, but instead barbarian rejects. The Judaizers of the first century insisted that only Jews were chosen by God and Paul spent much time attempting to debunk this commonly held false belief (see the book of Galatians).
In the “Jew versus Gentile” context of Paul’s ministry (and this passage) he often references himself and the Jewish apostles as “us” and “our” in contrast to the Gentile believers as “you” and “your.” For instance, in verse 14 Paul seems to indicate that “you” (the Gentile believers) were called “through our” (the Jewish Apostles’) gospel. Therefore, it makes perfect sense, in Paul’s context, to thank God for his Gentile audience being chosen, or engrafted (Rom. 11:13-24), into the means salvation through faith. This, after all, is the mystery which had been hidden for generations which is just now being made known through men like Paul (Eph. 3:1-11).
In short, the “Apostle to the Gentiles” is likely combating the false view that the Gentiles were not the elect of God by writing this affirmation of God’s choice to include them from the very beginning.
Thanks. Yes it is a broad “we” “us” ….much the same as Romans 9-11 is comparing Jew and Gentile, Esau and Jacob.
These verses are plucked out of context and used individualistically and quoted as some of the 40-50 gotcha verses to prove Calvinism. I am often surprised that scholars allow themselves to be duped like this. But in the case of Washer, he comes to the text “wanting” and needing it to say what he is looking for.
I also think a word study of “beginning” as used in the NT, and especially by Paul, might lead others as it has me to see Paul talking about the “beginning” of his gospel ministry in Europe, which included Philippi and Thessalonica (Acts 16-17). God was directing Paul and Silas during that second missionary journey to focus primarily on Gentiles, and Thessalonica was one of the first cities receiving extensive ministry from them.
Phl 4:15 NKJV – 15 Now you Philippians know also that in the BEGINNING of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only.
But Calvinism also has the continued problem of wanting to hear “before the beginning” in this phrase that only says “from the beginning. They constantly have trouble believing that God is still making choices after creation. They would rather have Him neatly locked up in an immutable determinism of all things forever, where He never makes any more decisions, and they can “freely” control the public perception of the “settled” information of how He does things. 😉
Another way to look at “from the beginning” is to take it as a reference to the book of Genesis. I think that when a Jew said that something was ‘from the beginning’ one thing he could mean by that is that it is written in the book of beginnings. Paul’s statement in Gal.3:8 could confirm this understanding: “The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham, ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’ ” So God had chosen to save the Gentiles way back when he chose Abraham, and this was written from the beginning.
Good suggestion, Troy… I’ve been reading through the Scripture this year with the intention of looking for instances of Gentiles showing some knowledge of and perhaps faith in the true God. It’s amazing how many references I’ve seen so far that confirms God has always chosen from the beginning that Gentiles could be saved by faith in His righteousness.
Agreed. The many verses concerning God’s election of all WHO WOULD believe in Christ have been perversely distorted into a false claim that God elected a select few TO BELIEVE in Christ. Along with many non-Calvinists, it is not the concept of divine election I reject – I most definitely read and rejoice that God has elected to forgive and redeem all who believe in Christ – but the faulty Calvinist definition of Election which asserts a cruel partiality on the part of God that leads to a deliberate, heartless refusal to save the vast majority of men who could have indeed been ‘elected’ to salvation along with the alleged chosen few.
ts00 writes, “The many verses concerning God’s election of all WHO WOULD believe in Christ have been perversely distorted into a false claim that God elected a select few TO BELIEVE in Christ.”
ts00 complains but then he limits the elect to “all who believe in Christ.” Either way, there are only a few who believe. So, what is the complaint against Calvinism. The Calvinist deals with those who reject Christ under ts00’s philosophy and it is from this group that God personally saves some. Thus, Calvinists have God saving more people than would be saved under ts00’s system. Yet, ts00 complains. Perhaps, his real complaint is that God would save too many people if the Calvinists are correct.
HUTCH!
How are things at SEBTS?
norm asks, “How are things at SEBTS?”
You may be thinking of Ryan. That’s not me.
Rhutchin writes:
‘ts00 complains but then he limits the elect to “all who believe in Christ.” Either way, there are only a few who believe. So, what is the complaint against Calvinism.’
This is a deliberate pretense of ignorance. Rhutchin knows, full well, that ‘the complaint against Calvinism’ is that the number of potential believers is arbitrarily limited under this monstrous system, as opposed to the true gospel, which offers grace to all men. Hence the ‘good news, which shall be to all people’. The issue is not over which system achieves greater numbers, but which system is just and loving vs. which is cruel and partial. Of course, God states that he desires that none perish, but that all turn and live. Impossible to turn such a statement into a limited atonement that deliberately omits the vast majority of men, rather than allowing all the freedom to receive or reject God’s unlimited grace. True, all but Universalism result in less than ‘all’ believing; however, only Calvinism asserts that it is God’s deliberate rejection of men that leads to the alleged damnation of countless millions for whom Jesus did not even die.
Ah c’mon TS00 why cant you just be like the rest of us and “be glad that God lets any in at all”?
After all for their sin (that God determine that they commit) all men deserve never-ending torture, so just be quiet and be glad you are among the chosen. And enjoy eternity with the God who planned that 99.85% go to endless torture.
He picked you bro, so just relax that God is love.
FOH writes, tongue in cheek:
‘Ah c’mon TS00 why cant you just be like the rest of us and “be glad that God lets any in at all”?’
I guess I just don’t have God’s ability to ‘love’, you know, the kind that would gleefully torture those who one could just as easily redeem and grant eternal blessing like the lucky elect. I guess I just don’t have the heart to write off mother, father, grandmother, children, neighbors and strangers as potentially hell fodder; created by God with no intention, ever, of offering them any alternative or escape. It’s not easy to love like that.
You know when I first moved toward Calvinism (after careful tutoring —since I would never have found it by myself), one of the most repulsive ideas to overcome was this “God planned on and gets glory from the 99% being eternally tortured” idea. But like others, I just bit the bullet and said “Well if that’s what the Bible teaches, then I gotta believe it.”
But that the beauty of the thing!!!
The Bible doesnt teach it!! In fact this whole blog is about dismantling the scaffolding of the 40-50 key verses that the whole house of cards is built on!
FOH writes, “one of the most repulsive ideas to overcome was this “God planned on and gets glory from the 99% being eternally tortured” idea. But like others, I just bit the bullet and said “Well if that’s what the Bible teaches, then I gotta believe it.”…The Bible doesnt teach it!!”
Even the Calvinist knows that the Bible doesn’t teach such things as you have invented. The Scriptures tell us in speaking of Christ in Revelation, “Worthy art Thou to take the book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And Thou hast made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”
ts00 writes, “I guess I just don’t have God’s ability to ‘love’,…”
No one does until God gives it to them.
Then, “…you know, the kind that would gleefully torture those who one could just as easily redeem and grant eternal blessing like the lucky elect. I guess I just don’t have the heart to write off mother, father, grandmother, children, neighbors and strangers as potentially hell fodder; created by God with no intention, ever, of offering them any alternative or escape. It’s not easy to love like that.”
The argument of the Universalist. Well-spoken but ignoring the Scriptures. Rather than “gleefully” Gd says, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked…” God certainly offers a way to escape but Paul says, “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” The sexually immoral, the idolator, the impure, etc. will all die if they do not repent and God will not take pleasure in their death and exclusion from heaven.
TS00
Dont fall for it! I know you will be tempted to answer thinking this is legitimate, sincere, rational dialog, but it ain’t.
1. First of all it starts with the “you are a universalist” stick in your eye. (they play that card early and often!).
2. Then there is the conflicted quoting of the verse that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (which we feel is true!). Piper often quotes slave-owner Jonathan Edwards …..pointing that God DOES in fact take pleasure in evil since He needs it to contrast with His goodness.
“Unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.”
3. Then there is the meaningless throw-away line: “God certainly offers a way to escape …” Because we all know that in Calvinism, no such offer is made. Indeed it is the most insincere, non-offer ever conceived! Man is not rejecting an offer from God since —before time—Christ’s Limited Atonement was never given for him!!!
So…..Dont fall for it… bothering to dialog with Calvinists when they offer non-Calvinist verses to support their man-made philosophy.
FOH writes, “…for their sin (that God determine that they commit) all men deserve never-ending torture,…”
That they do. That is why Christ died on the cross and God raised Him from the dead.
ts00 writes, “Rhutchin knows, full well, that ‘the complaint against Calvinism’ is that the number of potential believers is arbitrarily limited under this monstrous system, as opposed to the true gospel, which offers grace to all men.”
No. The complaint against Calvinism is that it holds that God is omniscient and knew before He created the universe those who were to be saved (the elect) and those who would not (the reprobate) and this outcome cannot be changed. The Arminians agreed with the Calvinists on this point, so the issue was not who would be saved but how the elect are brought to salvation. Pretty much everyone agrees that all will not be saved, and that God may love the world, but He has instituted a system in which all the world is not to be saved and it is not God’s intent to save everyone in the world.
Rhutchin writes:
‘ts00 complains but then he limits the elect to “all who believe in Christ.” Either way, there are only a few who believe. So, what is the complaint against Calvinism. The Calvinist deals with those who reject Christ under ts00’s philosophy and it is from this group that God personally saves some. Thus, Calvinists have God saving more people than would be saved under ts00’s system. Yet, ts00 complains. Perhaps, his real complaint is that God would save too many people if the Calvinists are correct.’
What does this even mean? Sounds like a whole lot of Gobbledygook that no one actually ever said or believed.
Should we rejoice that God only decided to create those other disposable people for eternal suffering and damnation, and chose us – the lucky ‘elect’ – to be spared from such a dastardly fate? (Anyone who would ‘believe’ in this God would naturally believe himself ‘elect’.) Of course, God tells us – we don’t have to trust the ‘opinions’ of Calvin and his minions – that if he were doing the choosing, he would choose all, because he desires that none perish. Calvinists do a lot of dancing around that verse, but it is pretty hard to interpret any other way than its obvious meaning.
If God had chosen to create a tyrannical, deterministic world – had he not created men in his image, desiring to have a genuine, voluntary relationship with them – he would not have allowed any to perish, but ‘determined’ that all would come to him. If this salvation thing was involuntary, you can be sure that all would be saved. Thus, if God desires that none perish – as he insists – and yet many do, we can safely assume that something other than God’s determining will is at play in said events. (This is where Calvinists try to sneak in a second or third will, with God being literally at war with himself, desiring that none perish, yet decreeing that many, before they were ever born or could possibly sin, be condemned to a life of sin and death from which there would be no rescue.) We do not have to read far in scripture to discover the real truth, as we quickly come across many verses that compel men ‘to choose you this day whom you will serve’ and the like.
Nor do I even have to address the obvious absurdity of the suggestion that any non-Calvinist’s real complaint is ‘that God would save too many people if the Calvinists are correct’. Said nobody ever about Calvinism.
Instead, I call out the false, hypocritical Calvinist pastors I have heard in my day suggesting how they ‘weep’ (and my former Calvinist pastor emphasized that he meant literally ‘weep’) over the millions who will go to hell, which he dared suggest was our fault for not living more pious lives. Huh? I could never decide which part was more absurd. If you think sending millions to hell was all part of God’s good and perfect, eternally predetermined plan, the last thing in the world you would do is ‘weep’ over his bad judgment; and if all things are ordained and brought to pass by God’s irresistible decree, then men’s piety or lack thereof is not their fault, and would make not a whit of difference. Calvinism forces its defenders into not only defending the indefensible, but into sounding downright silly. As in, ‘Perhaps, his real complaint is that God would save too many people if the Calvinists are correct.’ 😉
AFTER THE FALL,GOD HAD THE SOVOREIGH RIFHT TO SEND ALL MEN TO HELL.BUT HE CHOOSE TO SAVE SOME.WE CAN’T DO A ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.ONE DAY YOU MAY IN ETERNITY UNDERSTAND.THEN YOU WILL.YOU WILL SAY God is right,even them in he’ll will now down,and glorify him…God didn’t choose to send men to hell,every person in he’ll will be responsible for his own choice.and God will be glorifed..man can’t understand or council God.
Janet, we appreciate the comments but I deleted the others because each one of them is almost impossible to read without any complete sentences nor paragraph breaks and each one of them has the same message as this one “Just believe Calvinism, it’s true, stop fighting it even though none of us can fully understand it”. If you have something substantive you would like to discuss I’d be happy to approve it.
Janet:
“Just believe Calvinism, it’s true, stop fighting it even though none of us can fully understand it”
This is really not gonna work for those who comment here. Any person with a newly-found idea/ doctrine feels the same, whether it is: spiritual gifts, tongues, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, prophecy timing (a-, post-, pre-mil), Israel’s place, women’s role in the church, etc, etc.
Just saying “its’ true” doesn’t work. Most believers of various doctrines (and dare I say other faiths: Islam, Buddhism, etc) will play the “I know it’s true” card.
Please look at the many posts on this site and read / watch them. They cover most of the go-to Calvinist verses (that’s not hard, since Calvinism is built on 40-50 key verses).
Please read our comments. We are not “fighting a truth.” We love the truth.
janet
AFTER THE FALL,GOD HAD THE SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO …….
br.d
Hi Janet – this statement avoids a critical foundational proposition underlying Calvin’s doctrine.
1) Calvin insists “not only is his god willing but he is the author of Adam’s fall”
So the truth is – Calvin’s god’s sovereign right to treat humans as disposable assets is dependent upon and is the consequence of nothing more than his own will.
2) Therefore to say that Calvin’s god didn’t choose to send persons to hell is to deny the foundational tenet of Calvin’s doctrine.
3) Calvinism’s interpretation of the potter and the clay is to assert that Calvin’s god designs a few pots as vessels of honor, and designs the remaining as vessels of wrath – for his good pleasure. This interpretation is logically consistent with Calvinism’s foundational tenet.
Janet,
Your post is a bit hard to follow and it seems like you are shouting.
We all agree that God had the sovereign right to set up the world anyway He wanted. What we are discussing here is the Scriptural message of what it appears that God did.
It is not enough to say “BUT HE CHOOSE TO SAVE SOME” (and I predicted in a post one hour ago that a Calvinist would propose that). It is not enough because Calvinism actually says more.
The Calvinist model is not that God came along with a life boat and chose/arranged to save some of those drowning from a sinking ocean liner. In that case everyone says “I’m so glad that boat was there to save as many as he could!” (we would all agree with that).
The Calvinist model says that from the beginning God designed that man would sin (God sunk the ocean liner) and that all would be condemned through Adam and that only a few would be allowed/ irresistibly drawn to repent. There was never any intention/desire/ plan to save the others. They were created for the purpose of eternal torture…… not really as a result of what they did or did not do (that would be “man-centered” and a real no-no for Calvinists), but simply as a result of what God did. It is His doing that they are in Hell, not man’s. There is no way around that doctrine within Calvinism.
Now, you may want to hit the reply button and say, “You don’t know Calvinism FOH!” but please dont bother since I am a seminary trained former Calvinist and understand my former position quite well.
I hope this helps. I realize you interest is to honor God. We need to look closely in the Word to see what He says about Himself and His creation.
FOH writes:
“The Calvinist model is not that God came along with a life boat and chose/arranged to save some of those drowning from a sinking ocean liner. In that case everyone says “I’m so glad that boat was there to save as many as he could!” (we would all agree with that).”
You are so right, and may I expand upon your thought?
To the Calvinist, God did not send along a life raft to save as many as he ‘could’ from the sinking ocean liner. God made the ocean. God gave men the wisdom and skill to craft the ocean liner and ordained them to do so. God ordained that the ocean liner would sink. God knew exactly how many people were on the ocean liner, and could have sent a boat big enough to save them all. But he only wanted to save a few.
The ‘We should be glad God saved any’ argument is very, very hollow. No, if I believed what Calvinism taught, I would not be glad that God saved ‘a few’ when he could have saved all. I would look him in the eye and declare, ‘Even I am more loving than that.’ If it is all up to God, and he did not save all that he could, then he is unloving, unjust and totally untrustworthy. He is not ‘kind’ to save a few, he is evil to sink an ocean liner and not provide the lifeboat he could have. No, I would not want to spend eternity with such a deity, and would gladly give up my place on his lifeboat, and I am not the least bit afraid to say so. Because God is nothing like Calvinism falsely claims.
The only concept that makes sense, preserves God’s goodness and justice and lines up with all of scripture is the ‘Whosoever will’ concept set forth by Jesus. The ocean liner is sinking, and God has sent a lifeboat named Jesus to save mankind. It is big enough for the job, because God is not unloving, unwise or incapable. But God never intended to bind, gag and toss all onto the lifeboat. Those who scoff at the idea that the ship is sinking are allowed to ignore the lifeboat and continue to enjoy the entertainment on the ocean liner. They have been duly warned, they have been offered adequate rescue, and they have chosen to resist and reject the greater wisdom of the Creator.
It is not unloving or in any other way demeaning to the character of God to assert that he offers salvation to all who will take it, but will never force it upon anyone. It is most definitely maligning to suggest that God could have saved all, but deliberately chose not to – just to demonstrate his own (misnamed) ‘glory’. In the Calvinist scenario, God deliberately creates a sinking ocean liner and deliberately leaves many, whom he could just as well have saved, to perish. Y’all can think it’s grand that you were chosen to be tossed into the lifeboat, but I’m going to stand my ground and go down with those God rejects. Because that is not a God I would want to spend eternity with – or even a moment.
But let me tell you about the true God, who is utterly loving, gracious and merciful. Who loves men more than his own ‘glory’. Who pities the weak creature who is ensnared by the clever wiles of the devil, and crafts an astonishing solution – sending a man, his only begotten Son, to stand in the gap. This Son of God chooses to submit fully to his father, even unto death, earning himself the position of King of Kings and Lord of Lords. This Son of God came to serve, to heal, to bind the wounds of those who have been used and oppressed by false, wicked shepherds, and to show them The Way to God and everlasting, righteousness and life.
The real story is so beautiful, so unbelievably merciful and gracious, it is hard to believe that any would be willing to exchange it for a selfish, heartless God who uses and destroys men for his own good pleasure. I am not too ‘soft’ to believe in the God of Calvinism – I am too in love with the God who has walked with me all of my days, keeping me, helping me, encouraging me and comforting me. Could I turn and say coldy “I have no more desire to be with you”? Absolutely. But why would I? Who have I but the One who has proven faithful and true, gentle and kind, patient and willing to teach as I am able to learn? I have precious family, who I love dearly, but they cannot compare to the One who reached out to me as a frightened, wounded child and faithfully walked beside me for over fifty years. You may be able to believe the cruel, wicked assertions Calvinism makes about God, but I tell you, I know him, and he is gracious, loving and trustworthy.
ts00 writes, “To the Calvinist, God did not send along a life raft to save as many as he ‘could’ from the sinking ocean liner.”
This is wrong. God did send out the life raft in the form of the gospel telling believers to take that gospel into all the world. All those who climbed into the life raft God saved. Then God went out and pulled even more from the waters – those who were content to drown and actually swam away from the life raft. Then people complained because God did not save all.
FOH writes, “The Calvinist model says that from the beginning God designed that man would sin…”
God did this by:
1. Preparing a garden that Adam could maintain;
2. Opening the gate so Satan could enter and tempt Eve.
3. Not intervening as He watched Satan tempt Eve and as Eve ate the fruit,.
4. Not intervening as He watched Adam take the fruit from Eve and eat.
God had already decided on this course of action before He created the world or Adam or Eve.
rhutchin
God did this by:
1. Preparing a garden that Adam could maintain;
2. Opening the gate so Satan could enter and tempt Eve.
3. Not intervening as He watched Satan tempt Eve and as Eve ate the fruit,.
4. Not intervening as He watched Adam take the fruit from Eve and eat.
br.d
Firstly, we should be very honored to have someone in our midst like rhutchin who was there with Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world and who now graces us with a 20th Century cannon of scripture detailing all of these minute divine details!
Or perhaps rhutchin was up in the 3rd heaven with the Apostle Paul and John when he discovered all of these details.
However a person who would assert the fallacious proposition:
Calvin’s god decrees everything that comes to pass, but then doesn’t intervene in what he decrees – is probably just blowing smoke. :-]
br.d writes, “Firstly, we should be very honored to have someone in our midst like rhutchin who was there with Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world and who now graces us with a 20th Century cannon of scripture detailing all of these minute divine details!”
Do we have br.d denying that God is omnipresent and could not be present in the garden and then that God is not sovereign over Satan and has no control over Satan? Hmmmmm.
Then, “Calvin’s god decrees everything that comes to pass, but then doesn’t intervene in what he decrees – is probably just blowing smoke.”
That which God decrees is that which God executes. At least, I am not the one suggesting that God is not omnipresent or that God is not sovereign over Satan.
br.d writes, “Firstly, we should be very honored to have someone in our midst like rhutchin who was there with Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world and who now graces us with a 20th Century cannon of scripture detailing all of these minute divine details!”
rhutchin
Do we have br.d denying that God is omnipresent and could not be present in the garden and then that God is not sovereign over Satan and has no control over Satan? Hmmmmm.
br.d
Br.d doesn’t have to deny what is in the established cannon of scripture in order to recognize when someone is making up their own. :-]
Anyone who asserts the fallacious appeal:
Calvin’s god decrees everything that comes to pass, but then doesn’t intervene in what he decrees”
is blowing smoke
rhutchin:
That which God decrees is that which God executes. At least, I am not the one suggesting that God is not omnipresent or that God is not sovereign over Satan.
br.d
Too funny!.
That which Calvin’s god decrees is that which he executes – and he doesn’t intervene in what he executes.
You’re simply asserting the same fallacious thinking – but in this case its even easier to see.
Calvin’s god arm wrestling against himself – its pretty funny! :-]
And Rhutchin’s comment that God is ‘sovereign over Satan’ – hadn’t heard them put it like that before. Just shows all the more that they believe God is the real driving force behind all of the wickedness and evil in the world, using the cleverly crafted Satan sock puppet to be the bad guy. They simply do not believe the story of scripture, that an angel became inflamed with pride and a desire to be God, and has wrought all of the wickedness and evil in an attempt to slander, if not overcome, the true God.
No one is doubting God’s sovereignty, or that he could, in an instant, destroy or put down anyone who challenges him. The fact that he allows Satan, for a time, to wage his futile battle suggests that man needs to learn the sad lesson of what revolting against a good and perfect God leads to. What it does not suggest, in my opinion, is that God deliberately cooked up a scheme to wreak havoc upon his own creation, and ordains the evil with one hand, while doing battle against it with the other. It is not only illogical to think God is fighting himself, it is, as you say, downright funny to imagine God arm-wrestling himself.
Perhaps the angel Michael didn’t realize the demons he was battling before reaching Daniel were sent by his own dear leader, and that we are all just tools in a twisted, destructive game God is playing upon all living creatures. Paul must have been chortling to himself as he described ‘the armor of God’, designed to fight that great foe of God . . . er, God. I imagine he could barely write: ” Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” In the last days, God will finally put down . . . God?
If your definition of sovereignty demands that God deterministically controls everyone and everything, all of scripture becomes a silly mythology, like the Greek gods fighting among themselves. If God is equally behind good and evil, there is no point to any of this, and life is a stage upon which we merely perform our prescribed roles. My father’s cancer and my neice’s lost baby were mere entertainment for a bored god. Why pray? (Dear God, please don’t let yourself do anything evil today?) Why have faith? (I believe the good God will overcome the bad God!) Why persevere? (I am going to keep going, even as God sends all of this evil to ensnare and overcome me.) Why put on the armor of Calvinism affirms Shakespeare more than scripture.
Of course, as frequently pointed out on these threads, few people think their Calvinist theology through to its inevitably absurd conclusions. They simply read the books, listen to the sermons and trust their beloved ‘authorities’ to do all of the thinking for them. They simply do not know that which they claim to believe.
Good post TruthSeeker.
Yes Calvinists always comes off looking like puppets obsessed with making their strings disappear. :-]
ts00 writes, “Just shows all the more that they believe God is the real driving force behind all of the wickedness and evil in the world, using the cleverly crafted Satan sock puppet to be the bad guy.”
Are you really taking the position that God is not sovereign over Satan? Apparently not, since you then state, “The fact that [God] allows Satan, for a time, to wage his futile battle suggests that man needs to learn the sad lesson of what revolting against a good and perfect God leads to.” By “God allows,” we know that God made a sovereign decision to give Satan freedom to wage war against Christ and God’s elect. How this makes god the “driving force” behind all the evil in the world escapes me.
Then, “What it does not suggest, in my opinion, is that God deliberately cooked up a scheme to wreak havoc upon his own creation, and ordains the evil with one hand, while doing battle against it with the other. ”
God is omniscient with perfect knowledge of the future. Joseph understood this telling his brothers, “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” Thus, we see God ordaining an evil act against Joseph to bring about His plan for good to save many people.
Then, “If your definition of sovereignty demands that God deterministically controls everyone and everything, all of scripture becomes a silly mythology,…”
Then, maybe you can explain how God is sovereign over His creation but not really in control of His creation.
Sorry for editing errors. Hope all can unscramble.
The last “Why put on the armor of ” fragment should have been deleted.
JM writes, “God didn’t choose to send men to hell,every person in he’ll will be responsible for his own choice.and God will be glorifed.”
God did choose not to save every person when He has the power to do so. God can open any person’s heart to receive the gospel even as He did for Lydia. God can confront any person just like He did with Paul. God can arrange for a Phillip to meet with anyone as he did with the Ethiopian eunuch. God’s Spirit can initiate the new birth in any person. God can use any and all means to save anyone and not be thwarted. If God wants to save everyone, He can do so – and no one would complain.
Having seen/heard a sermon video on Election from Ephesians 1 by Dr. Eric Hankins, pastor of FBC Fairhope, Ala., and having read his upcoming and not-yet-released paper on reprobation from Romans 9, and having read/heard Dr Flowers on these matters, I am convinced that God’s elective purpose was intended for Israel, the people through whom the gospel (“our” gospel, ala Paul) would be delivered to the world, or the “unchosen.” See Eph 1 for this enlightenment. Note the distinct shift in pronouns there as similarly noted in 2 Thess. 2.13 by Dr. Flowers.
Clearly, God chose Abram and moved him from Ur of the Chaldees unto that natural land bridge between the sea and the dessert – the land of promise – where God’s chosen people would/should be a lighthouse for Yahweh, and ultimately where God’s elective and salvific purposes were fulfilled in the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Election: it’s just not that complicated nor that mysterious.
You will have to forgive me Norm. I did not quite get where you were going with your definition of election.
I will make one comment though. You said, “Clearly, God chose Abram and moved him from Ur…”
True God chose him but He didn’t move him! Abraham followed in faith. Never in the whole Bible is there an indication that he was given any special faith….just “by faith Abraham…”
The Bible is FULL of these kinds of stories and examples where God moves or calls, but men and women follow in faith. Gotta be something to that!
Agreed.
Cals oft’ say sola gratia, but that renders Eph 2.8 false. We also are saved by faith, the same way Abraham was. God called. Abraham moved.
As one who embraces corporate election as seen through Abraham and in Eph. 1, I am pondering that election applies to the Jews who were the ‘vehicle’ by which God’s elective purposes are accomplished.
CS Lewis wrote: “The chosen were chosen for the sake of the unchosen.” Granted, Lewis was an inspired writer, but not as were the biblical writers. Nonetheless, I think his statement sheds considerable light on election. At least it has caused me to re-think the matter to the point that I now believe it is not as mysterious or complicated as Cals need it to be.
See Eph 1 and the obvious pronoun shift. Paul uses personal possessive words early on, like we and us and our.
And then v 13:
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit
There it is, Paul moves from first person to second person pronouns. Curious!
Hankins says in his sermon that the 1st person refers to the Jewish believers, “and you also” refers to his Gentile audience. Cals make no such distinction.
Notice when and how the Gentiles were included. I see no Calvinism in that verse. In fact, I see the unraveling of that faulty view.
Doing my daily through-the-Bible reading. Came to Deuteronomy 30:
19 “Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live! 20 You can make this choice by loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and committing yourself firmly to him. This is the key to your life. And if you love and obey the Lord, you will live long in the land the Lord swore to give your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
Here (and in hundreds of passages like this) it doesn’t remotely sound like all the decisions have already been made from the foundation of the world!
It also sounds like God is saying…..a lot of the choices are up to us.
He even says “Oh that you would choose…” demonstrating that He is pleading, desiring, but still allowing the decision either way.
It must be boring for determinists to read the same 40-50 passages of Scripture each day! Get out and smell the coffee man! There are hundreds of passages out there like this that demonstrate how God created the world!
With due respect to everyone here @ Soteriology 101, May I, (JTLEOSALA) also but in and tell you this:
1. God has gifted man “limited freedom” wherein he can make use of it to decide,
2. God cannot give man an equal level of freedom or even a level of freedom that will supercede with his Maker.
3. How can God be sovereign if there is still someone possessing an absolute freedom other than God Himself ?
4. In man’s exercise of that “limited freedom” given by God, man must learn to give due respect to His creator and to bow down to God’s eternal decrees. (This is my appeal to those who reject the Calvinists tenets on: Election to save a few and send the rest to hell.)
Even Jesus Christ has demonstrated this: Submission to God’s decrees – in His prayer in Gethsemane : Mark 14:36 “Abba father, all things are possible for you. Take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will”
5. If man’s use of his freedom clashes with God’s will of decrees, it is still God who will triumph to the end according to Prov. 19:21 “There are many plans in a man’s heart, nevertheless the Lord’s counsel that will stand:
6. If the elect will decide to refuse the offer of grace to them, still God can override man’s will because man has no full/absolute autonomy to clash with the Supreme God. The elect cannot resist the legitimate offer of grace-for they will surely believe because they are the lost sheep of Israel whom Christ died for-(Matt. 1:21) All Israel will be saved according to Romans 11:26 And so ALL ISRAEL will be saved as it is written: “The deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob.”
7. The gospel will not apply nor will it work for those people who remains unpaid for their sins. Jesus Christ have declared already that He only lay down his life for the sheep in John 10:9, 15 (not for the goats, tares, chaff, swine, stony ground, wayside ground, thorny ground)
-quote
5. If man’s use of his freedom clashes with God’s will of decrees,……..etc.
br.d
In light of Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) – as all of these points are, this statement is totally irrational.
In Calvinism *ALL* things are:
(1) First conceived by Calvin’s god
(2) Decreed to occur inevitably and unavoidably by Calvin’s god
(3) Rendered certain – which again reiterates that they occur as inevitable and unavoidable.
Therefore in this scheme it is a logical impossibility for man to -quote “clash with God’s decrees”
In Calvin’s system man CANNOT have one neurological impulse that is not predestined by an immutable decree.
Man CANNOT be or do for one microsecond otherwise than what Calvin’s god decrees.
In conclusion – Calvin’s god says “How dare you do the very thing I decreed you infallibly do”.
Therefore Calvin’s god cannot be the god of scripture because he is irrational.
And a being that is irrational is imperfect.
Blessings! :-]
br.d writes, “In Calvin’s system man CANNOT have one neurological impulse that is not predestined by an immutable decree.”
In the Calvinist system, God made man in His image so that neurological impulse are naturally generated within the brain without additional involvement by God and the impulses reflect the nature of the person. God has predestined the impulses by creating man with the means by which impulses are self-generated (i.e., a brain) and His control over them – that control generally being passive so that God does not inhibit the generation of those impulses. So, to br.d’s points we can add the following:
In Calvinism *ALL* things are:
(1) First conceived by Calvin’s god meaning that God first conceived of the brain and its functions (including the ability to generate neurological impulses) and God had knowledge of all neurological impulses tat could be generated within the mind of man before He created man.
(2) Decreed to occur inevitably and unavoidably by Calvin’s god – because the brain is self-determining once it becomes active and naturally generates neurological impulses.
(3) Rendered certain – which again reiterates that they occur as inevitable and unavoidable because it is natural for the human brain to operate as God designed it to operate.
br.d’s complaint seems to be that God created a brain, put it into the human He created, and then turned it on (i.e., breathed life into the human) and now the brain works without God having to do anything else.
br.d writes,
In Calvin’s system man CANNOT have one neurological impulse that is not predestined by an immutable decree.”
rhutchin
In the Calvinist system, God made man in His image so that neurological impulse are naturally generated within the brain
br.d
This of course does not refute the point made – but merely presents an irrelevant red hearing.
In order to refute my point you’ll have to prove that man CAN have a neurological impulse that Calvin’s god does not predestine with immutable decrees. But then you’ll be refuting Calvin’s doctrine of decrees. :-]
No complaint – just discerning truth through sound logic! :-]
br.d writes, “In Calvin’s system man CANNOT have one neurological impulse that is not predestined by an immutable decree.”
I misread this. I agree. God predestines by immutable decree all things, event the free self-forming neurological impulses within a person. God’s predestination of all things is a consequence of His sovereignty.
Nonetheless, br.d’s complaint seems to be that God created a brain, put it into the human He created, and then turned it on (i.e., breathed life into the human) and now the brain works (freely generating neurological impulses) without God having to do anything else.
br.d writes, “In Calvin’s system man CANNOT have one neurological impulse that is not predestined by an immutable decree.”
rhutchin
…. I agree. God predestines by immutable decree ALL things, even the free SELF-FORMING neurological impulses within a person. God’s predestination of all things is a consequence of His sovereignty.
br.d
“SELF-FORMING” is another good example of a deceptive equivocal language trick.
The Calvinist uses this language trick to paint a false picture – that the neurological impulse is not FIRST CONCEIVED in the mind of Calvin’s god at the foundation of the word millennia before the person exists. He then makes each neurological impulse which he conceives occur inevitably and unavoidably within the person’s brain.
Speaking the whole truth is almost impossible for a Calvinist.
rhutchin
Nonetheless, br.d’s complaint seems to be that God created a brain, put it into the human He created, and then turned it on (i.e., breathed life into the human) and now the brain works (freely generating neurological impulses) without God having to do anything else.
br.d
No complaint just sound logic.
And its understandable why the Calvinist would call something occurring in a person outside of that person’s control and where he CANNOT do otherwise than what is predestined (which rhutchin agrees) “free” :-]
To understand Calvinism all that is needed is to see:
He is a determinist wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking-points.
br.d writes, ““SELF-FORMING” is another good example of a deceptive equivocal language trick.”
This is not a trick. God made man in His image. Each person is unique because each person thinks his own thoughts and those thoughts are the product of his nature with the influence of experience and education. God created the brain to be a self-generating source in each individual. That God knows the person – even better than the person may know themselves – does not change this.
Then, “The Calvinist uses this language trick to paint a false picture – that the neurological impulse is not FIRST CONCEIVED in the mind of Calvin’s god at the foundation of the word millennia before the person exists.’
By first conceived, is meant that God knew what He was doing when He created man and He knew the ramifications of given man the ability to think for himself. No man will think any thought that was hidden from God when He made man. God is the first cause of that which man thinks because He created man, but after that, the thoughts of the person are unique to the person and the person generates those thoughts himself. Of course, God can affect what people think. For example, God brings Israel out of Egypt to an impassable Red Sea with the Egyptian army visible to the people – they are scared.
Then, “He then makes each neurological impulse which he conceives occur inevitably and unavoidably within the person’s brain.’
This does not happen directly by any action by God. It occurs freely in the person. That God knew that it would happen is not the cause of it happening.
br.d writes, ““SELF-FORMING” is another good example of a deceptive equivocal language trick.”
rhutchin
This is not a trick. God made man in His image. ……etc
br.d
Irrelevant red herring.
rhutchin
God created the brain to be a self-generating source in each individual.
br.d
This yet just more of the same deceptive equivocal language trick.
Here the Calvinist simply switches terms – from “SELF-FORMING” to “SELF-GENERATING””
The language is designed to paint the false picture that the neurological impulse which Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the word) decreed would occur in a persons brain was NOT generated by Calvin’s god via that decree.
It is readily agreed within Christian Philosophy that in Theological Determinism the THEOS (by virtue of decreeing things to exist) becomes the SOURCE and ORIGIN of those things which he decrees to exist. If he does not decree them to exist, then they CANNOT exist.
br.d
“The Calvinist uses this language trick to paint a false picture – that the neurological impulse is not FIRST CONCEIVED in the mind of Calvin’s god at the foundation of the word millennia before the person exists.’
rhutchin
By first conceived, is meant that God knew what He was doing when He created man and He knew the ramifications of given man the ability to THINK FOR HIMSELF.
br.d
Here again “THINK FOR HIMSELF is another example of deceptive equivocal language.
Same answer applies to “SELF-FORMING” and “SELF-GENERATED”
In Theological Determinism *ALL* events are decreed/predestined to occur inevitably and unavoidably.
They don’t occur “OF THEMSELVES” – they occur OF Calvin’s god.
The rest of the comments were just fluff.
br.d
“Calvin’s god makes each neurological impulse which he conceives occur inevitably and unavoidably within the person’s brain.’
rhutchin
This does not happen directly by any action by God. It occurs freely in the person. That God KNEW that it would happen is not the cause of it happening.
br.d
All irrelevant red herrings.
Where they occur is where-ever Calvin’s god decrees them to occur.
Of course Calvin’s god KNEW they would happen – he FIRST CONCEIVED THEM at the foundation of the world.
He’s got a few screws loose if he doesn’t then know they will occur.
In order to show (using logic) that Calvin’s god is not the CAUSE of the existence of X by decreeing X to exist – you will have to show (using logic) how X can exist without Calvin’s god decreeing it to exist.
Otherwise, Calvin’s god is the CAUSE of X happening by virtue of the fact that he decreed its happening to exist.
br.d writes, “The language is designed to paint the false picture that the neurological impulse which Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the word) decreed would occur in a persons brain was NOT generated by Calvin’s god via that decree.”
Events are generated according to God’s decree but not by the decree. God’s decree says that an event will happen but does not tell us the means by which it will happen. God decreed the death of Christ on a cross. That decree was carried out through people – Romans and Jews – who sought His death. God decreed the death of Stephan; that decree was carried out by the Jews. God decrees neurological impulses and they are generated by the human brain. God did not coerce men to kill Christ not did God force men to stone Stephan nor does God force neurological impulses in the human brain. God created humans, with human brains, to function without His involvement. People think and act because God made them with the ability to think and act not because God coerces them to think or act in specific ways.
Then, “It is readily agreed within Christian Philosophy that in Theological Determinism the THEOS (by virtue of decreeing things to exist) becomes the SOURCE and ORIGIN of those things which he decrees to exist. If he does not decree them to exist, then they CANNOT exist.”
Which is to say that God is the creator and creates those things He decrees to exist. If God did not decree that the stars should exist, that plants and animals should exist or that man should exist, then He would not have created them. So?
Then, “Here again “THINK FOR HIMSELF is another example of deceptive equivocal language….In Theological Determinism *ALL* events are decreed/predestined to occur inevitably and unavoidably.”
The decree is that events occur by means of people who think for themselves – e.g., the death of Christ or the stoning of Stephan.
Then, “Calvin’s god is the CAUSE of X happening by virtue of the fact that he decreed its happening to exist.”
OK. So? God decreed the creation, the murder of Abel, the death of Christ, and all things. So? God is the only one who can decree an event, so if God does not decree it, it cannot exist.
br.d writes, “The language is designed to paint the false picture that the neurological impulse which Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the word) decreed would occur in a persons brain was NOT generated by Calvin’s god via that decree.”
rhutchin
Events are generated according to God’s decree but not by the decree.
br.d
This is false in Theological Determinism.
The event has its existence, – SOURCE and ORIGIN from the decree and CANNOT exist without the decree.
The means that Calvin’s god uses is whatever Calvin’s god decrees it to be, which can be anything – so the means is irrelevant.
rhutchin
God decrees neurological impulses and they are generated by the human brain.
br.d
This is false in Theological Determinism.
The neurological impulse was generated at the foundation of the world before the person’s brain existed.
It has its existence in the decree – therefore the decree is what generates it.
The person’s brain is part of the MEANS by which Calvin’s god makes that event occur.
rhutchin:
not did God force men to stone Stephan nor does God force neurological impulses in the human brain.
br.d
This is the Determinism without “Force” argument and is also an irrelevant red herring.
On this argument, Calvin’s god drops a baby into the fire of Moloch – and since he did not FORCE the baby into the fire he is not responsible for the event.
And the Calvinist wants to call that biblical ethics! Good luck!
Same thing with the “Coerce” argument.
br.d
“It is readily agreed within Christian Philosophy that in Theological Determinism the THEOS (by virtue of decreeing things to exist) becomes the SOURCE and ORIGIN of those things which he decrees to exist. If he does not decree them to exist, then they CANNOT exist.”
rhutchin:
Which is to say that God is the creator and creates those things He decrees to exist. If God did not decree that the stars should exist, that plants and animals should exist or that man should exist, then He would not have created them. So?
br.d
We’re talking here about Theological Determinism. and we do the math and connect the dots.
In Theological Determinism a neurological impulse has its existence by the determination of the THEOS.
Therefore he is the SOURCE, ORIGIN and GENERATOR of the event.
br.d
“Here again “THINK FOR HIMSELF is another example of deceptive equivocal language….In Theological Determinism *ALL* events are decreed/predestined to occur inevitably and unavoidably.”
rhutchin
The decree is that events occur by MEANS of people who think for themselves – e.g., the death of Christ or the stoning of Stephan.
br.d
I’ve already shown how this if fallacious.
William Lane Craig agrees:
“In Theological Determinism, everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control.”
If its outside of your control – its obviously not OF yourself.
This confirms why the Calvinists use of the terms “Self-Formed”, “Self-Generated” are equivocal language tricks.
Like I said – Calvinism is Determinism wearing a mask of IN-determinism – using double-speak talking points – and this is a good example.
br.d
Calvin’s god is the CAUSE of X happening by virtue of the fact that he decreed its happening to exist.”
rhutchin
OK. So? God decreed the creation, the murder of Abel, the death of Christ, and all things. So? God is the only one who can decree an event, so if God does not decree it, it cannot exist.
br.d
In Theological Determinism that is correct.
Glad you were able to connect that dot.
Therefore in this case the THEOS (i.e. Calvin’s god) is its CAUSE.
In this case X is every neurological impulse.
br.d writes, ‘This is false in Theological Determinism.”
But true in Calvinism. Consequently, it seems that we have been wasting our time given that we are talking about two different things.
br.d writes, ‘This is false in Theological Determinism.”
rhutchin
But true in Calvinism. Consequently, it seems that we have been wasting our time given that we are talking about two different things.
br.d
The foundational core of Calvinism is Theological Determinism.
Regardless of how much Calvinists like to make it masquerade as IN-determinism.
Its understandable why Calvinism is so reliant upon double-speak.
Who wouldn’t be under that doctrine.
You are taught to believe it is TRUE – (that everything is determined in every part).
And then to go about your office AS-IF it is FALSE.
Thanks for providing examples of what that looks like. :-]
br.d writes:
‘The foundational core of Calvinism is Theological Determinism.
Regardless of how much Calvinists like to make it masquerade as IN-determinism.
Its understandable why Calvinism is so reliant upon double-speak.
Who wouldn’t be under that doctrine.
You are taught to believe it is TRUE – (that everything is determined in every part).
And then to go about your office AS-IF it is FALSE.’
They have been playing these games for a long, long time, as their Theological Determinism – their raison d’etre – has always been firmly rejected by the people. No matter how many tortures, murders or excommunications, people simply refuse to worship a God who desires and ordains evil, then puts the blame on man. So, Calvinists have long tried to hide it, mask it, pretend as if their doctrines do not mean what they undeniably must mean. They started calling themselves Reformed instead of Calvinist, or complementarian instead of hyper. They juggle their definitions of key words and doctrines as need dictates to convince the listener that their theology is not what it is. Some may even be deceived by all the word trickery. The rest just lie.
I’ve actually done some reading on trying to understand the Calvinist propensity for using deceptive language.
Dr. Bella DePaulo, – Ph.D., Harvard, is a Social Psychologist who has done extensive research on how people justify various forms of dishonesty. In her book: “The how’s and why’s of lies” she reports, a high percentage of people who rationalize their use of dishonest language, experience some sub-level degree of discomfort, but which is effectively outweighed by rationalizations which allow them to d not regard their lies as lies.
This is especially true with people who are working to protect a “target”. These are called “other-oriented” or “altruistic” dishonesties.
Protecting the “target” allows them to perceive themselves as honest rather than dishonest.
For the sake of protecting the “target”, a high percentage report they would have felt worse if they had been honest, because honesty would have revealed things about the “target” they did not want people to see.
DePaulo’s research is consistent with scholars dating back centuries. This supposed protection of a “target” the vast majority of the time actually functions as a mask for self-serving motives, and the honored perception of being a protector of the honored “target”, is in itself, another layer of deception, which can actually give the person a certain sense of pride.
All of which I can see exemplified in the behaviors I’ve observed with many Calvinists.
They don’t perceive themselves as being dishonest or using dishonest language.
A few times, I’ve used the (Jesus parable) approach and created stories with characters whose language strategies parallel theirs.
And they get quite insulted with that approach.
Just like people did with Jesus’ parables :-]
Absolute truth cannot cross the bridge of situationalism. But the entrenched Calvinists live in such a world wherein situational theology is embraced as absolutely true. The toll required for a Calvinist to cross that bridge is the sacrifice of intellectual/theological honesty.
DePaulo confirms what we already know about most Calvinists.
I have encountered Moonies and JWs and Mormons whose responses, when their beliefs are challenged, are strikingly similar to Calvinists under scrutinity.
Consider the similarities of Joseph Smith and Calvin. The parallels are remarkable.
Norm writes:
“Absolute truth cannot cross the bridge of situationalism. But the entrenched Calvinists live in such a world wherein situational theology is embraced as absolutely true. The toll required for a Calvinist to cross that bridge is the sacrifice of intellectual/theological honesty.”
If you think about it, this is the same method whereby we always become entrapped in the web of our own sin. We do something, or don’t do something. We say something that we realize was not logical or accurate, but because of our pride, we don’t want to admit it, so we simply dig ourselves in deeper.
This is why the message of the cross, and forgiveness, is so essential. Forget about complex penal substitution theories of atonement and the like. What we really need is a way out. A way to come forward, admit what we have said or done, receive a pardon and move in a different direction. That is what Jesus makes available to us.
I would encourage Calvinists, who have had their heads spun by clever wordsmiths, to step back and take a look at what life is like on the lived level. We are imperfect people all, but our direction is either toward greater truth and godliness or away from them.
If we take advantage of legitimate grace, keep short accounts and desire to do what is best for others rather than self, we will find ourselves on the path to becoming like Christ. If we allow ourselves to once again become entangled in sin, and dig ourselves in with defensiveness and self-protection, we are on the way to destroying ourselves and our relationships with God and others.
When I began to realize that my Calvinist pastor was not being intellectually honest, that he would say whatever fit his purpose, even if it contradicted something said before, or the foundational assertions of his theology, I became confused, frightened and aware that all was not right in Denmark. It is a mistake to allow another person, group or institution to do our thinking for us, or to not allow genuine questions to lead to serious study and reflection.
I have a very simple litmus test for whether or not I trust a so-called religious teacher. Do they say ‘trust me’ or ‘Don’t take my word for it’? Those who demand that you submit to their authority, or the authority of their doctors and creeds, are better left behind. They are not likely to enable you to grow in knowledge, wisdom and maturity, for their goal is to push upon you their personal package of ‘truth’.
Those who humbly admit that they do not have all the answers, that they are on their own journey to fuller understanding and that you are going to have to strive to work things out with the Spirit of God’s help, just might have something to say worth listening to.
Indeed, TS00.
When one believes he knows it all, God can hardly teach one anything else.
You can always tell a Calvinist — but you can’t tell him much.
TS00 writes, “This is why the message of the cross, and forgiveness, is so essential…. That is what Jesus makes available to us.”
That is why everyone will be saved; because people are not dummies. Can you explain why anyone would reject the message of the cross?
Then, “I have a very simple litmus test for whether or not I trust a so-called religious teacher. ”
Trust the one who says, “Follow the example of the Bereans.”
TSOO
Do they say ‘trust me’ ?
br.d
Well Said!
My first ever encounter with a Calvinist pastor – and this is exactly what he kept telling me.
But by that time, I had been around the block for a number of years and I knew carnal when I saw it.
This guy told his congregation he could discern (by the spirit of course) – who was saved and was not saved – based upon the way they said “Praise the Lord”.
His flock followed behind him like little ducklings – carrying their black leather bound KJVs – chest puffed out – noses up in the air all full of pride.
That’s about as close to David Koresh as one is going to get in the land of protestant-ville. :-]
norm writes, “the entrenched Calvinists live in such a world wherein situational theology is embraced as absolutely true.”
What is situational theology?
Then, “DePaulo confirms what we already know about most Calvinists.”
Any chance you have a citation for this?
TS00 writes, “You are taught to believe it is TRUE – (that everything is determined in every part).
And then to go about your office AS-IF it is FALSE.’”
I’d say that this is pretty much a false statement. That everything is determined gives force to God’s promises. For example, when James tells people to ask God for wisdom, we know that God will give a person wisdom because that outcome has been determined.
Then, ‘No matter how many tortures, murders or excommunications, people simply refuse to worship a God who desires and ordains evil, then puts the blame on man.”
Even you cannot deny that God is present at every torture, murder and excommunication and that God has the power to stop whatever evil is occurring and does not – thereby ordaining it.
TS00,
I was with dear friend of mine yesterday. He is also in full time ministry. He recounted to me that he had been abused as a child and he is more aware now how to deal with abuse in general. That would fit with the Calvinist “God ordains what he could have stopped” idea.
He went further and said that God had a reason for allowing it…. so that he would be better equipped to help people. That also fits the Calvinist idea.
He came close to saying that God “caused it” so that he would be better equipped (and I said nothing since it was a private moment, me listening to him, not a discussion of doctrine). That would have fit the Calvinist idea also.
Calvinists believe that everything comes from God (ordained/ decreed/ willed/ planned/ desired) —even sin, torture, and rape.
It almost sounded like my friend would agree….. seeing that his abuse helps him deal with the abuse of others.
But it is in the “abuse of others” where the system (philosophical system of Calvinism) breaks down.
You see, “his abuse” may help him, 40 years later, be able to help others. But what the “abuse of others”? What about the abuse of the 3-year-old girl who later gets sold into the sex trade, and then dies at 14 with horrible diseases and mistreatment? That person did not “learn something” from the abuse! That person did not “benefit from the abuse” to the point of helping others! That person simply lived a horrible, abused life and died an early death.
There is no positive gain from that. There is no “For God’s glory” in that. We cannot apply (their one, go-to verse) “you intended it for evil but God for good.”
Some choices (elsewhere you have presented 4, I think):
1. The Calvinist idea that since God “could have” stopped all evil, but did not, He intended/ cause/ willed/ ordained/ decreed/ desired it all.
2. One alternative idea that God, “who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,” created in such a way that He allows (this is the “allow” that a normal person understands, not the cheesy “allow” of Piper—- since he is too scared to say “causes”) —- that He allows the sinful world to spin out of control. He does not want it. He clearly states that He does not want it….. but if He was to override every act and thought of every human, He would be eliminating freedom, and eliminating a personal relationship with creatures created in His own image.
The second one leaves us crying out to God (sometimes disappointed, sometimes even angry) asking why He allows pain and evil, yet still understanding and believing that He is good, patient, and kind. God is love.
The first one leaves us with an ogre who says He is good, who says He “is love” yet He plans/ wills/ desires/ ordains/ decrees/ intends all torture, pain, rape, mysteriously “for His glory.”
Let the reader take his pick.
Let the reader read the Bible and see what the message of the Bible is.
I am truly sorry that your friend and every other victim ever, was abused. So is God.
And I can say, with rare certainty, that God did not ordain, desire or will that abuse to occur. He did choose to make a creature, man, that could freely think and make choices; which allowed the horrible eventuality of evil to express itself upon God’s good creation, when man used his power of freedom to resist and rebel against God’s good and perfect will.
All evil is indeed against God’s will, which is NOT done on earth as it is in heaven, else there would be no evil on earth as there is none in heaven. I pray each day, as Jesus taught, that soon and very soon His will WILL be done on earth as it is in heaven. I pray that your friend has that same hope and understanding that God did not desire or ordain the evil that befell him, and in his gracious mercy found a way to bring good from it.
TS00,
I appreciate your position and agree. I feel your empathy. Any victim would feel your empathy.
No such empathy would be coming from Calvinists. There is no reason for any Calvinist church to have a “counseling Pastor” or offer counseling of any sort. There is no such thing as empathy for a Calvinist.
The clear and concise answer/ statement from any Calvinist pastor, who has a weeping (abused) member in his office should in ALL cases be simply: “Yes, you were abused…but it was God’s will.”
“Yes, you were raped…but it was God’s will. I cannot say, ‘I am sorry for you’ since that would be me trying to out-guess God.”
“Yes, your husband cheated on you with multiple women…but it was God’s will. I cannot say, ‘your husband should not have done that,’ since I am sure that you have something to learn from his sin. That is the way God works. You must accept that.”
Worse yet…. the street evangelist who is approached by a young woman who was sold into sex slavery at 10. “Yes, but that was God’s will for you.” Good News!
Why do we have people trying to rescue women from such situations? All of that has been God’s will, right?
Why do we have people trying to stop abortion, since —- all that happens is God’s will. Since God always gets what He wants and all that has happened was decreed/willed/ planned/ desired/ ordained by God then the Holocaust was “for His glory.” Good News!
Piper has no answer for this. Calvin does. Many have directly quoted him saying that all that happens—- evil and wickedness are directly from God’s hand. Piper hints at it in sermons (desiringgod.com) but slips in the word “allow” most of the time, to reduce the impact.
Again…. we do not need to go around and around with Calvinists on this. Let us rather put Scripture out there that consistently rebuts this man-made idea.
TS00 writes, “And I can say, with rare certainty, that God did not ordain, desire or will that abuse to occur. ”
By this, you are saying that God is impotent and has no power to prevent abuse. No wonder, you get upset with the Calvinists who maintain that God is omnipotent.
Then, “[God] did choose…”
Choose means decree for a sovereign God. Now you sound like a Calvinist. You don’t really seem to know what to do on this.
Ah, here we labor diligently to deliberately misconstrue and make unfounded claims . . .
Rhutchin writes:
‘TS00 writes, “And I can say, with rare certainty, that God did not ordain, desire or will that abuse to occur. ”
By this, you are saying that God is impotent and has no power to prevent abuse.’ No wonder, you get upset with the Calvinists who maintain that God is omnipotent.’
So fair friend, by what logic does saying that God did not ordain, desire or decree evil translate into saying that ‘God is impotent and has no power to prevent abuse.’?
Unlike the Calvinist, I really do attempt to say what I mean. Simply saying God did not do something does not imply he is unable to do it. God did not ordain, desire or will that the earth more than one sun. God did not ordain, desire or will that man have two heads. God did not ordain, desire or will that days last for 26 hours, rather than 24.’ Do any of these statements suggest that God was impotent, or unable to do any of these things? Please explain how.
Rhutchin:
‘No wonder, you get upset with the Calvinists who maintain that God is omnipotent.’
Gosh, golly, I sure have been guilty of getting upset with Calvinists; but I challenge you to find anywhere I have ever stated that it upsets me that Calvinists maintain that God is omnipotent. That would be rather silly of me, now wouldn’t it, as I also believe that God is omnipotent? Can’t say that I have never been silly, but I can say that I have never said that God is not omnipotent; in fact, I have both stated and written countless times that he indeed is.
Rhutchin
‘Then, “[God] did choose…”
Choose means decree for a sovereign God. Now you sound like a Calvinist. You don’t really seem to know what to do on this.’
Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. You mean to say everyone who believes that God chose anything must then be declared a Calvinist? Who made this rule? I have never met a single person, of any theological stripe, who believes in God at all, who suggests that God never ‘chose’ anything. I have not, nor would I, suggest that God made no decrees. But hey, just wrench a few words out of context and attach whatever meaning you want. After all, that’s what Calvinists do best! 😉
Am I confused, as you would like to allege? Are any of your assertions supportable? Or are you once again twisting words, jumping to groundless conclusions and making false charges? I will let the reader decide.
This is a Response to FOH’s statement here posted dated May 14, 2018 @11:01 AM
FOH said : “”Calvinists get a lot of mileage out of the idea of God opening the heart of Lydia… but never mention that she already was in a place of prayer and was a worshipper of god”.
My Response :
1. Yes, she is praying and worshipping her god, but she does not know the deity she is addressing her prayers and object of her worship. Even the pagans and Roman Catholics also pray and has the capability to worship their own statue deities.
2. Jesus said to the Samaritan Woman : “you worship what you do not know; we know what we worship for Salvation is for the Jews” – John 4:22
3. Mr. FOH cannot force nor attempt to bend Jesus Christ’s statement in John 4:22 in order to conform to his theology on “Regeneration that preceeds faith”. My goodness… hahaha…
TS00 asks, “So fair friend, by what logic does saying that God did not ordain, desire or decree evil translate into saying that ‘God is impotent and has no power to prevent abuse.’? ”
Because God is sovereign and as Sproul would say, “All events filter through God’s fingers.” I think you might agree that God is present at every event, including every evil event, that occurs. You might also agree that God is able to affect any change He wants in any event – God can stop any evil event at any moment and prevent that evil event from even beginning. In other words, God exercises control over every event that happens. Thus, no event can occur without God knowing it and determining (from your perspective) that it should proceed. That determination is God’s ordination of the event. If not, then what is your definition of “ordain”?
Then, “God did not ordain, desire or will that the earth more than one sun….Do any of these statements suggest that God was impotent, or unable to do any of these things? Please explain how.”
Of course, they do not. Thus, God ordained one sun and we have one sun; God ordained that man have one head, so man has one head. The point here is that those things that do not happen were not ordained by God and those things that do happen are ordained by God. If God did not ordain two suns, two heads, or evil events, then there would not be two suns, two heads or evil events. It is only because God ordained one sun, one head, and evil events that there is one sun, one head, and evil events. So, I agree with the point you make here.
Then, ‘I have never met a single person, of any theological stripe, who believes in God at all, who suggests that God never ‘chose’ anything. I have not, nor would I, suggest that God made no decrees.”
Can you name an event that has occurred over which God could not exercise control and where God’s decision not to prevent the event led to the event occurring? For example, could Satan have entered the garden if God had decided that he could not? Could Satan have entered Judas to bring about the death of Christ if God had decided that he could not? What event has ever happened that was not also accompanied by a decree by God that it should proceed?
rhutchin:
Sproul would say, “All events filter through [Calvin’s] God’s fingers.”
br.d
Right!
Which he first-conceives / determines in EVERY PART WITHOUT EXCEPTION
These -quote “filter through his fingers” *AS-IF* they were NOT first-conceived/determined in EVERY part.
Squares AS-IF circles
Truth AS-IF false
UN-preventable AS-IF preventable
Determinism AS-IF IN-determinism.
Making X occur AS-IF permitting X to occur
And a force that forces without forcing
Calvinism’s love affair with double-speak is just too funny! :-]
I think Native Americans had another term for double-speak.
Funny! Yes!
I’ve ever said “Calvinists speak with forked-tongue”. :-]
And note the repeated attempts to conflate the POWER to do something with the CHOICE to do something.
Non-Calvinists do not deny God’s omnipotence or sovereignty. Most assert that God is the originating power behind all that exists, and that his use of that power determined the structure of his creation – his power and his choice, meaning what is commonly termed omnipotence and sovereignty.
The debate, if one is honest and informed, is over whether or not God meticulously predetermined the outcome of all matter in his creation, or created beings with genuine power of choice and creative ability. In other words, are human beings simply complex robots, designed to appear autonomous, but only and always functioning in the exact, predetermined and pre-programmed manner as their creator designed? This is the assertion of Calvinism, whether or not some Calvinists understand or admit it.
Or, is it, as non-Calvinists assert, that God actually created creatures who, like him, could think non-programmed thoughts, arrive at reasonable, independently derived deductions and make free, undetermined choices? These abilities, which only God could create, would allow for individuality, creativity and autonomy. They also allow for the unfortunate, but necessary possibility – which has been realized – of men using their freedom to rebel against and resist God’s good will for his creation and pursue evil. Thus, although all men owe their existence and attributes to God, they have been endowed by their creator with a genuine freedom of thought and action. When truth is embraced, and God’s will pursued, goodness, righteousness, justice and life will follow. When truth is exchanged for a lie, God’s will is replaced by a false caricature, which is often proclaimed as ‘Truth’ but leads to evil, misery, oppression, abuse and death.
The Calvinist assertion of Divine Determinism derives from a compulsive insistence on God maintaining meticulous control over every thought, word and deed. Under Calvinism, without this tyrannical control, creation would spin utterly out of God’s control, rendering him unable to fulfill his plans and will for his creation. Thus, whatsoever has and will come to pass has been designed, ordained and irresistibly set in place by God to occur, weaving an intricate web of events that cannot in any way be varied or rendered other than as he has determined. Every thought, word and deed of every man to ever be born has been predetermined and rendered necessary by God’s determinative decree. Thus, every act of obedience is attributed to God, as is every act of disobedience. Just as the sun and stars will perform their prescribed rotations, so too will man do exactly as God has planned, good or evil.
Some Calvinists prefer to avoid admitting this necessary foundational assumption of their theological system, and prefer to focus instead on how God manages to maintain complete, tyrannical control while creating the appearance of freedom and individual autonomy. Their greatest problem is, naturally, explaining the existence of evil, which, under their scenario, can only be attributed to the deliberate decision of God to bring evil into existence. This is a problem that has never been adequately dealt with, as, at best, Calvinists must appeal to a mysterious, unearthly, incomprehendable logic that somehow allows for the sole source of all things to not be the sole responsible author/source of the evil that he alone determined to arise.
There also exists the need to explain how God, who maintains this total, if invisible, meticulous control over whatsoever comes into existence, nonetheless has declared that man is to be held responsible for these irresistibly programmed-to-occur actions. Thus, those whom God decreed to eventually be perfected, after having first decreed them to become corrupted in an odd little event, will be ‘rewarded’ for having been thus chosen and receiving the regeneration and faith declared to be necessary for such restoration. This framework necessitates their intricate theories of Original Sin, Total Depravity and Penal Substitutionary Atonement, in order to explain why a holy God imagined, decreed and brought to pass first the corruption of his creation, then chose to redeem and perfect only a small subset of this creation while dooming the rest to the inevitable destruction for which he predestined them.
The other scenario, under which God endowed human beings with a genuine freedom of thought and action, seeks to explain God’s omnipotence and sovereignty as being a product of his existence outside of time and creation, which grants him a foreknowledge of all events, past, present and future. Thus, without transgressing the boundaries of limited human free will which he established, God controls who exists, under what conditions and all other circumstances that attend to life on earth.
In this manner, God exerts a good deal of influence over what does and does not occur, all without secretly mandating or controlling such events. Foreseeing the thoughts and hearts of men, he can shape the uncaused events that men’s choices produce, both good and evil, into fulfilling his purposes and plan to redeem and restore whosoever will trust and follow him. He can, and will, bring good from man’s evil motives, by leading those who follow him willingly, as well as those who simply pursue their fleshly desires, in steps to redeem even the worst of events. In this manner, alongside the wicked who seek their own pleasure, we have men freely choosing to align themselves with their creator, submitting their rightful autonomy by choosing to follow God’s will rather than their own fleshly desires.
Thus, free humans, who have fallen into the trap of deception that suggests that fleshly desires are ultimate, can be freed from the enslavement and addiction to sensual pleasure that inevitably ensues. Without controlling man’s individual choices, God appeals to them to trust him, allow his guiding spirit to reside within them and provide light as to his desired path for them. This is always presented to man as a choice, which they alone must make and receive the resulting consequences thereof. This guidance is made available, but can at any time be resisted or rejected; God does not use any compelling, irresistible force, but responds to the willingness of men to obey or not obey, moment by moment, choice by choice. This leads to the current state of imperfect saints, who love and follow God, but often in a faltering, hesitant manner. Saints, who can, like sinners, ignore or resist God’s direction, can fall into sin and failure.
I apologize for my wordiness, but my intention is to put flesh upon the skeletons of the competing theories of how God worked and works in his creation. Although men will differ on many of the details, and I make no claims to having it all figured out, I believe this to be a reasonably fair representation of the essential differences between a deterministic theology, such as Calvinism and a free will theology, such as Dr. Flowers’ Traditionalism.
Many times I have posed questions to Calvinists, like: Why would God command all men everywhere to repent while knowing that some of those people have no ability at all to repent?
Here are two answers I consistently get:
Because God omniscient.
Because God is sovereign.
Can you say non-sequitur?
Such a response makes as much sense as this: The sky is blue because I like broccoli.
norm writes, “Why would God command all men everywhere to repent while knowing that some of those people have no ability at all to repent?”
Actually, everyone has the ability to repent. Even the Pharisees came out to be baptized by John. Repentance does not save, so I think your question is, “Why would God command all men everywhere to believe in Christ while knowing that none of those people have any ability at all to believe in Christ?”
As to why God does this, the only answer I can think of is from Romans 9, “God says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’”
rhutchin:
Actually, everyone has the ability to repent
br.d
With the caveat – Calvinism keeps down in the fine-print of the contract.
In Theological Determinism everyone has the ability to repent – where it is the case that Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world, decreed they repent – and not otherwise
In order to understand Calvinism we must recognize:
The Calvinist is a determinist wearing the mask of IN-indeterminism – and reciting double-speak talking points.
Another good example for the SOT101 reader. :-]
Maybe a little contest would help Hutch see the error of his way:
“30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
So do we think Paul, under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, had any other sort of repentance in mind save the kind that leads to salvation?
Given this assurance to whom? The elect?
Nope. To ALL!
Excellent point norm!
I would totally agree.
But unfortunately Calvinist training conditions them to read it differently.
We understand “comparing spiritual with spiritual” and “the whole counsel of god”
Well – to them the philosophical construct of Theological Determinism is CANNON.
They hold it as inspired by God at or above the level of which they hold scripture inspired by God.
For them, scripture cannot be interpreted correctly without it.
Years ago I had a friend whose pastor was secretly teaching Calvinism.
He didn’t want his congregation to know what it was – for fear they would leave.
One Monday morning my friend told me how his pastor let them know ALL of the church reads the bible wrong.
Now you know that’s a red flag!! :-]
norm writes, “Maybe a little contest would help…”
LOL!! I know you meant “context.” Just struck my funny bone and I enjoyed a chuckle at your expense. We all do it.
Then, “So do we think Paul, under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, had any other sort of repentance in mind save the kind that leads to salvation?”
The key phrase you use is, “…leads to salvation.” So, even you recognize that repentance is not salvation so that God can command repentance of people as a prerequisite to salvation. Even if the person were to repent, it is still necessary that God provide the person with faith enabling the person to believe in Christ. People have the ability to repent; they do not have the ability to produce faith that can only be gotten from God, as a gift.
We should note that their are two different types of repentance: that produced by godly sorrow and worldly sorrow. 2 Corinthians 7 speaks of this distinction. At the least, all people can repent from worldly sorrow. What assurance does worldly sorrow convey?
Rhutchin writes:
“As to why God does this, the only answer I can think of is from Romans 9, “God says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’””
So, the first question a sincere believer would ask himself, when confronted with the admittedly alarming claim made that God deliberately chooses only some to save and deliberately created the rest for destruction, is ‘Says who?’ Or, in other words, is there any other possible interpretation of these passages that Calvinists say prove this?
Rather than simply trusting Calvinist ‘authorities’, or even my own personal thoughts, I have read, over the years, dozens upon dozens of commentaries, books, articles and sermons that seek to interpret Romans 9. One can Google it, and pull up many options to begin such a study. When a Calvinist triumphantly demands, ‘What about Romans 9’ as if that ends all debate (Or any of their other favorite prooftexts), I find it very difficult to find a non-condemning way to ask, ‘You are kidding, right? You do realize that intelligent, godly men have offered reasonable alternative interpretations for all of these verses, right?’
Anyone who cannot acknowledge this truth is simply not honest and/or reasonable. They are dogmatizing, demagoguing – not thinking. That is not to say that a person cannot recite scripture to defend his views, but every single time he does, he must be humbly aware that this is simply one of many possible interpretation of those verses.
You might say, as so many Calvinists and fundagelicals do, ‘There is only One scripture’ or ‘There is only One Truth’ – as if they think that they, or anyone else they know, dare insist that they have full and inerrant understanding thereof. There is indeed Only One Truth – but neither you nor I possess it fully, which is why we have the responsibility to study with an open mind, discuss with open ears, grapple with ideas we despise and bounce the results off of others who are doing the same. All while seeking light and wisdom from the Spirit of God who desires to lead us ever deeper into an understanding of Truth.
You might think that some passages are so obvious that all men would reach the same exact conclusion as to their meaning, but I have yet to find many, if any. You might start at the very beginning, and offer up ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Sounds pretty straightforward, right? Surely no one could contest what that means. Except they do, as is true with every grouping of letters known as words. How do you define ‘love’, ‘cold’ or ‘beginning’? You might be amazed, if you did an actual study, at the widely ranging and ever changing meanings words can have. (Disclaimer: I have always had a passion for etymology. My freshman English teacher once assumed I cheated because I never did my vocabulary homework but always got 100% on the tests. He questioned how that was possible, and I looked at him blankly. I just ‘knew’ what the words meant; didn’t everyone? He later asserted my vocabulary was advanced due to reading the King James bible.)
All that to say, I could spell out this or that interpretation of Romans 9, with subtle distinctions – and I have read some really well-written ones – but people can do their own homework. To just throw a verse out there with an ‘Aha!’ is, well, naïve at best.
FOH likes to recite his daily readings, which so frequently portray God as interacting with people, offering them options, warning them to make good choices, ruing their evil deeds, and so forth. Any one of these verses or passages can rightly be appealed, or asserted to mean something other than FOH thinks it means. The strength of his argument rests in the numbers. He is not pulling out one Gotcha verse and filtering all other verses through it. He just keeps piling up passage after passage, from Genesis, Job, the gospels, the Psalms, obscure prophets, all making the case that God is interacting in a genuine cooperative, manner, giving people choices, changing his plans to punish or destroy and urging all men to turn from wickedness and pursue righteousness. All refute the contention, made from a very few Gotcha verses, that God has pre-programmed every thought word and deed, chosen the winners and the losers in life and all we can do is cross our fingers and hope we were ‘chosen’ for salvation.
Gotcha verses simply make Gotcha people look ignorant. (And yes, to my shame, I used to do it all the time.) The minute a person holds up one verse as indisputable ‘Truth’, I realize that there is little hope of having a genuine, reasonable, productive conversation with him; because he simply does not realize that words require interpretation. Usually, such men have been brainwashed by authoritarian church ‘teachers’ that they, their church or their denomination have the ‘real truth’; that they, unlike others, know exactly what the inerrant, inspired Word of God actually means! But this is a false and arrogant claim.
From the note our lover sent, to the urgent message our daughter left on the phone, to the precious words of scripture, we must carefully ponder, sometimes seek out more information and perhaps weigh formerly unknown issues before even possibly thinking we might have understood the intent of the sent message.
When an individual does not recognize this basic fact, and find himself increasingly less certain that he knows exactly who God is and what he wants from us, how can he possibly be expected to honestly grapple with what the Word of God is teaching?
I was totally blessed to hear Dr. Gordon Fee’s seminary lecture series on the book of Romans, among other lectures.
He brings in all of the historical interpretations having predominated the various traditions.
One thing I got a kick out of with his analysis of some interpretations is where he would say: “The author of this text – given his background, culture, and the historical events of his time period, could never in million years have meant what that scholar wants this verse to say”
Its like an interpreter insisting that Paul used a motorcycle for his missionary journeys.
Sorry! The motorcycle didn’t exist in those days – and neither did some of the conceptions interpreters want to bring to the text.
In Calvinism’s case – every verse must affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Any verse that doesn’t – must be made void – (i.e. can’t mean what it says)
Rhutchin writes:
“br.d’s remaining comments reflect an active imagination giving evidence that he does not seem to understand the issue.”
Welcome to the club! We just don’t understand the issues. 😉
Rhutchin writes:
“br.d’s remaining comments reflect an active imagination giving evidence that he does not seem to understand the issue.”
Welcome to the club! We just don’t understand the issues. 😉
br.d
Calvinists are mentored in double-speak talking points.
When a person doesn’t speak their language they interpret that as that person not understanding Calvinism.
But the truth is that person is simply not reciting the double-speak talking-points which is their natural language.
I kind of see it like the miss-communication that happens between different cultures. :-]
yes!
There was a Calvinist fellow who participated here a little bit last year.
He described something about what Calvin’s god does – but of course he framed it in very euphemistic language.
I simply re-iterated what he said back to him – factually – while removing all of the euphemistic language so he could look it square in face without all of the cosmetic language designed to make it look pretty.
I remember him responding “We don’t say it that way”.
He hit the bulls-eye!!
And I don’t remember him ever coming back.
My prayer is that my feedback made him stop and think for himself – instead of living in an indoctrinated brain mode.
Yes – totally agreed.
For me it really all boils down to Calvinism having Theological Determinism as its core foundation and blue-print.
Theological Determinism is the underlying substratum – the template for everything in Calvinism.
The TULIP for example, is simply window dressing on the side of the house.
Take away its foundation (Theological Determinism) and these all collapse.
Dr.Alvin Plantinga argues ( think successfully ) that this scheme makes void – what he calls “Morally Significant Acts”
The robot who places the empty soda can in the correct recycle bin deserves no moral attribution for what he does because his actions are DETERMINED by an intelligence outside of himself and outside of his control.
Which means he “CANNOT DO OTHERWISE”
Plantinga puts it this way:
“No antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that one will perform the action, or that he won’t.”
rutchins response:
rhutchin
May 10, 2018 at 6:14 am
Thus, there is nothing *PUSHING* a person to make a decision, so no decision will be made. Therefore, no power.
Then of course rhutchin will say Calvin’s god does not force.
He understand the laws of motion-dynamics enough to recognize that PUSHING = POWER
But refuses to acknowledge the same law showing PUSHING = FORCE.
What we realize is the Calvinist debate strategy is really not logic based – its based on semantic manipulations.
In philosophy there is a story of a bear who debates with birds in the forest over who is fastest creature.
The bear who only cares about winning the debate – jumps off a rock and claims he can fly.
That’s debate tactic is not based on rational reasoning.
Its based on manipulating word definitions – and the incentive is to win no matter how much distance from truth is required.
Unfortunately Calvinist by their embrace of Theological Determinism are forced into the same exact mode.
And over the centuries they’ve made a science out of double-speak language tricks.
We see most of them here :-]
TS00 writes, “And note the repeated attempts to conflate the POWER to do something with the CHOICE to do something.”
No conflation here. God’s ability to choose what He will do on any event (regardless of the timing of those choices) exists because He is sovereign. God is then able to execute His decisions – that which He sovereignly chooses to do – because He is omnipotent.
Then, “Non-Calvinists do not deny God’s omnipotence or sovereignty….God is the originating power behind all that exists,”
The issue here is God’s continued involvement in (or rule over) that which He has created. Non- Calvinists seem to shy away from dealing with this as TS00 does here.
Then, “The debate, if one is honest and informed, is over whether or not God meticulously predetermined the outcome of all matter in his creation, or created beings with genuine power of choice and creative ability.”
This is confused. The issue is the extent to which God is involved in His creation after that creation and whether His involvement determines the final outcome – either by doing nothing (no involvement) so that the event proceeds naturally or by intervening (direct involvement) thereby creating a supernatural outcome (one that could not happen without God’s involvement). This is not impacted by timing – with Calvinists saying that God decides His level of involvement in eternity past while non-Calvinists say that God decides His level of involvement in the course of time. Under either scenario, the Calvinist maintains that God meticulously determines all events with non-Calvinists not really addressing the issue.
Then, “non-Calvinists assert, that God actually created creatures who, like him, could think non-programmed thoughts, arrive at reasonable, independently derived deductions and make free, undetermined choices?”
This is the Calvinist position also. The Calvinist says that God opens doors or closes doors to the choices people make thereby determining the final outcome that reflects a concurrence between man’s will and God’s will.
br.d writes, “Which he first-conceives / determines in EVERY PART WITHOUT EXCEPTION”
More confusion on br.d’s part. God first conceives all things – those that will happen and those that could, but will not happen. Nothing that can or could happen is hidden from God (think of the Molinison theology of God conceiving of all possible worlds from which He will choose one unique world to create). From all that God conceives, God then decrees/determines the world He will create and at the same time, all the events that would follow from that creation.
br.d
Which he first-conceives / determines in EVERY PART WITHOUT EXCEPTION”
rhutchin
More confusion on br.d’s part. God first conceives all things – those that will happen and those that could, but will not happen. Nothing that can or could happen is hidden from God (think of the Molinison theology of God conceiving of all possible worlds from which He will choose one unique world to create). From all that God conceives, God then decrees/determines the world He will create and at the same time, all the events that would follow from that creation.
br.d
You took six sentences to reiterate my one statement – and you think my statement is confusion.
Too funny! :-]
You use equivocal double-speak language. On the topic of FIRST CONCEIVES – to infer that Calvin’s god looks into the future to see what creatures will do AS-IF he doesn’t determined them in every part (Foreknowledge by observation).
That is totally rejected by Calvin.
FIRST CONCEIVES = Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world is the SOURCE, ORIGIN, BIRTH, AUTHOR of every event that will occur in the future. And the scope of these are – as my statement above – UNIVERSAL – EVERY PART WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
That is why Calvinism is called UNIVERSAL divine causal determinism.
And that is why Calvin teaches his disciples to -quote “go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part.
Further your language: “Nothing that could happen is hidden from him ” is simply following the same mode of double-speak.
Obviously X is not hidden from a being who FIRST CONCEIVES, determines, decrees X.
In order to understand Calvinism one must recognize:
A Calvinist is a determinist wearing a mask of In-Determinism – reciting double-speak talking points.
Thanks for providing the examples :-]
br.d writes, “You use equivocal double-speak language. On the topic of FIRST CONCEIVES – to infer that Calvin’s god looks into the future to see what creatures will do AS-IF he doesn’t determined them in every part (Foreknowledge by observation). ”
This is a misunderstanding on your part. No one said anything about God having to look into the future. I think you made that up. As any Calvinist would agree, God knows the future because He decrees the future. Of course, I guess a person can infer anything from anything.
br.d writes, “You use equivocal double-speak language. On the topic of FIRST CONCEIVES – to infer that Calvin’s god looks into the future to see what creatures will do AS-IF he doesn’t determined them in every part (Foreknowledge by observation). ”
rhutchin
This is a misunderstanding on your part. No one said anything about God having to look into the future. I think you made that up. As any Calvinist would agree, God knows the future because He decrees the future. Of course, I guess a person can infer anything from anything.
br.d
Remember I was careful to say “infer”. Consistent language patterns is something I learn to anticipate. So — right as it is in Calvinism.
Then FIRST-CONCEIVES X means exactly what I’ve said it means – that X is first-conceived (as in birthed or authored and not as in observed) within Calvin’s god’s mind at the foundation of the world. Calvin’s god is therefore the source, origin, and author of X. No creature can be the source, origin, or author of X because no creature exists at the foundation of the world. And X cannot be conceived by any one other than Calvin’s god because the scope of his decrees are UNIVERSAL which leaves nothing for anyone else. That is according to Theological Determinism.
br.d writes, ‘Then FIRST-CONCEIVES X means exactly what I’ve said it means – that X is first-conceived (as in birthed or authored and not as in observed) within Calvin’s god’s mind at the foundation of the world.”
Fine. That just means that God considers all possibilities and nothing is left out. Everyone agrees to that. before He created the world, God conceived of all the possible worlds that He could create with all the possible events in all the possible combinations. I don’t think there is a point to this statement other than setting the initial condition to which all can agree.
Then, “Calvin’s god is therefore the source, origin, and author of X. No creature can be the source, origin, or author of X because no creature exists at the foundation of the world. And X cannot be conceived by any one other than Calvin’s god because the scope of his decrees are UNIVERSAL which leaves nothing for anyone else. That is according to Theological Determinism.”
OK. Of all the possible worlds God could create, God chose one and it became a reality. The events of that world come about through a variety of means all involving God’s oversight but not all requiring God’s direct involvement. That seems to be the initial condition to which all subscribe – at least all who hold that God is omniscient. This does not negate human freedom.
br.d
‘Then FIRST-CONCEIVES X means exactly what I’ve said it means – that X is first-conceived (as in birthed or authored and not as in observed) within Calvin’s god’s mind at the foundation of the world.”
rhutchin
Fine. That just means that God considers all possibilities and nothing is left out.
br.d
Don’t you see that your language is again moving towards (Foreknowledge via observation)?
I am saying Calvin’s god’s “births”, “authors”, is the “source” of and “origin” of every event – which is a DECISIVELY ACTIVE mode.
You are saying “consider all of its possibilities” which is a considerably more PASSIVE mode.
You can consider the possibilities of a wooden box all your life long.
That mode of activity will never bring about the “birth” of that wooden box
This is why I said your language infers Foreknowledge via observation.
John Calvin would have seen the difference between your language and mine in a heart-beat.
And he would give you a tongue lashing for conceiving of Calvin’s god in such a PASSIVE mode.
rhutchin
OK. Of all the possible worlds God could create, God chose one and it became a reality…….This does not negate human freedom.
br.d
Lets apply logic to this.
Calvin’s god is the one who determines what possible worlds will be actual worlds (you’ve already acknowledged that)
In Theological Determinism creatures NEVER determine which possible world will be the actual world.
Therefore in the case of Adam:
Calvin’s god considered two possible worlds – one in which Adam obeys and one in which Adam disobeys
Calvin’s god and not Adam is the one who determines which of those two worlds will be the actualized world.
If Calvin’s god chooses “Adam Obeys” as the actualized world – then Adam CANNOT DO OTHERWISE then to obey
If Calvin’s god chooses “Adam Disobeys” as the actualized world – then Adam CANNOT DO OTHERWISE then to disobey
Conclusion:
Adam is ONLY FREE to do what Calvin’s god decrees Adam do.
Adam is NOT FREE to DO OTHERWISE
This is why Christian Philosophers say “In Theological Determinism there is no such thing as forked path”…..unless its an illusion.
br.d writes, “Don’t you see that your language is again moving towards (Foreknowledge via observation)?”
No, it’s not. Stop making things up.
Then, ‘I am saying Calvin’s god’s “births”, “authors”, is the “source” of and “origin” of every event – which is a DECISIVELY ACTIVE mode.
You are saying “consider all of its possibilities” which is a considerably more PASSIVE mode.”
An essential Calvinist position is that God decrees all events. For God to consider “all possibilities” is for God to consider all the various possibilities arising from His decrees. God can never be strictly passive – God must be active and decide each event that occurs.
Then, “That mode of activity will never bring about the “birth” of that wooden box”
I think everyone pretty much agrees that God created the box (i.e., created the world and all that exists on the earth). What’s the point?
Then, ‘This is why I said your language infers Foreknowledge via observation.”
Only if you ignore the discussions that have occurred, the WCF, Calvin’s institutes, etc.
Then, “If Calvin’s god chooses “Adam Obeys” as the actualized world – then Adam CANNOT DO OTHERWISE then to obey
If Calvin’s god chooses “Adam Disobeys” as the actualized world – then Adam CANNOT DO OTHERWISE then to disobey”
No, Adam can obey or disobey; God’s determination does not take away ability to decide – Adam will not do other than he desires; God’s determination enshrines Adam’s choices.
Then, “Adam is NOT FREE to DO OTHERWISE”
No, Adam is free to do otherwise but Adam will not do otherwise and this freely.
br.d writes, “Don’t you see that your language is again moving towards (Foreknowledge via observation)?”
Then, ‘I am saying Calvin’s god’s “births”, “authors”, is the “source” of and “origin” of every event – which is a DECISIVELY ACTIVE mode.
You are saying “consider all of its possibilities” which is a considerably more PASSIVE mode.”
“That mode of activity will never bring about the “birth” of that wooden box”
rhutchin
No, it’s not. Stop making things up.
An essential Calvinist position is that God decrees all events. For God to consider “all possibilities” is for God to consider all the various possibilities arising from His decrees. God can never be strictly passive – God must be active and decide each event that occurs.
br.d
I’ll leave it for others t decide – whether or not “birth”, “author” event X is a DECISIVELY ACTIVE mode vs “consider the possibility of X”. Since your not getting the point.
br.d
1) If Calvin’s god chooses “Adam Obeys” as the actualized world – then Adam CANNOT DO OTHERWISE then to obey
2) If Calvin’s god chooses “Adam Disobeys” as the actualized world – then Adam CANNOT DO OTHERWISE then to disobey”
rhutchin
No, Adam can obey or disobey; God’s determination does not take away ability to decide – Adam will not do other than he desires; God’s determination enshrines Adam’s choices.
br.d
You say “NO” because for emotional reasons.
But you cannot say that my statements (1 or 2) are FALSE logically
In order to prove your position IS LOGICAL you will have to show how Adam CAN obey WITHOUT Calvin’s god decreeing “Adam Obey” since it is the case that NOTHING CAN occur without a specific decree from Calvin’s god.
br.d
“Adam is NOT FREE to DO OTHERWISE” than what Calvin’s god decreed Adam do
rhutchin
No, Adam is free to do otherwise but Adam will not do otherwise and this freely.
br.d
This again is an emotional response
In order to prove this as LOGICAL you will have to show how Adam CAN DO OTHERWISE than what Calvin’s god decrees Adam do.
And that can’t simply be Calvin’s god decreeing Adam free to do otherwise – because that would represent a case in which Calvin’s god DID NOT decree which choice Adam made – which is logically impossible in Theological Determinism.
rhutchin
No, it’s not. Stop making things up.
An essential Calvinist position is that God decrees all events. For God to consider “all possibilities” is for God to consider all the various possibilities arising from His decrees. God can never be strictly passive – God must be active and decide each event that occurs.
rhutchin
No, Adam can obey or disobey; God’s determination does not take away ability to decide – Adam will not do other than he desires; God’s determination enshrines Adam’s choices.
rhutchin
No, Adam is free to do otherwise but Adam will not do otherwise and this freely.
Wow. Just Wow. Schizophrenic much? God actively determines all events, yet man can still decide to do whatever he wants. Sure, like I can lock you up, but you can remain free to leave whenever you wish. Calvinists try to imagine a mode by which God secretly determines man’s ‘freely made’ desires, but this is akin to imagining skinny, fat people, a long, short journey or carefree anxiety. Sure, you can slap such words together all you like, but they remain nonsensical no matter how often you blurt them out.
A non-Calvinist, OTH, can posit that God creates birds to fly, but leaves them free to fly when, where and as they wish. A Calvinist might ‘say’ this, but it CANNOT be true based on his framework, in which his God must predetermine every flap of every wing long before the birdie can leave its nest, or even its shell. A bird may perceive itself as flying freely from bush to bush, but its every hop and soar have been inescapably mapped out, its prey put in exact place and, if it is to someday be captured by a cat, this too comes from God’s direct, inescapable determination. But the bird ‘freely chose’ its own path – in its vain imagination (that is, pretending a bird has an imagination).
I can only guess that it is Calvinists’ fear, their lack of trust in God, that compels them to insist he is pulling all the strings. I am guessing, though they will likely deny it, that they hold to a secret belief that God will spare them, his elect, from frightful dangers and only cast such evil upon those who he does not love. Yet, we have been warned that in this world, we face much peril and suffer much. We have witnessed innocent Abel, and countless others, abused and killed needlessly, but we have assurance; not that the evil actions are actually from God’s hand, but that they will be dealt with justly, and will even be redeemed by a God who works good out of man’s freely chosen evil.
Determinism will not prevent anyone from facing cancer, rape or murder, but I guess it makes them feel better to believe it was God’s doing. Rather than face the existence of wicked men and powers who frequently resist God’s will, many prefer an alternate reality, in hopes that surely God would not ‘ordain’ anything too terrible happen to them.
This also smacks of a desire to not take responsibility for their own actions, as much evil befalls men due to their own refusal to seek and follow God’s guiding direction. This mindset allows men to do what they want, and blame God for any ensuing evil. How often do men ignore God’s readily available warnings, such as the knowledge that sugar and processed foods are destructive to our bodies, then presume that their obesity, cancer or other ‘diseases’ were ordained by God?
In reality, God did decree that the human body function in certain ways, and ignoring his design would indeed lead to sure harm. The evil that exists in this world is always a result of rebelling against what is true and intended for good. Frequently, we cannot avoid the destructive consequences of other men’s evil choices, such as the hidden toxins in our air, food and so-called medicines. But in reality these evils always arise, not from God’s determining decrees, but through the resistance of God’s will by men who seek their own pleasure or gain, and refuse to walk in the light of God’s truth and righteous instruction.
All men would be far wiser to trust scripture’s teaching that much evil can be avoided by walking with God; we also know that the evil that does befall us in this world can only ever touch our mortal bodies. Thankfully, God has a plan to redeem those, so even when we mourn, say, the murder of Abel, we can trust that this evil act, performed freely by one man against God’s stated will, is not the end of the matter.
You hit it on the head TSOO!
Calvinists want to boast about how UNIVERSAL in scope the decrees are – and then equivocate making them NON-UNIVERSAL.
They call “Calvin’s god leaving the FUTURE OPEN” a semi heresy when its enunciated by an Open Theist – but not by them.
Same thing for Arminian statements.
If one wants to understand Calvinism:
A Calvinist is a determinist wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking points.
TS00,
What you say agrees with AW Tozer that the Calvinist version of God is so afraid that something will go wrong that He has to dictate every movement.
I have been trying to demonstrate with multiple citations from Scripture that God chose (in His sovereignty) to create the world in such a way that man (even fallen man) can make choices. Calvinists have no room for choices — and if they make room, it is only for bad choices.
Meaning…. a non-believer cannot help a friend or be generous like the Bible says. That would be impossible. That would mean he was not “too-dead” to do any one good thing. Of course I am not saying that these good things save anyone!!!
Calvinists always chime in that if a non-believer helps an old lady across the road it is only because he is selfish.
This is all to support Total Depravity and a mis-reading of Romans 3:10.
They somehow get around the clear words of Christ….
Mt 7:8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
Luke 11:13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!
—–
Christ is clear that evil people know how to do good things to their children. (Not to mention that he tells these evil people to seek!)
FOH writes, “…the Calvinist version of God is so afraid that something will go wrong that He has to dictate every movement.”
No, the Calvinist version of God has made very many and specific prophecies of future events that make it impossible not to determine every event as all future events are tied to those prophecies. So, is your statement a purposeful distortion or what…?
AW Tozer…
“Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.”
I don’t really hold Tozer up above others, but I just wanted to be clear that one person who proposed the “afraid to do so” idea is Tozer. Tozer clearly taught that God did NOT decree every motion, thought, and action of man and if He had it would have been out of fear to let man be free.
Some double-meaning, circular-reasoning Calvinists will try to say that God did “bestowed moral freedom on His creatures,” but that is not what Tozer meant and anyone who reads him will admit it.
FOH writes, “Tozer clearly taught that God did NOT decree every motion, thought, and action of man and if He had it would have been out of fear to let man be free.”
Tozer said that God is sovereign so Tozer tught that God decrees every motion, thought, and action of man. If God were not sovereign then God would not be in control and it would be a fearful thing to give people freedom to do anything they wanted. There needs to be a parent in the room to keep the children under control.
TS00 writes, “God actively determines all events, yet man can still decide to do whatever he wants.”
Sure. Isaiah 10 is an example. Also, Acts 4, ““For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur.” Herod and Pilate chose to crucify Christ – yet God determined that they crucify Christ and did so without coercing them to do so.
Then, “Sure, like I can lock you up, but you can remain free to leave whenever you wish.”
No, I would be free to do whatever I wanted within the locked room. My freedom might be restricted in those circumstances but I would still be free.
Then, “Calvinists try to imagine a mode by which God secretly determines man’s ‘freely made’ desires, but this is akin to imagining skinny, fat people,…”
No. It is akin to imagining skinny people choosing to eat and becoming fat with this concurring with God having determined that they should get fat by eating – and this happens without God coercing them to eat.
Then, “A non-Calvinist, OTH, can posit that God creates birds to fly, but leaves them free to fly when, where and as they wish.”
God could then decree the capture of the bird and life in a zoo where their freedom to fly is constrained by the enclosure into which they are placed.
br.d writes, ‘But you cannot say that my statements (1 or 2) are FALSE logically.
Your statement 1 – “1) If Calvin’s god chooses “Adam Obeys” as the actualized world – then Adam CANNOT DO OTHERWISE then to obey”
This statement does not require that Adam not be able to chose otherwise. It only requires that God who chooses may have to act to bring about His choice. Thus, if Adam is intent on disobedience and God chooses obedience for Adam, then God must change Adam’s intent. If Adam is intent on disobedience and God choose that Adam disobey, then God need do nothing. Nothing in your statement says anything about Adam’s ability to choose otherwise; it only suggests that God must involve Himself if Adam is not going in the direction He wants.
“1) If Calvin’s god chooses “Adam Obeys” as the actualized world – then Adam CANNOT DO OTHERWISE then to obey”
‘You cannot say that my statements (1 or 2) are FALSE logically.
rhutchin
Your statement 1
This statement does not require that Adam not be able to chose otherwise.
br.d
As I’ve said – in order to show this through logic, you’ll have to show how Calvin’s god actualizes (WORLD A) a world in which Adam disobeys. And yet Adam can DO OTHERWISE. In such case Adam makes void (WORLD A) and instead brings about (WORLD B) the world which Calvin’s god did not actualize.
rhutchin
It only requires that God who chooses may have to ACT to bring about His choice.
br.d
This is more equivocal language.
Calvin’s god brings about his choice at the foundation of the world – the ACT is the decree. And NOTHING can come to pass that is OTHERWISE than the decree.
rhutchin
If Adam is intent on disobedience and God chooses obedience for Adam, then God must change Adam’s intent.
br.d
That is FALSE in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism)
You have just compromised the doctrine of decrees which stipulates *ALL* things are decreed at the foundation of the world.
You have Calvin’s god changing Adam’s intent AS-IF Adam’s intent were not SETTLED – FIXED IN THE PAST – at the foundation of the world before Adam existed. That is a departure from Calvinism moving into a MODE of Open Theism.
rhutchin
If Adam is intent on disobedience and God choose that Adam disobey, then God need do nothing. Nothing in your statement says anything about Adam’s ability to choose otherwise; it only suggests that God must involve Himself if Adam is not going in the direction He wants.
br.d
Again this seeks to evade the fact that Calvin’s god SETTLED – FIXED Adam’s choice at the foundation of the world – before Adam existed.
br.d writes, “As I’ve said – in order to show this through logic, you’ll have to show how Calvin’s god actualizes (WORLD A) a world in which Adam disobeys. And yet Adam can DO OTHERWISE. In such case Adam makes void (WORLD A) and instead brings about (WORLD B) the world which Calvin’s god did not actualize. ”
For Adam to be able to do otherwise only requires that Adam be confronted with a choice and understand the options he has. We have no reason to think that Adam faced the decision of eating the fruit and could have chosen not to eat that fruit. That God knew Adam’s decision and had determined it had no influence on Adam’s decision. Adam’s decision was determined by his desires – he desired to eat the fruit more than not eating the fruit. Adam’s desires were also known to God but God’s knowledge did not influence Adam’s choice. There is nothing in br.d’s argument that negates Adam’s ability to choose whether to eat the fruit.
When br.d says “Again this seeks to evade the fact that Calvin’s god SETTLED – FIXED Adam’s choice at the foundation of the world – before Adam existed” he is deflecting as this only determined that which Adam would do and had no impact on what Adam could do.
br.d writes, “As I’ve said – in order to show this through logic, you’ll have to show how Calvin’s god actualizes (WORLD A) a world in which Adam disobeys. And yet Adam can DO OTHERWISE. In such case Adam makes void (WORLD A) and instead brings about (WORLD B) the world which Calvin’s god did not actualize. ”
rhutchin
For Adam to be able to do otherwise only requires that Adam be confronted with a choice and understand the options he has.
br.d
I won’t bother to respond to this.
You’re simply dancing around to avoid the logic – and further shifting the meaning of CAN do otherwise to make it infer ability rather than logical consequence. I won’t bother with such game playing.
rhutchin
When br.d says “Again this seeks to evade the fact that Calvin’s god SETTLED – FIXED Adam’s choice at the foundation of the world – before Adam existed” he is deflecting as this only determined that which Adam would do and had no impact on what Adam could do.
br.d
Same semantic game as above.
The reader understands what Christian Philosophers mean by CANNOT DO OTHERWISE
And that it has nothing to do with ability.
You can dance around this one all you like rutchin – you’re on your own. :-]
If you want to use logic – you need to show the following:
1) How Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world before Adam exists) can FOREKNOW what decision Adam will make without determining/predestinating what decision Adam will make – while at the same time leaving the future OPEN for Adam to decide – without this being (Foreknowledge via observation) which is not Calvinism.
2) How you are not appealing to (the MODE of Open Theism) by arguing that Calvin’s god (leaves the FUTURE OPEN) for Adam to decide – and does not determine/predestine what Adam will decide before Adam even exists.
3) How Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world before humans exist), can decree *ALL* things that will come to pass, and at the same time leave *SOME* things undetermined/predestined for humans to determine.
4) IF you can’t prove any of the above using logic, then you are left with Adam CANNOT DO OTHERWISE than what Calvin’s god determines Adam do – before Adam exists.
br.d writes, “you need to show the following:
1) How Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world before Adam exists) can FOREKNOW what decision Adam will make without determining/predestinating what decision Adam will make – while at the same time leaving the future OPEN for Adam to decide – without this being (Foreknowledge via observation) which is not Calvinism.”
God foreknows that which He decrees. The future is “open” until God executes His decrees in that the events have not occurred in time. For example, God knows that Adam will choose to eat the fruit and God decrees not to interfere in that event. Adam has the ability to choose otherwise – not to eat the fruit – but he will not because his desire will be to eat the fruit and God will not affect a different desire in Adam.
Then, “2) How you are not appealing to (the MODE of Open Theism) by arguing that Calvin’s god (leaves the FUTURE OPEN) for Adam to decide – and does not determine/predestine what Adam will decide before Adam even exists.”
God’s decrees affect God’s involvement in the affairs of people. God’s decrees do not ordinarily affect change in the person or their desires (Isaiah 10 is an example of this). The person’s desires determine the choices they make and do not affect what the person can do but what they will do. The person is always able to do otherwise even though his will is to do as he desires and not otherwise. God’s decrees do not change any of this even though God can close the door on certain choices a person might want to make.
Then, “3) How Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world before humans exist), can decree *ALL* things that will come to pass, and at the same time leave *SOME* things undetermined/predestined for humans to determine.”
Nothing is left undetermined. God’s decrees do not affect what a person is able to do but what he will do. People still determine their actions concurrent with both their desires and God’s decrees. A person can, but will not, do anything that conflicts with his desires and can, but will be prevented from, doing anything that conflicts with God’s decrees.
Then, “4) IF you can’t prove any of the above using logic, then you are left with Adam CANNOT DO OTHERWISE than what Calvin’s god determines Adam do – before Adam exists.:”
I think you need to distinguish between “can” and “will.” Nothing in God’s decrees changes what a person can do – a person still retains the ability to do otherwise – but God can affect the choices a person actually makes. For example, the Jews at times wanted to kill Jesus and took up stones to do so; they were prevented from doing so because God had decreed Jesus’ death by crucifixion.
br.d writes, “you need to show the following:
1) How Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world before Adam exists) can FOREKNOW what decision Adam will make without determining/predestinating what decision Adam will make – while at the same time leaving the future OPEN for Adam to decide – without this being (Foreknowledge via observation) which is not Calvinism.”
rhutchin
God foreknows that which He decrees…..For example, God knows that Adam will choose to eat the fruit ….etc.
br.d
So far so good:
According to Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) foreknows what Adam will choose *BECAUSE* Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) decreed what Adam would choose. Therefore Adam’s choice was made before Adam existed.
rutchin
Adam has the ability to choose otherwise – not to eat the fruit – but he will not because his desire will be to eat the fruit and God will not affect a different desire in Adam.
br.d
Your consistently equivocating on my statement
I specifically stated “Adam cannot do otherwise than WHAT CALVIN’S GOD DECREES (at the foundation of the world).
You seek to modify my statement by omitting the “What Calvin’s god decrees…..”
You do this because you know its illogical to say Adam can do otherwise than what Calvin’s god decrees.
rhutchin
The future is “open” until God executes His decrees in that the events have not occurred in time.
br.d
When Calvin’s god executes his decrees is an irrelevant red herring.
The fact is that Calvin’s god establishes his decrees (at the foundation of the world) and they are therefore SETTLED – FIXED IN THE PAST before Adam exists. Calvin’s god can execute them any time he likes – but they MUST execute according to what he decreed (at the foundation of the world).
br.d
“2) How you are not appealing to (the MODE of Open Theism) by arguing that Calvin’s god (leaves the FUTURE OPEN) for Adam to decide – and does not determine/predestine what Adam will decide before Adam even exists.”
rhutchin
God’s decrees affect God’s involvement in the affairs of people. God’s decrees do not ordinarily affect change in the person or their desires (Isaiah 10 is an example of this). The person’s desires determine the choices they make and do not affect what the person can do but what they will do. The person is always able to do otherwise even though his will is to do as he desires and not otherwise. God’s decrees do not change any of this even though God can close the door on certain choices a person might want to make.
br.d
This is not logic – this is religious double-speak.
The argument -quote “Leave the FUTURE OPEN for Adam to decide”.
Although this mode is consistent with Open Theism – but logically FALSE in Theological Determinism.
br.d
“3) How Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world before humans exist), can decree *ALL* things that will come to pass, and at the same time leave *SOME* things undetermined/predestined for humans to determine.”
rhutchin
Nothing is left undetermined [by Calvin’s god]
br.d
So far so good
rhutchin
God’s decrees do not affect what a person is able to do but what he WILL do.
br.d
This is equivocal logic
If Calvin’s god does not decree you WILL be a frog – then you are not ABLE to be a frog.
That is elementary logic
Secondly, where Calvin’s god decrees Adam WILL disobey whether or not Adam is ABLE to do is irrelevant.
Adam CANNOT DO OTHERWISE than what Calvin’s god decrees Adam WILL do
rhutchin
People still determine their actions concurrent with both their desires and God’s decrees.
br.d
You are now contradicting yourself.
Lets look at this from simple math.
If someone takes *ALL* of the money out of your wallet – how much money is there left for you to take?
You stated correctly -quote “Nothing is left undetermined”
That is correct.
Calvin’s god determines *ALL*
There is nothing left for the creature to determine.
br.d
Also it is totally irrational to say a person’s actions can -quote “conflict with Calvin’s god’s decrees”
Since it is the case that all person’s actions are SETTLED – FIXED IN THE PAST (at the foundation of the world)
rhutchin
I think you need to distinguish between “can” and “will.” Nothing in God’s decrees changes what a person can do
br.d
Here you are shifting the word CANNOT to CAN making it infer ability
CANNOT DO OTHERWISE is a well established acknowledgment within Christian Philosophy regarding Theological Determinism
If Calvin’s god does not decree you WILL be a frog – then you CANNOT be a frog.
This is a logical consequence which makes ability an irrelevant red herring.
If Calvin’s god does not decree “Adam Obeys” then Adam CANNOT obey
This is a logical consequence which makes ability an irrelevant red herring.
So far – your attempts have all failed logic.
And always will; hence the endless circles, in attempts to change meaning midstream, as well as assert that A and not-A are both happily true, when such is logically impossible. So, one must dance in place; or lean on the rocking horse first one direction, then the other. But one never really gets anywhere.
Well Said TSOO!
The Calvinist never lets logic get in his way of illusions he needs to make-believe are real. :-]
br.d writes, ‘Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) decreed what Adam would choose. Therefore Adam’s choice was made before Adam existed. ”
Not only what Adam would choose but Adam’s rationale for making that choice. The choice was known to God but not physically made by Adam until the appointed time – and coincidentally, exactly as God had foreknown and this without God having to prompt Adam in any way..
Then, ‘You do this because you know its illogical to say Adam can do otherwise than what Calvin’s god decrees.”
I think the opposite – that Adam could do otherwise. God’s decrees enshrine that which Adam will do = they do not influence Adam to do anything that he will do. God’s decrees do not deny Adam otherwise choice – as least you have yet to show a connection, logical or otherwise, between them.
Then, “The argument -quote “Leave the FUTURE OPEN for Adam to decide”.
Although this mode is consistent with Open Theism – but logically FALSE in Theological Determinism.”
The difference being that God knows the outcome – and the rationale for that outcome – under Calvinism but not under Open Theism. The actual working out of God’s decrees incorporates the free actions of people according to their desires. The future is open in that it has not physically occurred. Even you are making decisions every day according to your desires and your knowledge that God already knows your decisions probably never plays into those decisions.
Then, “If Calvin’s god does not decree you WILL be a frog – then you are not ABLE to be a frog.”
You are deflecting. The issue is not what God does but what a person does and can do. God’s decree does not force a person to act in any particular way; it only determines that people can act in the way they desire (recognizing that there are exceptions). God does not decree that a person will choose to be a frog because a person cannot choose to be a frog. God does decree that people will choose to sin because they can choose to sin.
Then, ‘Adam CANNOT DO OTHERWISE than what Calvin’s god decrees Adam WILL do”
I think that is just your opinion. God’s decrees do not say what people can or cannot do; they only tell us what people will do and what people choose to do reflects their desires..
Then, ‘This is a logical consequence which makes ability an irrelevant red herring.”
So, it doesn’t matter what a person can do or cannot do.
br.d writes, ‘Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) decreed what Adam would choose. Therefore Adam’s choice was made before Adam existed. ”
rhutchin
Not only what Adam would choose but Adam’s rationale for making that choice.
br.d
Obviously – since Calvin’s god determines Adam’s every neurological impulse making them occur as inevitable :-]
rhutchin
The choice was known to God but not physically made by Adam until the appointed time – and coincidentally, exactly as God had foreknown and this without God having to prompt Adam in any way.
br.d
If Calvin’s god didn’t know what he decree Adam’s choice to be – Calvin’s god has a few screws loose. :-]
br.d
‘You do this because you know its illogical to say Adam can do otherwise than what Calvin’s god decrees.”
rhutchin
I think the opposite – that Adam could do otherwise.
br.d
Post this statement then: “I rutchin assert that Adam (at time X) can do otherwise than Calvin’s god decrees Adam do (at Time X)”
br.d
“The argument -quote “Leave the FUTURE OPEN for Adam to decide”.
Although this mode is consistent with Open Theism – is is logically FALSE in Theological Determinism.”
rhutchin
The difference being that God knows the outcome – and the rationale for that outcome
Under Calvinism but not under Open Theism. The actual working out of God’s decrees incorporates the free actions of people according to their desires. The future is open in that it has not physically occurred. Even you are making decisions every day according to your desires and your knowledge that God already knows your decisions probably never plays into those decisions.
br.d
You said it yourself – quote “to [Calvin’s] god the future is SETTLED – FIXED – to man the future is open”
Again – Where the future is FIXED is TRUE – then the future being OPEN is FALSE.
Your language can’t help but be double-speak here because you have TRUTH = FALSE
You believe the future is FIXED is TRUE but speak AS-IF the future is OPEN.
br.d
Then, “If Calvin’s god does not decree you WILL be a frog – then you are not ABLE to be a frog.”
rhutchin
You are deflecting. The issue is not what God does but what a person does and can do.
br.d
FALSE
You are the one deflecting (trying to focus attention from the decrees)
The statement is logically TRUE – it just doesn’t fit your narrative.
rhutchin:
God’s decree does not force a person to act in any particular way
br.d
Here again is the NO FORCE argument which is an irrelevant red herring.
If Calvin’s god decrees you to be a frog – he doesn’t have to FORCE you to be a frog – you simply WILL be a frog.
Calvin’s god drops a baby into the fire of Moloch
The Calvinist argues he is not responsible – because he didn’t force the baby into the fire.
That is an example of Calvinist ethics!
Good luck trying to make that look biblical :-]
br.d
‘Adam CANNOT DO OTHERWISE than what Calvin’s god decrees Adam WILL do”
rhutchin
I think that is just your opinion. God’s decrees do not say what people can or cannot do; they only tell us what people will do and what people choose to do reflects their desires.
br.d
Again – your purposefully shifting the goal-post.
Christian Philosophers use the term CANNOT DO OTHERWISE to as it relates to LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE not ability.
You shift “CAN” to mean ability in order to evade the standardized terminology .
br.d
‘This is a logical consequence which makes ability an irrelevant red herring.”
rhutchin
So, it doesn’t matter what a person can do or cannot do.
br.d
Here you’re either not savvy enough to understand “logical consequence” or your doing your evasion dance again.
br.d writes, ‘Obviously – since Calvin’s god determines Adam’s every neurological impulse making them occur as inevitable”
The means for doing this is through the perosn’s nature that God does not need to impel to action.
Then, “Post this statement then: “I rutchin assert that Adam (at time X) can do otherwise than Calvin’s god decrees Adam do (at Time X)”
I rutchin assert that Adam (at time X) CAN do otherwise than God decrees Adam WILL do (at Time X). God’s decree makes Adam’s choice certain – Adam WILL do X – but not necessary – Adam CAN do otherwise than X. God’s decree does not force Adam to do X but makes certain that Adam’s choice of X prevails.
Then, “Although this mode is consistent with Open Theism – is is logically FALSE in Theological Determinism.”
More to it than that. Open Theism posits that the future is open because God must still decide what He will do. Open Theists contend that God cannot decide the future in eternity past for lack of complete information but must make decisions in the course of time as He learns of the decisions that people make. Under Calvinism, God knows the future so it is closed from God’s perspective, but man does not know the future that God has determined so that future is open from man’s perspective – and man is able to take actions that become the means that God uses to accomplish that which He has determined. As William Craig explains it, whatever man chooses to do turns out to be that which God intended – and determined – for man to do and it is accomplished without God forcing man to act in any particular manner.
Then, ‘Again – Where the future is FIXED is TRUE – then the future being OPEN is FALSE.”
This depends on context. In this case, fixed or open depends on whether it is from God’s or man’s perspective. If you want to deal with free will, then God has free will and all things are fixed by His will while man’s free will is open and yet to be expressed. Man’s will can never overrule God’s free will.
Then, “Then, “If Calvin’s god does not decree you WILL be a frog – then you are not ABLE to be a frog.”
The statement is logically TRUE – it just doesn’t fit your narrative.”
It has nothing to do with my narrative. If God does not convey to man the ability to become a frog, then man cannot make himself a frog. If God conveys to man the ability to make decisions, then man can make decisions – even where those decisions are known to God before the man makes them. People make decisions every day on a variety of issues. None is forced into certain decisions by God’s foreknowledge as God’s foreknowledge incorporates man’s willful choices into His determinations.
Then, ‘Calvin’s god drops a baby into the fire of Moloch
The Calvinist argues he is not responsible – because he didn’t force the baby into the fire.”
No, the baby is dropped into the fire by a person who willfully chooses to do so. If God is to be blamed, it is for not catching the baby before it entered the fire or protecting the baby from the flames – the example in Daniel showing how God can exerise his power in this respect.
Then, ‘Christian Philosophers use the term CANNOT DO OTHERWISE to as it relates to LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE not ability.”
Logical consequence views the situation from God’s perspective.If that is all you mean, then who care’s?
Then, ‘Here you’re either not savvy enough to understand “logical consequence” or your doing your evasion dance again.”
No, I am making a distinction between God’s perspective and man’s perspective. God has free will and man has free will but man’s free will is necessarily subordinate to God’s free will.. From God’s perspective, God has exercised His free will and made His decisions – the future is certain and fixed. From man’s perspective, man has not made all his decisions but is doing so in the course of time – the future is open and not necessary.
br.d
Then, “Post this statement then: “I rutchin assert that Adam (at time X) can do otherwise than Calvin’s god decrees Adam do (at Time X)”
rhutchn
I rutchin assert that Adam (at time X) CAN do otherwise than God decrees Adam WILL do (at Time X).
br.d
You changed the wording.
Besides – we’ve been over this territory before with the word “impossible”.
Hebrews 6:18 ” it is impossible for God to lie”
But by equivocating on the word “impossible” or “can” you can say it is possible for God to like because God has the “ability” to lie – therefore he CAN lie.
This is all about shifting the meanings of words.
The rest of the dialog is not worth going over with you any more since your just dancing around in circles at this point.
But I think the SOT101 reader can follow the thread enough now to get the picture and make up their own mind.
To understand Calvinism one must recognize:
A Calvinist is a determinist wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking points. :-]
Or, to paraphrase Horton:
‘I meant what I said, IF I said what I meant’;
a Calvinist is deceptive, 100 percent.
You got it TSOO!!
Calvinists are like Janus – the Roman God of Two Doorways
https://featheredpipe.com/janus/
Shape-shifting between determinism and IN-determinism.
They have a library of two-faced terms which allow them to speak out of two sides of every equation.
They use “Permitted” and “Not Prevented” to replace “Caused”.
They use “Certain” to replace the words “unavoidable” and “Inevitable”.
They use “Real” to replace the word “Illusion”.
They use “AS-IF” in order to replace the term “Make-believe”
These deceptive terms all work to paint a picture of Calvin’s god in as operating in an IN-deterministic mode when it comes to the reality of evil events.
As William Lane Craig notes:
paraphrased:
“A determinist cannot live consistently….as though all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside himself.
Even determinists recognize [they must] ACT AS-IF [they] decide on what course of action to take, even though at the end of the day [they believe they are] determined to take the choices [they take].
DETERMINISM IS THUS…UNLIVABLE”
That is why shape-shifting terms are the hall-mark of Calvinism.
And every dedicated Calvinist becomes mentored in its library of double-speak. :-]
br.d writes, ‘Even determinists recognize [they must] ACT AS-IF [they] decide on what course of action to take, even though at the end of the day [they believe they are] determined to take the choices [they take]. ”
Yet, we do make decisions on courses of action to take. I find myself making a decision to ask God for wisdom and if God has determined that I would ask for wisdom, then I am eternally grateful. And if the wisdom God gives me determines more of my actions, I am doubly grateful.
Rhutchin writes:
“Yet, we do make decisions on courses of action to take. I find myself making a decision to ask God for wisdom and if God has determined that I would ask for wisdom, then I am eternally grateful. And if the wisdom God gives me determines more of my actions, I am doubly grateful.”
Ah, as always the humble Calvinist bows to God’s sovereignty, for he certainly would not want to pretend that he could do anything unless God had first determined it. Why, do you think he would for a second consider stealing any of God’s glory?
So, if only those God has ‘determined’ to ask for wisdom can ask for it, (and presumably receive it simply by asking?) then it would appear Solomon was wasting his time writing Proverbs. For verse after verse encourages his son (and others) to SEEK wisdom. He doesn’t make it sound optional, or like something that only a select few, who have to be given magic ability, must then irresistibly desire and do. I can’t quote the whole book, but please read it for yourself.
Nor does God appear to be stingily hoarding wisdom for his elect. Solomon states: ‘Wisdom cries aloud in the street; in the markets she raises her voice; on the top of the walls she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks.’ Sounds like she’s everywhere, looking for takers. In fact, Solomon makes a big deal about how hard she tries to get people to listen to her: ‘How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing, and fools hate knowledge? Give heed to my reproof; behold I will pour out my thoughts to you; I will make my words known to you.’ Now this is not words falling on deaf (dead) ears . . . wisdom says she will make her words ‘known’.
Looks like Solomon, and the inspiring Holy Spirit, got the whole thing all wrong. Why, Solomon was so confused, he suggests that the reason people do not receive wisdom is not that God does not ‘determine’ them to do so, or because they are cursed and unable to hear her loud cries, but, well, I’ll let Solomon’s inspired words speak: ‘Because I have called and you REFUSED (which does not mean ‘were unable’) to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded, and you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof (One cannot ‘ignore’ or ‘have none of’ something unless they are aware of it. Both denote deliberate, negative responses.) . . . Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord, would have none of my counsel, and despised all my reproof, therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and be sated with their own devices. For the simple are killed by their turning away, and the complacence of fools destroys them; but he who listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of evil.’
Gosh, golly, Solomon sure screwed that one up, eh? But wait, maybe the Calvinist can still pull out his Total Depravity trump card, and assert that only those whom God makes alive can ‘listen’ and do all of the things spelled out in Proverbs (along with the rest of scripture). God is just being facetious here, condemning people, who he knows cannot hear, for not listening; admonishing people he chose not to ordain desire to, for not desiring to seek wisdom!
Of course, Solomon doesn’t suggest any such cruel thing. In fact, everything he writes discounts it. Instead of merely hoping God ordains his son to have a desire for wisdom, Solomon’s teaches throughout the entire book that his son has a choice to make: whether or not to seek wisdom (She can be found in the street, in the markets, on the top of the walls and at the entrance of the city gates, for starters. Calling out loudly.)
Again and again, Solomon says things that make it sound like wisdom is there for the getting; words like ‘My son, IF you receive my words, and treasure up my commandments with you, making your ear attentive to wisdom (He can choose to make his ear attentive – he doesn’t have to wait for God to ‘fix’ it!) and inclining your heart to understanding; yes, IF you cry out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, IF you seek it like silver and search for it as hidden treasures; THEN (Yes, that sort of then!) you will understand the fear of the Lord, (which, it is repeatedly said, is the beginning of wisdom).’
There is going to be a rude awakening for any who nonchalantly try to tell God that the reason they did not have wisdom was because he did not determine them to desire it, thus they naturally could not pray for it. After all, who can desire or pray for anything apart from what God decrees? Of course, God might just rip out his copy of Proverbs – okay, he probably has it memorized – and coldly remind them that they were instructed to seek for wisdom like silver and search for it as hidden treasure, not sit around on their tushes waiting for some supernatural desire from heaven to infiltrate their brains.
Just in case that isn’t enough warning, Solomon writes that God does not give wisdom only to those whom he ordained to desire, and ask prettily for it, but – wait for it – he actually gives it to those who DO WHAT IS RIGHT! No easy wisdomism here. Sounds like James wasn’t so crazy after all. God actually does give a you-know-what about what we DO, and isn’t sitting up there calmly overlooking our wickedness and gazing at Jesus’ good works. (Much as Calvinists desperately want to believe it, so they can live their lives with no fear of the consequences of their actions.)
Sorry, Charlie, er, Martin, once again, we have it spelled out that ‘. . . the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth comes knowledge and understanding; he stores up sound wisdom . . .’ (Not for some predetermined elect, not for a select few who he must first regenerate from their dead, Totally Depraved nature, but) ‘. . . for the upright.’ Wow. Sounds like Solomon thinks that what people DO actually matters; and that they have choices to make.
Ah, maybe the Calvinist can still weasel his way out of this, and assert that it simply means those who are ‘declared upright’ upon being regenerated and receiving that undesired and unsought gift of faith!
Not quite. Instead, Solomon tells us that God ‘is a shield to those who walk (not simply receive a gift of faith) in integrity, guarding the paths of justice and preserving the way of saints. Then . . .’ (Yep, we’re talking actions and contingency here folks. This here son has to walk in integrity and THEN he will get wisdom) ‘. . . you will understand righteousness and justice and equity, and every good path; for wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul’. IF men walk uprightly, THEN wisdom will come into their hearts. No use trying to pretend that the faith and wisdom come first, then men are enabled to walk uprightly . . . it is the exact opposite. Start doing the right thing, and see God reward you with wisdom, and understanding and all of the blessings Solomon promises they will produce.
Calvinists can comb through their well-worn Institutes, sputtering about how they can only do what God ordained them to do, can’t do anything but what he has determined, and, after all, if he wants them to desire wisdom he’ll just have to give ’em the desire . . . Me? First I’m going to study up on what it means to ‘walk in integrity’; then, I’m getting me a hound dog to go after that wisdom.
Anyone who really wants to understand, and have wisdom, will study scripture for themselves, rather than doggedly defending the interpretations of other fallible men. Or just slap that Calvinist filter on, which magically make the words mean whatever you want them to mean.
TS00 writes, “he certainly would not want to pretend that he could do anything unless God had first determined it.”
Let’s grant your position that God does not determine all events in a person’s life. Those things God does determine are to the person’s advantage – the more; the better. If we are doing things that God does not determine (i.e., sin), then they are to our disadvantage and we should always be petitioning God to determine the events in our lives.
Then, “So, if only those God has ‘determined’ to ask for wisdom can ask for it, (and presumably receive it simply by asking?) then it would appear Solomon was wasting his time writing Proverbs.”
Solomon provides sound advice. If God is also determining that certain people actually follow that advice – all the better for the person. The problem for many people is that they don’t follow Solomon’s advice; they could use a little help.
Then, “Nor does God appear to be stingily hoarding wisdom for his elect.”
That’s what James says – Anyone can ask God for wisdom and receive it. If God is also determining His elect to ask for wisdom; it just gives them an advantage – an advantage that no one is complaining about.
Then, ‘maybe the Calvinist can still pull out his Total Depravity trump card, and assert that only those whom God makes alive can ‘listen’ and do all of the things spelled out in Proverbs”
or maybe, we can just refer to Paul’s words in Ephesians 2, “you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” If Paul is telling us the truth and there is a”prince of the power of the air” working in some people, those people would certainly benefit if God determined to quicken them and affect them to ask for wisdom.
Then, ‘Anyone who really wants to understand, and have wisdom, will study scripture for themselves,…”
Everyone who really wants to understand will study. It doesn’t hurt to have God helping.
The hedging and deceptive double-speak continues, as Rhutchin attempts to pull back on his rocking horse and pretend as if determinism is actually on par with suggesting we all, naturally, could use a little of God’s ‘help’ as we go about our presumably self chosen ways; heh, heh, move along, nothing to see, and all that.
This is nonsense under Calvinism, of course, for if our ways are ‘determined’ by God, and we will, without fail, desire the will he desires us to desire, we don’t need further ‘help’ to accomplish that desiring of that preordained will. If God’s will is always done (through secretive, untold, secondary means, of course), pretending that we need help to desire and ‘seek’ it is absurd.
However, unless one knows, then carefully compares the actual assertions of Calvinism with scripture, he will never know whether or not they are, in reality, in line or contradictory. Any deceiver can come along and say, ‘Oh, so and so just doesn’t understand Calvinism. It really just means . . .’ If the person takes the smooth talker’s word for it, without doing his homework, he will never discover possible inaccuracies. This I eventually figured out, to my own great dismay, chagrin and personal harm.
One of the deceptive techniques frequently used by Calvinists is to respond to legitimate, well-founded dissent with an, ‘Of course, scripture says ‘A is true’, everyone knows that.’ In this abuse of honest communication, the Calvinist beats the dissenter to the punch, and cites the very verses that disprove Calvinism, without acknowledging that they, in fact, disprove Calvinism.
Taking the preemptive strike to an entirely new level, in responding to the questioner with his very own evidence, the dissenter is caught off guard, and easily persuaded that he simply misunderstood the issue. The Calvinist obviously believes the same as he, for he just cited the verses that say so. This is pure deception, however, as the scriptures referred to cite that ‘A is true’, whereas authentic Calvinism authoritatively asserts that ‘non-A is true’. When the Calvinist presents himself and/or Calvinism as a staunch defender of ‘A is true’ he is either ignorant or a liar; for his theology demands, unequivocally, that ‘non-A is true’. When he repeatedly switches back and forth between the two positions, one can affirm that ‘ignorance’ is not the issue, but honesty.
The naïve individual, who simply would never be suspicious enough to question the integrity or truthfulness of anyone who calls himself a ‘Christian’ is very easily deceived, misled and silenced. This sort of naïve unquestioning mindset is further encouraged by an authoritarian organization that proclaims certain men and creeds as unquestionable, orthodox truth to which all believers must bow. In days past, when men like Calvin amassed the power of the sword to enforce their personal beliefs, to dissent was to risk being declared a ‘heretic’ and suffering a tortuous death.
The modern version of this is the knee-jerk, take off your hat, cover your heart and/or bend your knee response demanded of all truly ‘patriotic’ Americans whenever the national anthem is played. A great deal of courage is required to resist this pressure, and admit that one actually has huge qualms about many policies and actions of his country’s leaders; concerns which makes him unable to bow the knee in solemn allegiance to all done in the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘America’. Such concerns might including confiscation of personal rights and property, torture of men, women and children, murder by drone without due justice and the military attack and destruction of civilian populations in supposed retaliation of some vague ‘terrorist threat’. But of course the greatest evil is declared to be the person who does not swoon upon sight of the American flag, or upon hearing the familiar strain of her national anthem. Welcome to Calvin’s America.
TS00 writes, “determinism is actually on par with suggesting we all, naturally, could use a little of God’s ‘help’ as we go about our presumably self chosen ways; ”
LOL! I though this a cute response. Obviously, if God chooses to help someone, in what ever way, then that choice is a decision – a decree – and it is deterministic – God has determined an outcome by that which He has chosen to do. So, we both come into this understanding that God does decree some things and we have at least a partially deterministic system. The question then is whether we can have a partially deterministic system. Once God enters into the affairs of men and starts determining some outcomes, can He avoid determining all outcomes. The Calvinist says that He cannot.
Then, “…if our ways are ‘determined’ by God, and we will, without fail, desire the will he desires us to desire, we don’t need further ‘help’ to accomplish that desiring of that preordained will.”
I think this somewhat confusing. God determined to man Adam in His image, so He did. However, after that, God tells Adam not to eat the fruit and Adam is then free to decide what to do. God did not place in Adam a desire to eat the fruit – that desire came about through a series of events that had Eve handing him the fruit and inviting him to eat. God did not influence Adam in making a decision but could have – thereby obtaining an entirely different outcome. So it is with people today. We all face decisions; we all have varying knowledge of God’s commands; we all exercise freedom in asking God for help; we all end up making a decision based on a variety of factors. God does not normally interfere in our decisions even though God knows the decision we will make and has determined that decision by the degree to which He has chosen to be involved in influencing that decision. We do have a preordained will – Paul, in Romans 8, tells us that we are enemies of God. As Isaiah said, we are all like sheep who have gone astray and get into lots of trouble. We willfully seek to be independent of God.
Then, “However, unless one knows, then carefully compares the actual assertions of Calvinism with scripture,…”
It would have been helpful for TS00 to work with an actual example of that which he then complains about. As I cannot read his mind, the rest of his comments were not useful – entertaining but so what?
William Lane Crarig:
‘Even determinists recognize [they must] ACT AS-IF [they] decide on what course of action to take, even though at the end of the day [they believe they are] determined to take the choices [they take]. ”
rhutchin
Yet, we do make decisions on courses of action to take. I find myself making a decision to ask God for wisdom and if God has determined that I would ask for wisdom, then I am eternally grateful. And if the wisdom God gives me determines more of my actions, I am doubly grateful
br.d
One can make-believe oneself to be logically consistent while in truth being double-minded.
If you are grateful for the belief that Calvin’s god has already pre-determined/predestined your every course of action before you make it, then (if logically consistent) you’ll also be grateful when Calvin’s god pre-determines/predestines you to have sinful thoughts, choices, and actions. And you’ll also be grateful when Calvin’s god pre-determines/predestines non-Calvinists to sight Calvinist double-speak. :-]
But from Calvinist consistent posts here in that regard – we ALWAYS see the opposite.
Which shows us that Calvinism leads the individual into a state of double-mindedness.
The good news is – Calvinists are consistently providing good examples of that for SOT101 readers to observe. :-]
br.d writes, “If you are grateful for the belief that Calvin’s god has already pre-determined/predestined your every course of action before you make it, then (if logically consistent) you’ll also be grateful when Calvin’s god pre-determines/predestines you to have sinful thoughts, choices, and actions.”
Not exactly. I know that I would not care what God has done if He did not reveal such to me. Through His word, God has revealed to me exactly what you state – that He has the final say on every one of my thoughts, choices, and actions – and every one of those is determined by Him and every one of them finds its source in my will and what I desire. God has also given me promises whereby I can ask Him for wisdom and other help and thereby avoid sinful thoughts, choices, and actions. It is the unbeliever who has nothing to do with God and is captive to his sinful nature. The believer desires God’s involvement in every aspect of his life and thereby escapes slavery to his sinful nature. God has determined all things, bringing about some outcomes by His power and others through a synergistic process involving God working with the believer that we call sanctification.
br.d
One can make-believe oneself to be logically consistent while in truth being double-minded.
“If you are grateful for the belief that Calvin’s god has already pre-determined/predestined your every course of action before you make it, then (if logically consistent) you’ll also be grateful when Calvin’s god pre-determines/predestines you to have sinful thoughts, choices, and actions. And grateful when Calvin’s god pre-determines/predestines non-Calvinists to call-out Calvinist double-speak”
rhutchin
Not exactly. I know that I would not care what God has done if He did not reveal such to me.
br.d
Here “not exactly” is right!
When Calvin’s god renders certain every sinful thought/choice/action you have – he DOES reveal such to you (a posteriori)
Unless you have no discernment of sinful thoughts/choices/actions when you have them.
He doesn’t reveal them to you (A Priori) so you choose to -quote “not care”
Additionally you don’t care they were rendered certain by factors outside of your control (A universally recognized logical consequence of Theological Determinism).
You are correct when you call that “not exactly” logically consistent.
rhutchin
He has the FINAL SAY on every one of my thoughts, choices, and actions
br.d
FINAL SAY:
Here you are following Calvin’s instructions to make-believe Calvin’s god did not determine *ALL* in EVERY PART – leaving nothing left for you to determine (simple math – subtract *ALL* X and you get zero X)
You manifest his instructions – while convincing yourself you are not.
rhutchin
determined by Him..every one of them finds its source in my will and what I desire.
br.d
Not exactly is again right!
Each thought/choice/action was birthed/authored/conceived at the foundation of the world before you existed.
Unless you can prove yourself the source of something that existed before you did.
On the other hand if Calvin’s god rendered certain a “Salvific” thought/choice/action” you would would not say you were its source.
But it had its source in Calvin’s god’s mind – at the foundation of the world.
So you are correct – “not exactly” logically consistent.
What you are revealing – these are irrationalities the Calvinist learns to live with.
rhutchin
God has also given me promises whereby I can ask Him for wisdom and other help and thereby avoid sinful thoughts, choices, and actions.
br.d
Here again you are following Calvin’s instructions – “go about your office AS-IF Calvin’s god doesn’t determine *ALL* in every part – leaving nothing left for you to determine (simple math – subtract *ALL* X and you get zero X)
rhutchin
It is the unbeliever who has nothing to do with God and is captive to his sinful nature..slavery to his sinful nature..
br.d
Here we have the logical fallacy of “false attribution”
The Calvinist is mentored in how to mentally maintain this.
He won’t claim this for “salvific” events – just for “sinful evil” events.
Double-speak is the outward expression.
rhutchin
The believer desires God’s involvement in every aspect of his life and thereby escapes.
br.d
Same irrationality as above.
Dr, Erich Fromm studied this aspect of Calvinism and called it “Escape from freedom”
rhutchin
God has determined ALL things, bringing about SOME outcomes by His power and others through a synergistic process…etc.
br.d
Synergism in Calvinism is amorphous – like a mirage in the desert.
Logic stipulates your every thought/choice/action are rendered certain by factors outside your control (A universally recognized logical consequence of Theological Determinism). Calvinists are mentored in how to perceive illusions of IN-determinism as real.
Conclusion:
One can make-believe oneself to be logically consistent while in truth being double-minded.
I should add, there are two classes of Calvinists: the ones who knowingly twist words, and the ones who have been deceived by twisted words. However, they both end up twisting words.
Yes, agreed!
I think that is the rule and not the exception.
If that weren’t the case Calvinism would go the way of the dinosaur.
However, from what I’ve read of Calvinist Vincent Chung – I’d say he may be the exception to the rule.
But Calvinist leaders like Sproul, MacArthur and Piper know full well – if they speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – people will leave in droves.
That’s why they are such experts in double-speak.
TS00 writes, “However, they both end up twisting words.”
That is why definitions of terms are critical. Now, if someone could devise a viable definition of Libertarian Free Will, that would be great.
br.d writes, “You changed the wording.”
I added one word – which could certainly be implied in your original statement. Then, you say, “This is all about shifting the meanings of words.” How did my addition of the word, “will,” shift the meaning of any word in your statement??
The problem here is that you don’t seem to be able to explain your position – in the case, why the addition of one word, “will,” makes such a difference. Even with the addition of the word, “will,” we still have a true statement, “God decrees [what] Adam WILL do (at Time X).” The issue is whether Adam “can” do otherwise that what he will do. I don’t see anything in your arguments that prevents a person being able to to otherwise that what he will do.
As I said – your dancing – playing the semantic games again.
And of course for no one can explain X.
That is – when X doesn’t fit Calvinism’s double-think.
And like I said – the SOT101 reader can review the thread – and see where you’ve shifting the meaning of words.
To understand Calvinism one must recognize:
The Calvinist is a determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking points :-]
I have never heard a Calvinist say “Calvin’s god ordains evil so that good may come”.
They may get occasional pricks of conscience as that is a logical conclusion of the doctrine.
But they are patriotic to the doctrine and nothing else (including Jesus).
So they will never acknowledge its logical conclusions.
br.d writes, “I have never heard a Calvinist say “Calvin’s god ordains evil so that good may come”.”
Thus, we read in Romans 8, “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” We know from experience that evil things happen to those who love God – evil things can only happen because God ordains/allows/permits such things to happen. God causes all things – including evil things – to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. Some may shorten this to, “Calvin’s god ordains evil so that good may come.” It’s the logical conclusion, even exactly, what Romans 8 tells us. So, what’s the point??
Not getting the point?
Nothing new here…… move along …. move along :-]
Rhutchin writes:
“Then, ‘No matter how many tortures, murders or excommunications, people simply refuse to worship a God who desires and ordains evil, then puts the blame on man.”
Even you cannot deny that God is present at every torture, murder and excommunication and that God has the power to stop whatever evil is occurring and does not – thereby ordaining it.”
I may have to explain to God why I grieved, mourned and wept; why I angrily shouted, ‘Why, God, why do you allow such evil to happen? I just cannot face another day of discovering more abuse, more oppression and more injustice. Forgive me, but I just can’t understand it. Please, please make it all stop.’ He might reprove me for not having enough faith, as Jesus often did his disciples. I will freely confess that it is true, as I do today, when I ask for greater faith.
But I would sure hate to be Rhutchin, and have to explain why I calmly told others that God not merely endured evil that he utterly despised for a season, for reasons beyond our grasp, but that he himself ordained that evil for his own ‘good pleasure’, that he cursed men with a ‘deadness’, a sinful nature, that assured that such evil came to pass; that he himself ‘ordained’ every rape, murder and oppression that evil men did against his one and only will – that all men do what is good and right.
I’m not sure you will find your word games very helpful, as you attempt to explain why ‘ordain’ simply means the same as ‘permit’. Why, if you simply meant God stands aside and permits evil, you didn’t just say so. That is exactly what non-Calvinists believe, and state it plainly, with a reasonable explanation for its necessity.
But to employ the words ‘ordain’ or ‘predetermine’ demands an entirely different viewpoint than does ‘permit’. To assert that God ‘ordains’ and ‘predetermines’ whatsoever comes to pass, when he himself issues many warnings to men to turn from wickedness and instead to what is right, leaves the determinist on pretty flimsy ground. (Particularly those who engaged in forums where many well-meaning individuals brought such warnings to their attention, in case they were unaware of them.) The Calvinist asserts that the potential existence of evil is not merely an unavoidable necessity in granting men the genuine freedom to choose to do or not do what is good. The Calvinist claims that God deliberately chose, dreamed up, planned and irresistibly determined from his, the only causative power in the universe, not only the existence of evil, but its every putrid expression, using helpless pieces of clay as the means. Then they, as they claim does their God, blame the helpless, ‘dead’, resistless pieces of clay for doing the evil their God supposedly ordained for them to do long before they were born.
See if God buys your argument, when you try to explain that you did not mean for a moment to suggest that when you said he ‘ordained’ evil that he was the ’cause’ of evil or the ‘author’ of sin. Maybe he won’t bring his thesaurus.
Nor do I imagine you will launch into wordy explanations for ignoring the clear statements of scripture that God hates evil, does not desire that any man do evil EVER and sent countless prophets and warnings to turn men from their independently imagined and chosen evil – the sort of evil which never even entered his mind for them to do. I don’t think you will boldly insist that God ordained the very evil he clearly claimed to have never thought of. You might blubber that you were only trying to defend his glory, but I’m thinking you won’t get very far.
For all will be bowing and praising the revelation of his true glory – the redemption and restoration of his beloved creation, as promised.
TS00 writes, “I may have to explain to God why I grieved, mourned and wept; why I angrily shouted, ‘Why, God, why do you allow such evil to happen?”
So, here TS00 concedes that the Calvinists are correct – God has the power to stop all sin and chooses not to do so.
Then, “Why, if you simply meant God stands aside and permits evil, you didn’t just say so. That is exactly what non-Calvinists believe, and state it plainly,…”
The use of terms like “permit” are an accommodation to non-Calvinists who use such langusge not understanding that “to permit” is the same as “to ordain” for a sovereign God.
Then, “…with a reasonable explanation for its necessity. ”
LOL! Reasonable explanation??? Really???
Then, “But to employ the words ‘ordain’ or ‘predetermine’ demands an entirely different viewpoint than does ‘permit’.”
So says the person who apparently does not understand the concept of sovereignty.
Then, “The Calvinist claims that God deliberately chose, dreamed up, planned and irresistibly determined from his,…”
The non-Calvinist just says that God ad hocs everything.
br.d writes, “The foundational core of Calvinism is Theological Determinism.”
But Calvinism seems to diverge from Theological Determinism at critical points making any comparison a futile effort.
br.d
The foundational core of Calvinism is Theological Determinism.”
rhutchin
But Calvinism SEEMS to diverge from Theological Determinism at critical points making any comparison a futile effort.
br.d
The key word in there is SEEMS.
Calvinists retain credibility by double-speak, contorted logic, and by making-believe illusions are real.
Take for example Calvin’s instructions to his disciples.
“Go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined in ANY part (by the THEOS).
This instruction reveals that Calvin’s doctrine’s foundation is Theological Determinism.
Yet Calvin diverges from that by instructing disciples to “Make-Believe” the opposite in respect to their practical lives.
What Calvin is revealing is what his doctrine stipulates.
That Calvin’s god determines *ALL* things in *EVERY* part.
Now take this as an example.
Jane has a box filled with 100 plastic squares which are red.
Jane EXCLUSIVELY determines the color of *ALL* of the plastic squares in the box.
How many plastic squares in the box does Bill determine the color of?
Easy – simple math – the answer is NONE.
Now apply that simple logic to Calvinism where Calvin’s god EXCLUSIVELY determines *ALL* neurological impulses in *EVERY* part.
How many neurological impulse does the human determine?
Easy – simple math – the answer is NONE.
So how does the Calvinist embrace that belief and still retain a sense of being biblical?
By following Calvin’s instruction.
Go about your office MAKING BELIEVE its what you embrace as TRUE is FALSE.
That explains why Calvinism SEEMS to diverge from Theological Determinism
br.d writes, “The key word in there is SEEMS.”
This is based on the way you are explaining Theological Determinism. If we assume that you know what you are talking about, then we see that Calvinism diverges from what you claim for Theological Determinism
br.d writes, “The key word in there is SEEMS.”
rhutchin
This is based on the way you are explaining Theological Determinism. If we assume that you know what you are talking about, then we see that Calvinism diverges from what you claim for Theological Determinism
br.d
What I see is you putting your finger on the balancing scale in order to make it read what you want it to read.
First you say Calvinism seems to diverge from Theological Determinism.
Then when that doesn’t work – you switch to br.d’s version of Theological Determinism diverges from Theological Determinism.
Like the money changer who secretly puts his finger on the balancing scale to make it read what he wants.
Less for when buying the coin.
More for when selling it.
Theological Determinism has been well standardized – and defined within Christian Philosophy.
That is why William Lane Craig can have published discussions with Paul Helms and other philosophically disciplined Calvinists who are willing to follow those standards.
And that is why I love logic.
It allows me to see through all of the Calvinist games and semantic tricks. :-]
Moving the goal-post whereever it serves your purpose is not working for you rhutchin
br.d writes, “First you say Calvinism seems to diverge from Theological Determinism.
Then when that doesn’t work – you switch to br.d’s version of Theological Determinism diverges from Theological Determinism.”
This stared when you claimed, ““The foundational core of Calvinism is Theological Determinism.” Earlier, you had said, “For me it really all boils down to Calvinism having Theological Determinism as its core foundation and blue-print.” To explain this, you cited Plantinga robot that “deserves no moral attribution for what he does because his actions are DETERMINED by an intelligence outside of himself and outside of his control.” However, under Calvinism, the person’s actions are determined by factors inside himself – his nature – and the outside intelligence (God) intervenes to close doors to the individual that are not God’s will. Where God leaves the door open for a person to act in accord with his nature, then we know that there is a concurrence between man’s will and God’s will.
I think Plantunga is actually arguing the case against determinism and not necessarily theological determinism.
rhutchin
God leaves the door OPEN for a person to act in accord with his nature, then we know that there is a concurrence between man’s will and God’s will.
I think Plantunga is actually arguing the case against determinism and not necessarily theological determinism.
br.d
Firstly, your now speaking the language of OPEN theism – which you would otherwise reject.
Logically possible in the world of IN-determinism but not in the world of Theological Determinism
In order to show that Calvin’s god -quote “leaves the door OPEN for a person to act” – you’ll have to show how it is that Calvin’s god, via decrees at the foundation of the world, makes every person’s act FIXED IN THE PAST having been determined in every part, millennia before the person’s exists – is both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
Secondly, it is understandable why Calvinists have a desperate need for determinism to SEEM as IN-determinism
Note here I am using your terminology – “Calvinism SEEMS to diverge from Theological Determinism”
But again this is not logically possible any more than a square circle.
Thirdly,
You’re grasping at straws to think Theological Determinism will not be Determinism simply because it is Theological.
A theological book still has all of the characteristics of being a book – regardless of whether its theological.
Dr. Plantiga would find the argument humorous :-]
br.d writes, “Firstly, your now speaking the language of OPEN theism – which you would otherwise reject.”
This is wrong. God’s decisions were made in eternity past. OPEN Theism says that God is making decisions in the course of time as He learns new information.
br.d writes,
“Firstly, your now speaking the language of OPEN theism – which you would otherwise reject.”
ruthcin
This is wrong. God’s decisions were made in eternity past. OPEN Theism says that God is making decisions in the course of time as He learns new information.
br.d
You used the language of “God leaving the door OPEN for persons to act”.
-wikipedia quote on OPEN Theism:
“God’s providence is flexible.” Thus, the FUTURE as well as God’s knowledge of it is LEFT OPEN (hence “open” theism).
Your statement concerning “God making decisions” on OPEN Theism is outside of the scope of your original wording.
And besides – You’re still left with the burden of showing how Calvin’s god can -quote “leave the door OPEN for a person to act” –
where you’ll have to show how it is that Calvin’s god, via decrees at the foundation of the world, makes every person’s act FIXED IN THE PAST having been determined in every part, millennia before the person’s exists – is both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
br.d writes, “You used the language of “God leaving the door OPEN for persons to act”.
-wikipedia quote on OPEN Theism:
“God’s providence is flexible.” Thus, the FUTURE as well as God’s knowledge of it is LEFT OPEN (hence “open” theism).”
To TS00: Here is an example where br.d does not understand context. That God opens doors and closes doors is basic terminology used within the church as people speak of God making known His will for a person. It has nothing to do with Open Theism.
br.d writes, “You used the language of “God leaving the door OPEN for persons to act”.
-wikipedia quote on OPEN Theism:
“God’s providence is flexible.” Thus, the FUTURE as well as God’s knowledge of it is LEFT OPEN (hence “open” theism).”
rhutchin
To TS00: Here is an example where br.d does not understand context. That God opens doors and closes doors is basic terminology used within the church as people speak of God making known His will for a person. It has nothing to do with Open Theism.
br.d
Even if that statement is not a reference to OPEN Theism on your part – those exact words could easily be enunciated by an OPEN Theist describing the future as OPEN.
However, concerning Calvin’s god opening doors perhaps you should read this:
LUKE SKYWALKER IN THE CLOUD CITY AND CALVINISM
https://soteriology101.com/2018/05/25/can-the-lost-do-what-is-right/comment-page-1/#comment-26841
And remember – In Theological Determinism, where there is only one unique “settled” future – such that our every future thought/choice/desire/action is immutably predestined before we were born – our freedom is like Luke Skywalker’s movements through the Cloud City. Restricted and limited to only one unique predestined path – where “do otherwise” from what is predestined is a human illusion.
br.d writes, “Even if that statement is not a reference to OPEN Theism on your part – those exact words could easily be enunciated by an OPEN Theist describing the future as OPEN.”
Yeah, but who cares? Open Theism is not the issue here. Why confuse the discussion with such rabbit trails?
Then, “our freedom is like Luke Skywalker’s movements through the Cloud City. Restricted and limited to only one unique predestined path – where “do otherwise” from what is predestined is a human illusion.’
Yet, the person’s movements are consistent with the person’s desires such that they are the same choices he would make in the absence of his actions being predestined. That a person’s choices are predestined does not make those choices different than if they were not predestined. So, what is your point?
br.d
“your freedom is like Luke Skywalker’s movements through the Cloud City. Restricted and limited to only one unique predestined path – where “do otherwise” from what is predestined is a human illusion.’
rhutchin
Yet, the person’s movements are consistent with the person’s desires such that they are the same choices he would make in the absence of his actions being predestined. That a person’s choices are predestined does not make those choices different than if they were not predestined. So, what is your point?
br.d
Firstly: This argument is totally unsustainable and a complete gamble.
Dr. Alvin Plantinga comments on it in his book: “God Freedom and Evil”.
-quote “One might as well claim that being in jail doesn’t really limit one’s freedom on the grounds that if one were NOT in jail, he’d be free to come and go as he pleased. So I shall not bother to take this argument seriously enough to say any more about it.
Secondly:
Consider the logical consequence of that argument.
Calvin’s god creates a creature who WILL DO EXACTLY the same thing making PREDESTINATION IRRELEVANT.
That robs predestination of its distinctive role in Calvin’s god’s model and robs it of its viability and efficacy.
Again – John Calvin would be giving you a tongue lashing for that argument.
br.d writes, “Dr. Alvin Plantinga comments on it in his book: “God Freedom and Evil”.
-quote “One might as well claim that being in jail doesn’t really limit one’s freedom on the grounds that if one were NOT in jail, he’d be free to come and go as he pleased. So I shall not bother to take this argument seriously enough to say any more about it.”
A person in jail is free to do anything he wants within the confines of the jail but nothing outside the jail. Applied to the Scriptures, a person enslaved to sin is free to do anything within the confines of that slavery and nothing outside. So, what’s the point – are you saying that, contra Calvinism – people are not enslaved to sin?
Then, “Calvin’s god creates a creature who WILL DO EXACTLY the same thing making PREDESTINATION IRRELEVANT.’
The effect of predestination is to produce an outcome different than that which the creature would do in the absence of God’s intervention. If predestination were irrelevant, no one would be saved (or, as a sop to the non-Calvinists, not as many)..
Roger you said – “OPEN Theism says that God is making decisions in the course of time as He learns new information.”
That is close… though I wouldn’t say it’s “new information” but a change within His infinite understanding of the truth value of the information He possesses. Things go from being known by Him as future to known as past and from known as possible to known as permitted or caused by the activity of His freewill.
His freewill is not locked in and limited to never actually choosing anything by some eternal immutable “shadow” force called Fate that He just seems to agree with all the time according to Calvinists.😉
HEY BRIAN!!!
Wonderful to see you!!! 😀
Br.D. I’m always lurking in the room at different times! 😂
Glad to know you’re keeping a watchful eye on the city. :-]
brianwagner writes, “I wouldn’t say it’s “new information” but a change within His infinite understanding of the truth value of the information He possesses.”
LOL!! I guess you see this as a “change” to something old.
Then, ‘Things go from being known by Him as future to known as past and from known as possible to known as permitted or caused by the activity of His freewill. ”
I think you mean, “Things go from being known by Him as a possible future to known as past, and actual,…”
But this confuses me: “… and from known as possible to known as permitted or caused by the activity of His freewill.” You have God knowing something as “possible” and then as “permitted…” So, what affected this change if not new information – i.e., learning what people actually chose to do. If there was no new information, what is the catalyst for change?
I understand your confusion. But I have great confidence that if you read what I wrote closely again and think about it, you’ll figure it out. 😊
If knowing something as future changing to knowing it as past is knowing something new, and knowing something possible changing to knowing it as caused or permitted is knowing something new, then we agree on that definition of “new” within His infinite understanding of all things.
It would be like me knowing you have 10 possible flavors of ice cream to choose from in the store (not 11 or more and not 9 or less) and then changing to know which one you chose that I then bought for you to enjoy! 😊
brianwagner writes, ” then we agree on that definition of “new” within His infinite understanding of all things.”
I think you mean, “…within the limits on His infinite understanding of all things.” I don’t think your position allows infinite understanding to extend to future events; only to present and past events.
Then, “It would be like me knowing you have 10 possible flavors of ice cream to choose from in the store (not 11 or more and not 9 or less) and then changing to know which one you chose that I then bought for you to enjoy! ”
Good illustration of “new” information. It’s like a lottery ticket; all numbers are possible until the winner is picked. You can’t cash in a possible winner, but you can cash in the actual winner.
But I could choose the icecream flavor for you in that moment or even hours before, and God could choose to cause a certain sequence of numbers in the lottery if He wants. That is not a limitation in His perfect infinite understanding… it is just a change in the truth value of what’s possible. You’ll accept this some day… Roger… I have faith!
Take the last word!
brianwagner writes, “That is not a limitation in His perfect infinite understanding… it is just a change in the truth value of what’s possible.”
“…change in the truth value…”!! Sounds like an attempt to obfuscate to me. Aren’t you just using a grandiose term to add to the body of truth that exists?
So, if a “truth value” changes, doesn’t one’s understanding also change? A correct understanding of events can only occur if that understanding is based on truth. Change the “truth value” and one’s understanding also changes. The pre-truth value understanding must be different than the post-truth value understanding – the understanding of the pre- and post-truth value cannot both be perfect. The only way to make both “perfect” is to separate one from the other according to their situation – each is perfect relative to their situation. That would make understanding finite as it is changeable.
Roger… you had the last word, but since you asked questions that I took as more than rhetorical, I will briefly answer.
There is no “pre-truth” or “post-truth” just a change from one truth about an event (future/possible) to another truth (past/caused or permitted). God’s understanding changes but doesn’t increase or decrease or become more or less perfect. That change is imperfection is a false premise.
brianwagner writes, “That change is imperfection is a false premise.”
Change is a movement from one position to another – the premise here is that the change is to a more complete body of truth which can be described as “perfect” making the previous body of truth “not perfect.”
Here we receive a hint at just whence Calvinism was derived: the minds of philosopher/theologians.
Of course if Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Augustine or Calvin said it, it must be true. God cannot ‘change’, else he would not be God! I leave it to the fine FOH to recite how many times scripture reports that God ‘would have’ done this, or ‘wanted to’ do that, or promises to reward with forgivenss and life, ‘if only’ . . . but the choices of men, made possible by his gift of free will, prevent him from ‘forcing’ his will upon them, however much he desires to shower his creation with mercy and blessings.
Blasphemy, to those who insist upon putting God in their philosophical boxes of ‘Sovereign’ and ‘immutable’.
I suspect God is not terribly concerned with meeting the rigid standards of philosopher/theologians. He is more concerned with revealing his goodness, mercy and love to his prodigal children.
TS00
Yes…. men come up with ideas of what “God must be like” and then impose that on all scripture.
If God has already decided all things…. and man’s present actions have nothing to do with it…. then He is being deceptive (at best) when He says all of the “I would have if you ….” or “How many times I wanted you to ….but you did not”
If you take the time to look that stuff up in Grudem’s (or other) systematic theology books they always say ….. “Well God doesn’t really mean that…” They they will provide one small verse (or half verse) to discount the hundreds of verses that say it.
So what do those hundreds of verses mean then? What is the point? What is the message of the Bible?
Calvinist message:
God has already decided (unchangeably, immutably) all that will happen (thoughts, sins, actions). You only think you are impacting anything by praying, being patient, drawing near, fixing your eyes….. nope.
Nah, the Calvinists say the script is written and if man had ANY thing to do with it, that will cause God to “react” “answer” “change”.
Man made idea.
TS00 writes, “Of course if Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Augustine or Calvin said it, it must be true. God cannot ‘change’, else he would not be God! ”
Samuel was apparently a disciple of Plato as he said, “God is not a man that He should change His mind.” (1 Samuel 15)
Then, God Himself put these words in Balaam’s mouth, ““God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”
Then, we have Isaiah 14, “‘The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, “Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand,…’ For the LORD of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?”
If the Scriptures say it, surely, it must be true, but TS00 says, “Blasphemy, to those who insist upon putting God in their philosophical boxes of ‘Sovereign’ and ‘immutable’.”
Then, “I suspect God is not terribly concerned with meeting the rigid standards of philosopher/theologians. He is more concerned with revealing his goodness, mercy and love to his prodigal children.”
At least, TS00 got it right at the end. God is more concerned with His elect – His prodigal children.
TS00,
We are all guilty of “selective information” but the Calvinists take that to an extreme.
They have 2 verses about God not changing His mind that seem to trump all the hundreds of other verses saying “He repented of His action” or “He regrets His action” or “If you do this I will change my plans and do this….”
The verses they use are very context specific— and taken out of context (surprise!).
Let’s take the 1 Samuel 15 passage. Here is the Calvinist ESV in verses 11 and 35….
11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.”
35 “And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.”
It is puzzling…even hilarious that sandwiched between those two verses the ESV says…
29 “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.”
So the Lord says He regrets (many place in Scripture) ….but they quote ONLY verse 29 and that trumps all other place in Scripture.
Look at how the NLT translates verse 29.
29 “And he who is the Glory of Israel will not lie, nor will he change his mind, for he is not human that he should change his mind!”
So, we can see that Saul is imploring Samuel to change his mind about Saul being King. But Samuel tells him “nor will he change his mind” . Samuel is saying….Saul…. no matter how much you beg, on this matter, God will not change His mind.
It’s not rocket science. People go to the Bible with the answers.
Calvinist Answer: God does not change.
Calvinist Objective: find any verse or half verse that states something similar— even out of context
Calvinist Tactic: repeat that verse even if people show you hundreds of verses to the contrary.
Dont people find it interesting that one of the two, go-to, half-verses that Calvinists use out-of-context is preceded and followed by verses that say God regrets? The ESV just kills me!
FOH writes, “Dont people find it interesting that one of the two, go-to, half-verses that Calvinists use out-of-context is preceded and followed by verses that say God regrets?” His take on v29, “Samuel is saying….Saul…. no matter how much you beg, on this matter, God will not change His mind. ”
So FOH expounds a position on which all agree. FOH ignores the key part of the verse – “God is not a man that He should change His mind.” The Calvinist says that this expresses an universal truth about God – whatever God decrees stands. The Hebrew word translated as “regret” in v11 and v35, is translated as “change His mind” in v29. Thus, we can read v11 and v35 as:
11 “I change my mind that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.”
35 “And the Lord changed His mind that he had made Saul king over Israel.”
We have a clear statement about God – “God is not a man that He should change His mind.” So, we can look at all the reasons for a man to change his mind and these would not be attributed to God. We read where God does make changes. God decreed to destroy Nineveh but then relented when the people repented. So, we see God changing direction when certain things occur.
In the case of Saul, God’s change of mind or change in direction is based on Saul’s actions – God explains, “Saul has turned back from following Me, and has not carried out My commands.” God’s decree that made Saul king included the condition that Saul obey Him if he, and his family, were to continue to rule.
Have Calvinists taken v29 out of context as FOH claims? No. The verse says the truth that “God is not a man that He should change His mind.” God never makes mistakes or does wrong – like men do – such that He should change anything He is doing. God can condition his decrees on the behavior of people. So, Saul, disobeys God and God changes the direction in which He is taking history – the promises made to Saul will now be given to David.
Has God changed in any of this? No, God is still immutable. Has God’s plan been thwarted? No. What is different? God has changed the direction in which He is taking history and this is exactly as He had planned for Christ was never to have come out of Benjamin but out of Judah. God knew that Adam would disobey Him so He made provision for Christ before the foundation of the world. God knew that Saul would disobey Him, so He made provision to make David king.
God is immutable and He does not change. God does have an eternal plan and in that plan, God executes changes in the direction in which He is taking history.
Rhutchin writes:
“We read where God does make changes. God decreed to destroy Nineveh but then relented when the people repented. So, we see God changing direction when certain things occur.
In the case of Saul, God’s change of mind or change in direction is based on Saul’s actions – God explains, “Saul has turned back from following Me, and has not carried out My commands.” God’s decree that made Saul king included the condition that Saul obey Him if he, and his family, were to continue to rule.
Have Calvinists taken v29 out of context as FOH claims? No. The verse says the truth that “God is not a man that He should change His mind.” God never makes mistakes or does wrong – like men do – such that He should change anything He is doing. God can condition his decrees on the behavior of people. So, Saul, disobeys God and God changes the direction in which He is taking history – the promises made to Saul will now be given to David.
Has God changed in any of this? No, God is still immutable. Has God’s plan been thwarted? No. What is different? God has changed the direction in which He is taking history and this is exactly as He had planned for Christ was never to have come out of Benjamin but out of Judah. God knew that Adam would disobey Him so He made provision for Christ before the foundation of the world. God knew that Saul would disobey Him, so He made provision to make David king.
God is immutable and He does not change. God does have an eternal plan and in that plan, God executes changes in the direction in which He is taking history.”
It is not just God that is doing some serious changing here. Rhutchin has here completely abandoned historic Calvinism, pretending that it agrees with what non-Calvinists have been stating for centuries: God is sovereignly in control of his creation, but, having created genuinely free creatures, he executes his plans around and in response to men’s freely chosen, non-determined actions, many of which are in direct opposition to his stated (and unchanging) will, which is that all men do what is good and right.
I congratulate, Rhutchin, for he has finally arrived at the understanding of the non-determinist theology that has long been offered in opposition to Deterministic Calvinism. He has here embraced the main tenets of non-determinism you have denied – on this site – for years. Welcome to the club.
But he cannot simply embrace the opposite of what Calvinism teaches by slyly claiming ‘This is what Calvinism has taught all along. This, as opposed to all that I have been saying in opposition to this again and again and again, is what I really meant. (Wink, wink)’
There is far too much documentation to prove that this is untrue, of both historic Calvinism and of Rhutchin. Were what he writes here what Calvinism actually asserts, there would have never have been a divide, for this is exactly what Arminianism, Traditionalism, Biblicism and most other non-Calvinist doctrines affirm.
Please stop playing games.
TS00,
BTW in your post it is hard to tell when RH words stopped and yours started. But then I saw the word “thwart” and I got it. I knew “thwart” was in his quote since that is a go-to Calvinist word (you can see them a mile away with “two wills,” thwart, pelagian, supralapsarian, “you sound like a universalist!” etc).
I dont really respond to his games. I prefer to just keep reading the Bible and seeing all the ways Christ interacts with humans made in His image.
rhutchin writes: we see God changing direction when certain things occur.
I had a conversation with a Calvinist pastor over this and he insisted my interpretation of this – as God “changing direction” was what he called “IMPROPER EXEGESIS”. He was representing Determinism/Calvinism faithfully – while rhutchin is always trying to escape it.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) EVERY event that will happen in the time-line is SETTLED and FIXED IN THE PAST (at the foundation of the world). In this scheme the idea of Calvin’s god “changing direction” is an oxymoron or simply double-speak.
Many Calvinists want to have determinism and IN-determinism at the same time.
He ends up wanting X to be:
Unpreventable AS-IF Preventable
Unchangable AS-IF Changeable
Predestined AS-IF UN-Predestined
Decreed AS-IF Not Decreed
Made to happen AS-IF Permitted to happen
The best way to understand Calvinism:
A Calvinist is a determinist wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking points :-]
br.d writes, ‘I had a conversation with a Calvinist pastor over this and he insisted my interpretation of this – as God “changing direction” was what he called “IMPROPER EXEGESIS”. He was representing Determinism/Calvinism faithfully – while rhutchin is always trying to escape it.”
So, how did he explain it?? God’s changing of direction are built into His eternal plan. Adam’s sin was foreknown and Christ was slain before the foundation of the world. The depravity of man after Adam was expelled from the garden led to Noah’s flood. Saul’s sin led to the anointing of David as king as God had already planned for the birth of Christ. The Scriptures are clear that God begins in one direction and shifts to a new direction at times – expelling Adam from the garden, Noah’s flood; the confusion of languages at Babel, the calling of Abraham, the appointment of Saul as king and then David, the destruction of Israel and then Judah, the coming of Christ, the calling of gentiles to salvation. All of this is according to God’s plan and settled before God created the universe.
TS00 writes, “non-Calvinists have been stating for centuries: God is sovereignly in control of his creation, but, having created genuinely free creatures, he executes his plans around and in response to men’s freely chosen, non-determined actions, many of which are in direct opposition to his stated (and unchanging) will, which is that all men do what is good and right.”
The point of dispute in TS00’s statement is the meaning of “genuinely free creatures.” Calvinists are clear in saying that “genuinely free creatures” are those who are able to pursue their desires without coercion. What non-Calvinists mean by “genuinely free creatures” is unknown. TS00 tried to define it in a comment some time ago and did not say anything definitive. Dr. Flowers says it is the ability to choose otherwise, which works in the Calvinist system.
The other issue above is “non-determined actions.” What does that mean? Under Calvinism, people are the primary determiners of their actions and most people understand that one’s desires can determine one’s actions. So, this is as fuzzy as the free-will claim.
Then, ‘He has here embraced the main tenets of non-determinism you have denied – on this site – for years.”
That’s because they agree on most things including “God is sovereignly in control of his creation,” and “he executes his plans around and in response to men’s freely chosen…actions.”
Then, ‘Were what he writes here what Calvinism actually asserts, there would have never have been a divide, for this is exactly what Arminianism, Traditionalism, Biblicism and most other non-Calvinist doctrines affirm. ”
That’s because there is much agreement among these. Most non-Calvinists who have a problem with the Calvinists on free will coincidentally have no problems with God knowing the future perfectly or His sovereignty. People like Brian Wagner and the Open Theists are still a small minority within non-Calvinist circles.
Small group of scholars perhaps Roger… but I bet if a poll were taken asking if believers thought the future is set to work out only one way and God has already decreed all His decisions for it that never will change… I bet there are more in my camp than yours! 😉
Brian,
You know I think most Christians follow Open Theism more than they realize. It has just been framed in such a way that some people say “heresy” the minute they hear it. Which I remind you, they did in “the church” when the Reformers made early some statements.
One generations “heresy” is another generations “doctrine”.
But most people when they pray, or help their kids with homework, or spend extra time visiting their kids, or older folks, or in-bound folks, think that it is “making a difference”. What a horrid, impersonal, we-are-not-created-in-God’s-image thought to think that we make no difference, affect no outcome, alter no directions that have not already by set in stone!
And besides Scripture is on our side. God said (many times, and many ways) things like this to Saul,
1 Samuel 13:13 “You have done a foolish thing,” Samuel said. “You have not kept the command the Lord your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time. 14 But now your kingdom will not endure; the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him ruler of his people, because you have not kept the Lord’s command.”
— you have not keep the Lord’s command (the Lord did not get what He wanted)
— “if you would have ….He would have….” (God’s action are clearly conditional on man’s)
— the Lord sought out a new person, BECAUSE you have not kept His command (God’s reacts to man actions)
To David, Nathan says…
2 Samuel 2:8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes?
— Why would the God that Calvin proposes EVER says “I would have”?? Calvin’s God could never live in such a personal relationship with man to say “I would have, I you had only…..”
To Calvinist that makes Him non-sovereign and weak.
To the rest of us, it makes Him sovereign yet personal.
FOH writes, “— “if you would have ….He would have….” (God’s action are clearly conditional on man’s)”
Meaning that, as a Molinist might say, there was another possible world that God could have created in which Saul obeyed God. That world would include a King Saul whose desires were different that in the world God did create. As the Calvinist says, a person does what he desires even when he could have done otherwise.
rhutchin
As the Calvinist says, a person does what he desires even when he could have done otherwise.
Peter Van Inwagen:
– paraphrase: “For the determinist “Can Do Otherwise” statements are nothing more than DISGUISED CONDITIONALS.
If determinism is true, no one CAN DO OTHERWISE”
William Lane Craig
– quote: “In Theological Determinism – God moves people to choose evil, and they CANNOT DO OTHERWISE. God determines their choices”
br.d quoting Peter Van Inwagen:
– paraphrase: “For the determinist “Can Do Otherwise” statements are nothing more than DISGUISED CONDITIONALS.
If determinism is true, no one CAN DO OTHERWISE”
If determinism is true, no one WILL do otherwise even though the ability to do otherwise is present – the person has knowledge of other options and those options can be evaluated against one’s desires. Free will is not voided by determinism – determinism recognizes that some factors are present in decision-making that exert more influence than others and the strongest influences – e.g., desires – determine one’s choices.
The conditionals – desires – are not disguised. Calvinists are open about this – one need only read Jonathan Edwards on free will to see this.
br.d quoting Peter Van Inwagen:
– paraphrase: “For the determinist “Can Do Otherwise” statements are nothing more than DISGUISED CONDITIONALS.
If determinism is true, no one CAN DO OTHERWISE”
rhuthcin
If determinism is true, no one WILL do otherwise even though the ability to do otherwise is present – the person has knowledge of other options and those options can be evaluated against one’s desires. Free will is not voided by determinism – determinism recognizes that some factors are present in decision-making that exert more influence than others and the strongest influences – e.g., desires – determine one’s choices.
The conditionals – desires – are not disguised. Calvinists are open about this – one need only read Jonathan Edwards on free will to see this.
br.d
Your simply playing semantic games here – regarding the way Christian Philosophers use the term “CANNOT DO OTHERWISE”
They obviously mean “Cannot do otherwise” THAN WHAT THE THEOS DETERMINES.
Which you know is the way I’ve stated it – but you strategically omit the caveat so you can have A FORM of “DO OTHERWISE”.
Peter Van Inwagen has your number!
Your FORM of “DO OTHERWISE” is based upon a CONDITIONAL which you DISGUISE by strategically omitting the caveat (sighted above)
Secondly, Alvin Plantinga in his published work “On Ockham’s Way Out” shows how Edward’s logic if fallacious.
Again – rhutchin – you’ve provided us with another good example of Calvinism’s consistent reliance upon deceptive language tricks!
The fact that Calvinists are so reliant upon semantic language tricks is a huge red-flag their is something very wrong with Calvinism.
It produces the sector that their allegiance is to John Calvin first – and Jesus Christ gets whatever is left over.
Thanks for providing this example! :-]
br.d writes, ‘They obviously mean “Cannot do otherwise” THAN WHAT THE THEOS DETERMINES.”
Have you ever run across a proof of this claim? I can see where a person will not do otherwise, but cannot is much stronger. Certainly God’s decrees do not restrict what people can do, or deny people the freedom to do otherwise – God’s decrees deal specifically with what people will do. So, I have problems with the use of “cannot” but if you have run across something that explains the logical connection between determine and cannot, that would be a nice reference.
br.d writes,
‘They [Christian Philosophers] obviously mean “Cannot do otherwise” THAN WHAT THE THEOS DETERMINES.”
rhutcnin
Have you ever run across a proof of this claim?
br.d
This shows your need to not see determinism as determinism.
In Philosophy, determinism is determinism – whether or not it is “natural”, or “theological” determinism, or any other type.
A theological book has all of the characteristics of being a book.
Just because its a theological book doesn’t take away of its characteristics of being a book.
Obvious my statement above is enunciated by William Lane Craig – Peter Van Inwagen, Alvin Plantinga – and a host of other Christian Philosophers – when addressing the logical consequences of Theological Determinism.
It doesn’t take a genius to connect those dots.
br.d’s claim, “‘They [Christian Philosophers] obviously mean “Cannot do otherwise” THAN WHAT THE THEOS DETERMINES.””
I had asked, “Have you ever run across a proof of this claim?
br.d responded, “This shows your need to not see determinism as determinism.”
His answer being, No. But br.d is a man of faith, “Obvious my statement above is enunciated by William Lane Craig – Peter Van Inwagen, Alvin Plantinga – and a host of other Christian Philosophers – when addressing the logical consequences of Theological Determinism.” maybe br.d will read what these guys write and run across the proof I am seeking. Maybe not; or maybe there is no proof.
rhtuchin
maybe br.d will read what these guys write and run across the proof I am seeking. Maybe not; or maybe there is no proof.
br.d
Everyone here at SOT101 already recognizes this is as a facade.
The Calvinist is not here seeking proof – he is here to sharpen his expertise in the semantic shell-game – to get around proof.
And this particular case is TOTALLY obvious to everyone – except perhaps those who don’t’ have eyes to see! :-]
brianwagner writes, “I bet if a poll were taken asking if believers thought the future is set to work out only one way and God has already decreed all His decisions for it that never will change…”
I think we need a PhD candidate to to do this research for his thesis. Tell the guy not to go to Charles Stanley’s church – he often says that God knows the future perfectly in his sermons.
Bwagner
Small group of scholars perhaps Roger… but I bet if a poll were taken asking if believers thought the future is set to work out only one way and God has already decreed all His decisions for it that never will change… I bet there are more in my camp than yours!
br.d
“The future is SET”
The funny thing is – rhutchin asserts that one minute and denies and asserts the future is OPEN the next. :-]
br.d writes, “The future is SET”
God’s knowledge of the future makes the future set or certain. People’s knowledge of the future makes the future open or yet to be actualized.
br.d
In theological Determinism “The future is SET” (i.e. FIXED IN THE PAST at the foundation of the world by immutable decrees)
rhutchin
God’s knowledge of the future MAKES the future set or certain.
br.d
Firstly:
In Theological Determinism this is FALSE.
Calvin’s god’s knowledge of a future event is not what MAKES it certain.
You’ve already acknowledged that in many past posts – so here you’re simply speaking double-speak again.
The IMMUTABLE decree is what MAKES a future event RENDERED certain.
Secondly:
Calvinists use the term “certain” as a replacement term for “unavoidable – inevitable”.
These are terms they avoid like the plague because speaking forthrightly doesn’t allow them to hide behind smoke-screen terms which they use to hide Calvinism’s dark implications.
Calvinists strategically try to paint a picture of Calvin’s god – coloring him in a PASSIVE MODE
AS-IF he’s simply operates with (Foreknowledge via observation) concerning evil
To hide the fact that he is its SOURCE of each evil by virtue of decreeing each evil.
They do this to divert attention away from the decrees as the CAUSE of events.
By focusing on Foreknowledge they divert peoples attention away from a focus on the decrees.
Social Psychologists call this “Altruistic Dishonesty”
rhutchin
People’s knowledge of the future MAKES the future open or yet to be actualized.
br.d
This is logically FALSE for the same reason your first statement is logically FALSE
A person’s knowledge of the future does not MAKE the future open.
Knowledge in this context is based upon PERCEPTION
Logic then dictates:
WHERE it is the case that the future is FIXED is Logically TRUE
A perception of the future being OPEN is logically FALSE
So your statement affirms that Calvinists have a psychosocial need to – go about their office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part (by the THEOS). They do this in allegiance with Calvin’s instructions.
Which reveals that Calvinists live in a world of double-speak.
So without realizing – once again you’ve provided another good example – thanks rhutchin! :-]
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god’s knowledge of a future event is not what MAKES it certain.
You’ve already acknowledged that in many past posts – so here you’re simply speaking double-speak again.
The IMMUTABLE decree is what MAKES a future event RENDERED certain.”
“certain” or “rendered certain” – sounds like double-speak by you. I have not acknowledged this in the past. I’m with William Craig on this. God’s foreknowledge makes the future certain but not necessary.
Then, ‘Calvinists use the term “certain” as a replacement term for “unavoidable – inevitable”.”
OK. That’s the sense of Craig’s argument as I understand it. So, what is the issue?
Then, “Calvinists strategically try to paint a picture of Calvin’s god – coloring him in a PASSIVE MODE
AS-IF he’s simply operates with (Foreknowledge via observation) concerning evil
To hide the fact that he is its SOURCE of each evil by virtue of decreeing each evil.”
This is wrong. Calvinism clearly incorporates man’s sinful nature as a source of evil. As God is sovereign, Calvinists say that God can never be passive on anything – all things pass through Him and nothing proceeds further except by His decree.
Then, “They do this to divert attention away from the decrees as the CAUSE of events.”
“Cause” because nothing can happen except by God’s decree. However, “cause” does not mean originator and man’s sinful nature is the originator of the evil he wants to do.
Then, “Logic then dictates:
WHERE it is the case that the future is FIXED is Logically TRUE
A perception of the future being OPEN is logically FALSE”
Yeah, if the one who fixes the future and the one perceiving the future are the same person. Not so if the one fixing the future is one person and the one perceiving the future is a different person.
Then, ‘So your statement affirms that Calvinists have a psychosocial need to – go about their office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part (by the THEOS).”
Not that I am aware. God’s determination of all things is vital to the life of the Calvinist. My experience is that Calvinists reject Calvin’s instructions on this.
Then, “Which reveals that Calvinists live in a world of double-speak.”
Only because you seem compelled to twist Calvinism into something it is not as we see in your comments.
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god’s knowledge of a future event is not what MAKES it certain.
You’ve already acknowledged that in many past posts – so here you’re simply speaking double-speak again.
The IMMUTABLE decree is what MAKES a future event RENDERED certain.”
rhutchin
“certain” or “rendered certain” – sounds like double-speak by you. I have not acknowledged this in the past. I’m with William Craig on this. God’s foreknowledge makes the future certain but not necessary.
br.d
Equivocation – Wikipedia:
In logic, equivocation (‘calling two different things by the same name’) is an informal fallacy
The word “Certain” can be framed to have two very different meanings.
1) Epistemic Certainty: “relating to what one knows”
2) Modal Certainty: “relating to inevitability”
Calvinists use the word “certain” and frame it in sentences making it shape-shift back and forth between those two meanings.
But the phrase “Rendered Certain” strongly infers ACTION not knowledge.
It is dishonest language to equivocate Calvin’s god RENDERING CERTAIN X with Calvin’s god KNOWING X
RENDERING CERTAIN X is a DECIDEDLY ACTIVE mode
KNOWING about x is not.
Calvinist language is consistent equivocal for strategical reasons
And equivocating KNOWING an evil event with CAUSING that evil event is one of their favorite strategies.
Calvinists use the term “certain” as a replacement term for “unavoidable – inevitable”.”
rhutchin
OK. That’s the sense of Craig’s argument as I understand it. So, what is the issue?
br.d
I that one single statement from Dr. Craig you are sighting he is using the term “certain” to mean epistemic certainty.
If you you are savvy enough to acknowledge that Calvin’s god knowledge does not CAUSE the future to be certain – then obviously Dr. Craig is also.
br.d
“Calvinists strategically try to paint a picture of Calvin’s god – coloring him in a PASSIVE MODE
AS-IF he’s simply operates with (Foreknowledge via observation) concerning evil
To hide the fact that he is its SOURCE of each evil by virtue of decreeing each evil.”
rhutchin
This is wrong. Calvinism clearly incorporates man’s sinful nature as a source of evil. As God is sovereign, Calvinists say that God can never be passive on anything – all things pass through Him and nothing proceeds further except by His decree.
br.d
Actually it is quite correct.
Calvinist’s speak double-speak.
This allows them to cover their tracks both ways.
But their language is consistently evasive and misleading – for obvious reasons.
This is reiterated by
William Lane Craig: “Sadly but consistency Calvinists fail to enunciate the radical distinctions of their belief system”
Dr. Jerry Walls “If Calvinists didn’t use misleading rhetoric – they would loose all credibility in two years”
“They do this to divert attention away from the decrees as the CAUSE of events.”
rhutchin
“Cause” because nothing can happen except by God’s decree. However, “cause” does not mean originator and man’s sinful nature is the originator of the evil he wants to do.
br.d
This is FALSE in Theological Determinism.
The THEOS (at the foundation of the world – by virtue of decrees) is the SOURCE and ORIGIN of *ALL* things which come to pass.
*ALL* is UNIVERSAL – means WITHOUT EXCEPTION – which obviously includes every neurological impulse creatures will have.
Then, “Logic then dictates:
WHERE it is the case that the future is FIXED is Logically TRUE
A perception of the future being OPEN is logically FALSE”
rhutchin
Yeah, if the one who fixes the future and the one perceiving the future are the same person. Not so if the one fixing the future is one person and the one perceiving the future is a different person.
br.d
This confirms that Calvinists want to believe TRUTH = FALSE
Let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no”
For everything else comes of evil.
If you believe the future is SETTLED – FIXED IN THE PAST = TRUE then go about your office AS-IF it is TRUE.
Calvinist language in this regard is what the bible calls an “uncertain sound”.
Today it is called “double-speak”
br.d
‘So your statement affirms that Calvinists have a psychosocial need to – go about their office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part (by the THEOS).”
rhutchin
Not that I am aware. God’s determination of all things is vital to the life of the Calvinist. My experience is that Calvinists reject Calvin’s instructions on this.
br.d
You can’t even see how your ever other statement follows it to a T. :-]
I guess that’s to be expected.
“Which reveals that Calvinists live in a world of double-speak.”
rhutchin
Only because you seem compelled to twist Calvinism into something it is not as we see in your comments.
br.d
That is simply a claim for the purpose of deflection.
Let the SOT101 reader examine the precision and carefulness of my language in my posts
And compare that to the highly equivocal (shape-shifting) terms found within your posts
And they can clearly discern which one of us is respecting Jesus Christ with honest language and which one of us is not. :-]
br.d writes, “I that one single statement from Dr. Craig you are sighting he is using the term “certain” to mean epistemic certainty.”
Craig wrote a book – The Only Wise God – in which he argues that God is omniscient and this omniscience makes the future certain – inevitable – that which God knows (the future) is inevitable. So, we seem to agree that, “If you you are savvy enough to acknowledge that Calvin’s god knowledge does not CAUSE the future to be certain – then obviously Dr. Craig is also.”
Then, “Calvinist language is consistent equivocal for strategical reasons And equivocating KNOWING an evil event with CAUSING that evil event is one of their favorite strategies.”
Calvinist are straightforward in saying that God works through secondary means as well as direct action to “cause” all events. God, as sovereign, exercises control over all that happens and nothing can happen without God knowing it and making the decision that it is to be. I don’t see any equivocation here. I don’t see anything wrong when “Calvinists use the term “certain” as a replacement term for “unavoidable – inevitable”.” I think that is the sense in which Craig uses the term so we are getting consistency in this issue.
Then, ‘This is FALSE in Theological Determinism.”
But not in Calvinism thus distinguishing Calvinism from theological determinism. The difference seems to be how each addresses the issue of secondary means.
br.d
“That one single statement from Dr. Craig you are sighting he is using the term “certain” to mean epistemic certainty.”
rhutchin
Craig wrote a book – The Only Wise God – in which he argues that God is omniscient and this omniscience makes the future certain – inevitable – that which God knows (the future) is inevitable. So, we seem to agree that, “If you you are savvy enough to acknowledge that Calvin’s god knowledge does not CAUSE the future to be certain – then obviously Dr. Craig is also.”
br.d
I won’t ask you to sight the specific statement by Dr. Craig – (like I do).
You again simply evaded the point – Calvinists use the term “Certain” as a shape-shifting term.
It shape-shifts back and forth between “epistemic” certainty – and “causal/modal’ certainty.
“Rendering Certain” is a DECISIVELY ACTIVE mode.
Epistemic certainty is not.
Thus proving my point:
“Calvinist language is consistent equivocal for strategical reasons.
And equivocating KNOWING an evil event with CAUSING that evil event is one of their favorite strategies.”
rhutchin
Calvinist are straightforward in saying that God works through secondary means as well as direct action to “cause” all events… exercises control over…..nothing can happen without God knowing…..it and making the decision that it is to be. I don’t see any equivocation here.
br.d
Thanks for acknowledging you don’t see the equivocation- exactly as I explained it above. :-]
rhutchin
distinguishing Calvinism from theological determinism. The difference SEEMS to be HOW each addresses the issue of secondary means.
br.d
Here distinguishing the CAUSE of a logical consequence SEEMS to be how each addresses the issue of the MEANS through which it was CAUSED to occur.
This logical fallacy is saturated in Calvinist thinking
It is a combination of the fallacy of false attribution by voluntarily conflating MEANS with CAUSE.
The Calvinist is mentored in how to hold this as rational logic.
More great examples of how Calvinism conditions the individual into double-mindedness! :-]
Thanks rhutchin for the examples.
TS00:
A bit more about the many times in the Word that the Lord says He changes His mind:
Exodus 32:1 So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
Jeremiah 26:19 “Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves.”
Jonah 4:2 He prayed to the LORD and said, “Please LORD, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity.
Exodus 32:12 “Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, ‘With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people.
Amos 7:3 The LORD changed His mind about this. “It shall not be,” said the LORD.
Amos 7:6 The LORD changed His mind about this. “This too shall not be,” said the Lord GOD.
Jonah 3:9 “Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.”
Jonah 3:10 When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.
Jeremiah 18:8 If that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.
Jeremiah 26:3 ‘Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.’
Jeremiah 26:13 “Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you.
Jeremiah 42:10 ‘If you will indeed stay in this land, then I will build you up and not tear you down, and I will plant you and not uproot you; for I will relent concerning the calamity that I have inflicted on you.
2 Samuel 24:16 When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, “It is enough! Now relax your hand!” And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.
Jeremiah 18:10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.
Ezekiel 7:22 ‘I will also turn My face from them, and they will profane My secret place; then robbers will enter and profane it.
———–
These verses (and plenty more like them) would indicate that God “changes His mind.” Calvinists cant have that (even though it is clearly stated in many places and many different ways).
So they apply a half-verse filter on all of these contexts and multiple verses.
One only has to go look at the two verses they use as a filter and see the context. Bad hermeneutic…. to start with the answer.
If you start with the answer you can make the Bible say what you want. I prefer to listen to the hundreds of verses where God tells us that He interacts with men and women.
FOH writes, “These verses (and plenty more like them) would indicate that God “changes His mind.” Calvinists cant have that (even though it is clearly stated in many places and many different ways).”
We still have the additional information that “God is not a man that He should change His mind.” In Numbers 23, we read:
“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?’
Titus makes note of “God, who cannot lie.”
The need is to reconcile these verses with those that FOH has cited – FOH makes no attempt to do that. So, what does FOH accomplish in citing all those verses? Nothing.
Augustine gets his idea of divine immutability from synchronizing Plato’s doctrine of DDI into Catholic doctrine.
Augustine’s is a period in which Christianity (in the form of Catholicism) was synchronizing itself with Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism which were both extremely prevalent in Augustine’s day. NeoPlatonism – especially among intellectuals.
Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism shared many doctrinal aspects – including Plato’s doctrine of divine immutability.
Total Depravity and Predestination however are more heavily borrowed from Gnosticism than they are from NeoPlatonism.
br.d writes, “Total Depravity and Predestination however are more heavily borrowed from Gnosticism than they are from NeoPlatonism.”
Or they are derived from the Scriptures independent of anything else.
br.d writes, “Total Depravity and Predestination however are more heavily borrowed from Gnosticism than they are from NeoPlatonism.”
rhutchin
Or they are derived from the Scriptures independent of anything else.
br.d
All one need do is study the writings of experts on Augustine’s syncretism – to understand the immaturity of this statement
And you like to say others have imaginations! :-]
br.d writes, “All one need do is study the writings of experts on Augustine’s syncretism – to understand the immaturity of this statement”
Or one can get up to speed on recent work by modern day Calvinists – Pink, Sproul, Gertsner, etc, and see the Scriptural arguments that are the foundation for Calvinism today. It’s time for br.d to stop living in the past.
br.d writes, “All one need do is study the writings of experts on Augustine’s syncretism – to understand the immaturity of this statement”
rhutchin
Or one can get up to speed on recent work by modern day Calvinists – Pink, Sproul, Gertsner, etc, and see the Scriptural arguments that are the foundation for Calvinism today. It’s time for br.d to stop living in the past.
br.d
Representatives of Calvinism – yes.
Experts on the scholarship of the history of Augustine – nowhere will you see these names in academia.
They don’t come close to that level of scholarship. :-]
Right spot on TSOO!
To say “Samuel agreed with Plato” is exactly what one would hear in Augustine’s day of syncretism (NeoPlatonism with Christ)
Plato believed he received intellectual insight from spirit beings he called “Demons”.
He believed they were the spirits of dead men floating in the atmosphere.
He likened a man teaching a man as a goat teaching a goat, rather than a horse teaching a goat.
In other words, he believed the spirit beings were superior in wisdom and intellect above living humans and therefore the better source of information.
Its easy for a Calvinist to read Theological Determinism into the bible.
Men did the same thing with scripture when they believed the sun revolved around the earth and when they believed the earth was flat.
He stretches out the heavens as a scroll – look see that confirms the earth is flat – everyone knows a scroll is flat!
And that’s supposed to be superior exegesis :-]
Rhutchin responds:
“In the Calvinist system, God made man in His image so that neurological impulse are naturally generated within the brain without additional involvement by God and the impulses reflect the nature of the person. God has predestined the impulses by creating man with the means by which impulses are self-generated (i.e., a brain) and His control over them – that control generally being passive so that God does not inhibit the generation of those impulses.”
Of course, he left out one teeny, tiny little detail – which is that (according to Calvinism) God cursed man with a so-called ‘sin nature’ before he generated those brains and let them go their merry way, ‘reflect[ing] the nature of the person’. Some freedom, huh? Just ‘choose’ as you ‘desire’ – because all of your desires have been limited by your cursed sin nature! Bwahaha.
Ask any victim of a narcissistic abuser about the ‘freedom’ they enjoy. Most are not locked up in chains. No indeed, they can ‘choose’ to do whatever they ‘desire’. They enjoy complete ‘freedom’ to come and go, drive cars and interact with others. However, they know that if their ‘desires’ do not line up with the ‘desires’ of their controlling abuser, they will suffer greatly upon making a ‘wrong’ choice. This is the kind of ‘freedom’ that Calvinists, and even much of misled Protestantism, suggests we live under. The threats and warnings of a narcissistic God have been frightening believers since Constantine co-opted and established authority over ‘christianity’ with his Institutionalized Church. The breakaway ‘Reformers’ kept up the same sort of Tyranny, with Calvin’s Geneva and Edwards’ ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God’.
Ya know what? I reject their false vision of who God is. If that means being declared a ‘non-christian’ or a ‘heretic’, so be it. I do not seek to please men, but God, and I’m putting my trust in the Hebrews 11:6 summation of what pleasing God demands. Not being born into one particular family or nation. Not perfection in doctrine or life. Not being circumcised or baptized or having any other sacrament or ceremony performed over me. Not signing a loyalty oath to some manmade set of doctines. But simply believing that God not only exists as the sovereign authority over his creation, but that he is a good and trustworthy God, who generously rewards those who seek him. I believe that my childlike trust in him, and desire to learn to live a life that is pleasing to him by loving others more and self less is really all he asks of me.
Why? Just why do these guys go to such great lengths to avoid the truth about what their belief system demands? Why does Rhutchin attempt to avoid the indisputable fact that, under Calvinism, every single thing has been predetermined by God, including those so-called self-generated neurological impulses? Why does he deceptively try to have it both ways, as do all who claim an illogical and impossible complementarianism of ‘God controls all things, but man is responsible for his own free choices’?
It is like saying a robin is completely free to choose whether to swim or fly. Under Calvinism, since all of our choices and actions have been predetermined and coordinated by God, we are that robin, who is born only capable of flying, and never swimming. The Calvinist blithely watches the bird soar overhead, insisting it has the freedom to swim, if only it so desired – no one is inhibiting it from making that choice. Except that anyone with a tiny bit of sense knows that this particular little birdie is limited to a very small range of ‘choices’, as are its ‘self-generated’ neurological impulses. No properly functioning robin will ever generate a neurological impulse that suggests it should swim, or eat aquatic plants from the bottom of the lake.
What Calvinism alleges – falsely – is that man is the same kind of animal, with the appearance of complete freedom, but actually (shall we say secretly) limited to a very particular range of choices. Of course, we all know that this is true to a degree, as men cannot fly and have other very real limitations. But under Calvinism, man is limited by self-generated neurological impulses by his nature. Note that his nature is not simply that of a human being, which most reasonable men acknowledge. But under Calvinism, this ‘human nature’ was further limited – by the direct curse of God – to being sinful. THAT IS THE BIG LIE! The one that they repeatedly try to hide in the fine print.
The ‘good news’ which Jesus came to declare is that we do not have to be slaves to sin (or any so-called ‘sin nature’). Free from the fear of punishment and death, we can respond to God’s freely offered grace and receive forgiveness and life. There is no ‘fine print’, it is all very simple and straightforward. Our reconciliation to God, or ability to please him, as Hebrews 11:6 tells us, is predicated on the fact that we ‘believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him’.
If we simply believe that he exists, we are no better off than demons, who also know he exists. If we do not believe that he rewards any and all who seek him, we are no better off than Calvinists, who trust smugly in their little make believe world of being ‘special’ and ‘chosen’ no matter how they live or what they do with what they have been given.
Yeah, I guess I can see why they like to hide behind false pretenses, detailing only in the fine print that their ugly little chosen people theology excludes many (most?) from God’s love and promises. Like all bait and switch plans, they make grand, flowery promises of all that God offers, and only – too late – does one uncover the real truth hidden in the fine print of the creeds and confessions, understood fully by only a few: this plan deliberately excludes most from all of the grand benefits promised.
TS00,
I love ya man, but some of your posts sound like “God in the hands of an angry sinner.” Let’s not take it out on God cuz Calvinists misrepresent Him! God can defend Himself!
Jose thinks that contending for the faith means repeating over and over the same idea (what a lovely idea!) that Christ does NOT love everyone and He only died for a very few people in history. I dont think that is the kind of “defense” that God needs.
Besides, since Jose is so entrenched in the “did not die for the goats” idea he misses my point every time. God personally told Cain that he could and should do right. According to their system…. if Cain did not do right it was because God did not give him the faith/ ability.
God tells him “do good” while taunting him behind His back “but I know you cant cuz I did not allow you!”
So that leaves them with a very deceptive, taunting creator…. but he cannot see that since he is convinced of a few “very clear” “non-negotiable” verses. Oh well….. it makes no difference anyway. He does not live like a determinists-Calvinist. He lives like his decisions make a difference.
I like to think of it more as ‘God in the hands of a once hopeless, now relieved, sinner’. 😉 If I am angry it is, I believe, a just anger at those who not only misrepresent God, but do so deceptively. God certainly doesn’t need my help defending himself, but I kinda think he’ll overlook my anger at those who seek to withhold the good news of his love and mercy from those most in need of it. In fact, I suspect that these are the ones who will receive his unrelenting wrath, not the confused, misled and hopelessly deceived.
FOH writes, “God personally told Cain that he could and should do right.”
Here is what the Scriptures tell us: “Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”
I’ll go with the Scriptures on this one.
My guess is that FOH will freely admit to his bias. Calvinists – except for the despised but honest ‘Hyper-Calvinist’ – always deny theirs.
TS00,
That’s right.
I openly admit to my bias that God “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (not “all kinds” of people)
I openly admit that Christ said when He is lifted up He will draw all men to Himself. (not “all kinds” of people)
I admit that God loves all people (not “all kinds” of people)
I admit that God is sovereign and “works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” while allowing His creation (individuals created in His image) some say in the matter (our decisions matter; we have a personal relationship with Him—- it’s not personal if He has given us our every move).
And thanks TS00…. You unpacked the Genesis 4 idea “it desires to have you, but you must rule over it” very well. I have absolutely no idea what any Calvinist can do with this verse. They never even try.
It’s pretty simple:
Fallen Abel chooses to do right.
Fallen Cain (even though warned by God and told, “you must rule over it”) does not.
All of this disproves Total Depravity. Man has what he needs (like Abel) to obey God. That is why it says “And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.” He is telling us…. obey God like I did…. dont rebel like Cain.”
Most Calvinists are smart enough not to claim to be perfect.
They just see themselves as more perfect than everyone else :-]
TS00 writes, “Your bias – that God is a deceptive, controlling narcissist who wants to have his own way but pretend like he is not responsible for the evil he concocted – demands that you view God’s warning to Cain as an insincere word game.”
That statement seems to reflect a bias on your part, don’t you think?
TS00 writes, “Of course, he left out one teeny, tiny little detail – which is that (according to Calvinism) God cursed man with a so-called ‘sin nature’ before he generated those brains and let them go their merry way, ‘reflect[ing] the nature of the person’. Some freedom, huh?”
Genesis explains how this came about – all with the knowledge and consent of God. God created Adam; Adam was perfect and without sin. God declared His creation very good. Then God plants the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden and tells Adam not to eat its fruit. The penalty for eating its fruit is death. Adam eats the fruit and incurs death – both spiritual and physical, one immediate and the other future. Adam’s nature was corrupted and he was expelled from the garden. Adam’s nature was different after he sinned from that before he sinned and the freedom he had before he sinned had changed – he was now a slave to sin. TS00 rightly notes, I think, that God’s punishment for sin is a curse.
rhutchin
Genesis explains how this came about….etc
br.d
of course AGAIN he left out one little tiny little part.
That of Calvin’s god decreeing man’s every neurological impulse – so that they occur inevitably and unavoidably – such that man CANNOT do otherwise than what Calvin’s god decrees.
To understand Calvinism and its double-speak:
One must understand he is a “Determinist” wearing a mask of “IN-determinism” and recites double-speak talking points. :-]
br.d writes, “That of Calvin’s god decreeing man’s every neurological impulse – so that they occur inevitably and unavoidably – such that man CANNOT do otherwise than what Calvin’s god decrees.”
It is also true that man concurs with God’s decree ans does not want to otherwise than what God decrees as this concurs with that which he desires to do.
Rhutchin writes:
‘It is also true that man concurs with God’s decree an[d] does not want to [do] otherwise than what God decrees as this concurs with that which he desires to do.’
Gee, what a surprise: man ‘concurs’ with what God has dictated him to irresistibly do! As if man could ‘desire’ other than what God has ordained him to not only ‘desire’, but to irresistibly do. I’m shocked, shocked that man actually desires what a Sovereign, deterministic God has programmed him to desire. Whodda thunk it? Whether he implants irresistible desires, or holds a gun to a man’s head, it makes no difference; under your system, God gets his way. Always. Period. Whatever means he employs. Just as a computer ‘concurs’ with the programming it has been loaded with – garbage in, garbage out. Man ‘concurs’ because man cannot do otherwise than ‘concur’. But keep weaving your little webs of delusion. Maybe you will even convince yourself.
TS00 and Norm,
That is why I quote some of the hundreds (not tens, not dozens, not scores) of verses where it is clear that man is doing something that God does NOT want.
He says in Jeremiah a couple places, “I did not command you to do that…. it did not even enter my mind.”
I mean how else in the world could the Lord say it? How could He say it more clearly? You have to WANT to not understand those clear statements directly from the Lord.
What if you were God and you wanted your creation to know what you are like. You want them to know you mean when you say “Sovereign Lord.”
So ….over and over you say in you Word….. “I did not want…but you did” “I called but you did not come…” “I wanted … but you did not do” And then….then… to make double-dog sure you say “the stuff you guys are doing did not even enter my mind!!”
Tell me Calvinist friends, how could He be more clear
FOH writes, “That is why I quote some of the hundreds (not tens, not dozens, not scores) of verses where it is clear that man is doing something that God does NOT want. ”
The issue is not “that man is doing something that God does NOT want. ” The issue is to explain this in terms of God’s will given that He is sovereign and could easily prevent any person disobeying Him by simply sitting down for a face to face talk – not just presenting options as He did with Cain..
rhutchin
The issue is to explain this in terms of God’s will given that He is sovereign and could EASILY PREVENT any person disobeying Him.
brd
Calvin’s god is fickle! He PREVENTS what he decrees. :-]
Actually we understand this as a Determinism wearing the mask of IN-determinism.
Here Calvin’s god is going to PREVENT man from disobeying – when it is the case that man CANNOT do otherwise than what Calvin’s god decreed (in eternity past) man do.
Or perhaps Calvin’s god doesn’t remember the disobedience he (at the foundation of the world) decreed man would infallibly do?
Either way when one understands Theological Determinism – the Calvinist’s use of PREVENT language – makes Calvin’s god come off looking like he’s a few french-fries short of a happy meal. :-]
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god is fickle! He PREVENTS what he decrees.”
Once God makes a decision – a decree – of course, there is no preventing. However, br/d, and others, always seem to forget that they believe that God has not made decisions on everything that is to happen. Thus, br.d believes that God can easily prevent every child molestation if He wants to do so. So, why doesn’t God do so? Neither br.d nor others of his mindset will go there. Bereans, they are not.
br.d
“Calvin’s god is fickle! He PREVENTS what he decrees.”
rhutchin
Once God makes a decision – a decree – of course, there is no preventing. However, br/d, and others, always seem to forget that they believe that [Calvin’s] God HAS NOT MADE DECISIONS ON EVERYTHING THAT IS TO HAPPEN.
br.d
This is false in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism)
Calvin’s doctrine of decrees firmly and unequivocally asserts that Calvin’s god decrees *ALL* things WITHOUT EXCEPTION which come to pass.
This is why Christian Philosophers call Calvinism *UNIVERSAL* divine causal determinism.
If you remove that UNIVERSAL scope – Calvinism loses its distinctiveness and becomes a typical protestant theology.
A savvy Calvinist knows the definitions of the logical terms “UNIVERSAL” and “PARTICULAR”.
That’s a huge slip on your part rhutchin!!
But there is a silver lining for you here – you deviated from your standard equivocal language.
So you get a silver star this time for being more forthright. :-]
br.d
Actually I slipped up on this one.
rhutch wrote: “They [non-Calvinists] believe that God does not determine everything in every part.
So lets go back to this.
rhutchin
Once God makes a decision – a decree – of course, there is no preventing.
br.d
Ok you have acknowledged:
1) That once Calvin’s god decrees X – X CANNOT be prevented.
2) Calvin’s god decrees EVERYTHING without exception
3) EVERYTHING WITHOUT EXCEPTION is decreed by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world – millennia before they occur
Conclusion:
Post decrees – EVERYTHING is UN-PREVENTABLE
So you are left explaining why Calvin’s god is not fickle for attempting to PREVENT what is UN-PREVENTABLE :-]
br.d writes, “So you are left explaining why Calvin’s god is not fickle for attempting to PREVENT what is UN-PREVENTABLE”
Not fickle because no such attempt and this because:
1) That once Calvin’s god decrees X – X CANNOT be prevented.
2) Calvin’s god decrees EVERYTHING without exception
3) EVERYTHING WITHOUT EXCEPTION is decreed by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world – millennia before they occur
br.d writes, “So you are left explaining why Calvin’s god is not fickle for attempting to PREVENT what is UN-PREVENTABLE”
rhutchin
Not fickle because NO SUCH ATTEMPT and this because:
1) That once Calvin’s god decrees X – X CANNOT be prevented.
2) Calvin’s god decrees EVERYTHING without exception
3) EVERYTHING WITHOUT EXCEPTION is decreed by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world – millennia before they occur
rhutchin
August 27, 2018 at 5:10 pm
God makes a deliberate decision NOT TO PREVENT, or stop, some evil events
br.d
So then statement -quote “deliberate decision NOT TO PREVENT, or stop, some evil events” is simply another one of your language tricks. Since you’ve now confirmed that NO EVENT can be PREVENTED.
This is why I say Calvinist use of PREVENT language is deceptive double-speak.
Thanks for helping to show how it works. :-]
br.d writes, “So then statement -quote “deliberate decision NOT TO PREVENT, or stop, some evil events” is simply another one of your language tricks. Since you’ve now confirmed that NO EVENT can be PREVENTED.”
The objection is confused. God made deliberate decisions (i.e., decrees) millennia ago not to prevent or stop certain evil events and God’s decrees will not be overturned – God makes decrees after the counsel of His will so that those decrees reflect God’s understanding and wisdom. To then overturn the decree is to move to a position that is less wise and does not accord with His understanding – making it an inferior position.
I did not confirm that “NO EVENT can be PREVENTED” but that no decree will be overturned thereby making certain the event that is the subject of the decree. This is true of God’s decrees regardless when they are made. If, under br.d’s philosophy, God makes decisions (i.e. decrees) in the course of time, they also cannot be overturned – the timing of the decree is irrelevant in determining the immutability of God’s decrees.
br.d
“So then statement -quote “deliberate decision NOT TO PREVENT, or stop, some evil events” is simply another one of your language tricks. Since you’ve now confirmed that NO EVENT can be PREVENTED.”
rhutchin
The objection is confused. God made deliberate decisions (i.e., decrees) millennia ago not to prevent or stop certain evil events and God’s decrees will not be overturned – God makes decrees after the counsel of His will so that those decrees reflect God’s understanding and wisdom. To then overturn the decree is to move to a position that is less wise and does not accord with His understanding – making it an inferior position.
br.d
The confusion is yours – this statement is not logic – its simply repeating the same double-speak over again.
rhutchin
I did not confirm that “NO EVENT can be PREVENTED” but that no decree will be overturned thereby making certain the event that is the subject of the decree.
br.d
If that is the case then your logic is even more skewed than I thought.
In order to show that ANY event can be prevented you’ll have to show how Calvin’s god can decree an event to be both UNPREVENTABLE and PREVENTABLE at the same time.
rhutchin
This is true of God’s decrees regardless when they are made. If, under br.d’s philosophy, God makes decisions (i.e. decrees) in the course of time, they also cannot be overturned – the timing of the decree is irrelevant in determining the immutability of God’s decrees.
br.d
Except that Calvin’s doctrine of decrees specifically stipulates that *ALL* events are decreed at the foundation of the world – so time is relevant. The foundation of the world occurred millennia ago – five minutes from now is a point in time.
If Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world millennia ago, decreed that you would drive your car to the liqueur store tomorrow and get totally drunk. Then at any point (before, during, or after that decree) he is contemplating preventing what he made UNPREVENTABLE – then he is fickle.
Its just that simple :-]
br.d writes, “This is false in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism)”
OK. So. I was writing to TS00 and doing so on his terms – he is the one – not just him but you and others – who says that God id still making decisions regarding future events. Stay with the context. The point is that every theological system recognizes that God is present at every evil event; that God has the power to prevent, or put a stop to, every evil event; and that God makes a deliberate decision not to prevent, or stop, some evil events.
rhutchin
August 27, 2018 at 12:12 pm
Once God makes a decision – a decree – of course, there is NO PREVENTING [it from occurring].
rhutchin
August 27, 2018 at 5:10 pm
God makes a deliberate decision NOT TO PREVENT, or stop, some evil events.
br.d
Lets see how that looks with logic
1) Calvin’s god millennia before it occurs – decrees event X to occur as UNPREVENTABLE
2) Calvin’s god decides not to PREVENT an event which is UNPREVENTABLE
Hmmmm…..
Perhaps he’s not smart enough to know event X is UNPREVENTABLE
Or perhaps he’s not smart enough to know what he decrees is UNPREVENTABLE
Or perhaps he’s not smart enough to know the event he considers PREVENTING was one which he decreed.
Or perhaps he follows Calvin’s instructions – go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part.
In any case he’s not be playing with a full deck of cards! :-]
br.d writes, “Lets see how that looks with logic
1) Calvin’s god millennia before it occurs – decrees event X to occur as UNPREVENTABLE
2) Calvin’s god decides not to PREVENT an event which is UNPREVENTABLE”
1) Calvin’s god millennia before it occurs – decrees event X to occur that decree making the event UNPREVENTABLE – the same would be true where God makes the decree one minuet ago. Once God makes a decree, that subject of the decree becomes unpreventable in that it will not be overturned.
2) Calvin’s god decides (i.e., decreed) not to PREVENT an event a millennia ago which decree than cannot be overturned so that the event becomes UNPREVENTABLE because of the decree..
br.d’s remaining comments reflect an active imagination giving evidence that he does not seem to understand the issue.
br.d writes, “Lets see how that looks with logic
1) Calvin’s god millennia before it occurs – decrees event X to occur as UNPREVENTABLE
2) Calvin’s god decides not to PREVENT an event which is UNPREVENTABLE”
1) Calvin’s god millennia before it occurs – decrees event X to occur that decree making the event UNPREVENTABLE – the same would be true where God makes the decree one minuet ago.
br.d
Except that the doctrine of decrees stipulates that *ALL* events which will come to pass (post decrees) are decreed at the foundation of the world – not one minute ago. Unless you want to argue that the foundation of the world was one minute ago.
rhutchin:
Once God makes a decree, that subject of the decree becomes unpreventable in that it will not be overturned.
br.d
More precisely: Once Calvin’s god makes a decree (at the foundation of the world) – he makes EVERY future event UNPREVENTABLE – millennia before the event occurs by virtue of the fact that *ALL* events are decreed at the foundation of the world.
rhutchin
2) Calvin’s god decides (i.e., decreed) not to PREVENT an event a millennia ago which decree than cannot be overturned so that the event becomes UNPREVENTABLE because of the decree..
br.d
Right – Calvin’s god decides not to PREVENT an event that by its very nature is UNPREVENTABLE (by virtue of the immutable decree making it UNPREVENTABLE).
rhutchin
br.d’s remaining comments reflect an active imagination giving evidence that he does not seem to understand the issue.
br.d
Oh I understand completely!
He contemplates PREVENTING something that by its very nature UNPREVENTABLE.
Perhaps he decides to prevent a square from being a square (before, after, or while) he decrees its squareness to be UNPREVENTABLE!
Calvin’s god sure is fickle. :-]
br.d writes, “Except that the doctrine of decrees stipulates that *ALL* events which will come to pass (post decrees) are decreed at the foundation of the world – not one minute ago. Unless you want to argue that the foundation of the world was one minute ago.”
The Calvinist says that all events are decreed before the foundation of the world. The non-Calvinist says that some events are decreed in the course of time. In either case, the decree is the same. What’s your point?
Then, ‘Right – Calvin’s god decides not to PREVENT an event that by its very nature is UNPREVENTABLE (by virtue of the immutable decree making it UNPREVENTABLE). ”
This is wrong. An event is not unpreventable by its nature but by God’s decree as to its outcome. God decrees the outcome (an event) and that decree makes the event unpreventable.
br.d writes, “Except that the doctrine of decrees stipulates that *ALL* events which will come to pass (post decrees) are decreed at the foundation of the world – not one minute ago. Unless you want to argue that the foundation of the world was one minute ago.”
rhutchin
The Calvinist says that all events are decreed before the foundation of the world. The non-Calvinist says that some events are decreed in the course of time. In either case, the decree is the same. What’s your point?
br.d
It doesn’t matter what the non-Calvinist says.
What matters is what Calvin’s doctrine stipulates.
I think you get the point – but your doing your dance of evasion around it as you know how logically absurd it is.
br.d
Calvin’s god decides not to PREVENT an event that by its very nature is UNPREVENTABLE (by virtue of the immutable decree making it UNPREVENTABLE). ”
rhutchin
This is wrong. An event is not unpreventable by its nature but by God’s decree as to its outcome. God decrees the outcome (an event) and that decree makes the event unpreventable.
br.d
Your chasing your tail here.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) all events are decreed. And by virtue of the decree they are by nature UNPREVENTABLE. Or it is the STATE of the event that it is UNPREVENTABLE.
In Calvinist language – rendered CERTAIN – FIXED IN THE PAST.
The immutable decree is what gives it its nature. As I clearly stated (by virtue of the immutable decree)
Your would like to assert the double-speak that an event can be decreed as both PREVENTABLE and UNPREVENTABLE by using equivocal language that infers it without clearly stating it..
The only way you can argue that Calvin’s god can decree an event as both PREVENTABLE and UNPREVENTABLE is through double-speak.
So far you’ve provided good examples. :-]
br.d writes, “In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) all events are decreed. And by virtue of the decree they are by nature UNPREVENTABLE. ”
How does nature work its way in? One decree may fix the nature to be that inherited from Adam. Another decree may fix an event involving this nature. Nature does not affect any particular decree; it is the decree that affects the nature. An event is affected by the decree; the event does not affect the decree. Nature never enters into the equation (at least, you did not explain how it might).
br.d writes, “In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) all events are decreed. And by virtue of the decree they are by nature UNPREVENTABLE. ”
rhutcnin
How does nature work its way in?
br.d
Not nature as in birds and bees.
Nature as in “The inherent character or basic constitution” or “Fundamental essential attribute”.
Or an alternative word – the “STATE” of the event is that it is UNPREVENTABLE.
UNPREVENTABLE is just another word for “immutable”.
Its constitution is UNPREVENTABLE as a logical consequence of the decree being immutable.
TS00 writes, “Gee, what a surprise: man ‘concurs’ with what God has dictated him to irresistibly do! ”
God dictates that people be free to pursue their desires. Is it difficult for you to understand that God knows your desires and the things you will want to do in the situations that will confront you tomorrow or the next day or later? Even if we allow that God may not know exactly how you might choose is a particular situation, He can close doors on certain options while still providing for the choice you want to make.
Google probably has a fix on your likes if you spend any amount of time on the computer and tailors ads and articles to which you are likely to respond positively. Do you doubt the enormous political influence Google, Twitter, and Youtube are wielding as they restrict conservative content and promote liberal positions? Do you understand that the tech giants are trying to mold your opinion not just to buy certain goods but also to determine how you will vote just like the news programs? Yet, you are still free are you not? So, if tech companies and news shows can figure out what buttons to push to get you excited, why don’t you allow God to be a lot smarter than they are?
Quote derived from the language of Alan Greenspan – and his famous example of double-speak
I know you think you understand what you thought God said in the bible – but I’m not sure you realize that what you thought God said was not what God meant”
Perhaps Alan Greenspan learned this language from Calvinism.
It sure follows their model :-]
br.d writes, “That of Calvin’s god decreeing man’s every neurological impulse – so that they occur inevitably and unavoidably – such that man CANNOT do otherwise than what Calvin’s god decrees.”
rhutchin
It is also true that man concurs with God’s decree ans does not want to otherwise than what God decrees as this concurs with that which he desires to do.
br.d
Simple! That goes without saying. If Calvin’s god decreed you have a sinful neurological impulse, making that impulse occur within your brain inevitable and unavoidable – obviously you CANNOT DO OTHERWISE than to agree. And since Calvin’s god determined that desire occur in your brain – obviously he concurs with it. Unless he is a double-think god. hint-hint! :-]
TS00,
What you said reminded me that I have been thinking about what Calvinism represents.
I am wondering about the Calvinists on this blog…..when they came to Christ. Did they say “Wow God loves me. God loves everyone. Christ died for our sins! This is Good News…I have to tell people!” (sure they did!)
Maybe it was in Sunday School where all the children sang “Jesus loves me this I know…” and “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world….”
We all came into belief in Christ thinking & believing that the offer was for “all the children of the world…”
It is only later that Calvinists are taught a “higher understanding” …. and they learn to despise (or at least correct) these songs.
Can you see Vacation Bible School in a Reformed church….
“Okay kids…. now sing with me… ‘Jesus MAY love me this I can’t know…. for the Bible says He only loves some…'”
“Okay kids sing along “Jesus loves some little children, a few children of the world….”
Nah…. we all came to Christ believing that “Come unto me all who labor…” meant ‘all’ …. not ‘all kinds’ of laborers.
It is only later that we are taught the Good News that Christ only died for a few. Good News!
Dare one ask why those who tout a ‘God hates you and has a terrible plan for your eternal torture’ system don’t just come out and admit it? At least the Jesus freak wearing the ‘Repent, for the end is near!’ sandwich board offers his audience hope – there is still time for them to repent and be saved. The Calvinist merely pretends that his God loves and desires to save men, when all the while he is laughing up his sleeve that most of these reprobates are doomed. Unlike himself, who, with his impeccable doctrine, is obviously among the chosen ones.
TS00 writes, “Why does Rhutchin attempt to avoid the indisputable fact that, under Calvinism, every single thing has been predetermined by God, including those so-called self-generated neurological impulses?”
No avoidance by me. That God has determined all things – God works all things after the counsel of His will – is basic Calvinist doctrine.
Then, “Why does he deceptively try to have it both ways, as do all who claim an illogical and impossible complementarianism of ‘God controls all things, but man is responsible for his own free choices’?”
God predestined that man be free to choose without coercion from Him. People choose consistent with their desires and God has determined that those choices prevail.
Then, “Under Calvinism, since all of our choices and actions have been predetermined and coordinated by God, we are that robin, who is born only capable of flying, and never swimming. ”
Here TS00 refers to the corruption of man’s nature because of Adam’s sin so that people are slave to sin and cannot do other than sin. Thus, Paul explains in Romans 8, “the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so;” Paul lists the fruit of the flesh in Galatians 5, “the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these…” Calvinists merely note that which the Scriptures tell us. Thus, th mind set on the flesh does not generate neurological impulses that are good or seek good.
Then, ‘What Calvinism alleges – falsely – is that man is the same kind of animal, with the appearance of complete freedom, but actually (shall we say secretly) limited to a very particular range of choices.”
Calvinists go with Paul and not TS00 on this point.
TSOO said: “But under Calvinism, this human nature was further limited by the direct curse of God to being sinful – THAT IS A BIG LIE – the one that they repeatedly try to hide in the fine print”.
My Response :
1. Its not “…A BIG LIE…” – It is the truth according to I John 1:8 ” If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
2. If you still don’t believe the whole truth that Man is sinful, then:
2.1 You are just deceiving yourself
2.2 The truth is not found in you
2.3 So… you are the one lying not the Calvinists, right ?
Today’s daily reading included Proverbs 12:24
24 Work hard and become a leader;
be lazy and become a slave.
——there are tens of thousands of conditional verses like this in the Bible demonstrating that it is not all set in stone…. and we make choices that matter…that change the outcome.
Everybody knows this to be true in their daily lives.
Determinist-Calvinists deny it in their theology.
Sad.
FOH, I know we point this out frequently, but it is so significant. If one buys into the fatalism of Calvinism, there really is no hope or meaning in life. There is no looking to God for guidance and help if he has already determined what is to occur, and all must do as preordained, without fail. So, our failures – God’s fault. Our weaknesses, struggles, ignorance and so forth will not lead to striving with God’s help, but a mere shrug of the shoulders that ‘Hey, if I’m a lazy, good-for-nothing bum, that must be what God ordained me to be. Who am I to argue with God?’ There are no incentives to overcome weaknesses and no hope to overcome seemingly hopeless situations. I saw how this led to hopelessness and despair in my own life, and I am fairly sure it must do the same for others. Understanding that sin is NOT God’s desire for anyone, and that he has promised not only to deliver us from its curse (death), but to deliver us from its destructive grip on our lives. Calvinism short-circuits this process, and encourages the hapless believer to just ‘accept’ what God has brought into his life as his irresistible will. Thus, to me, this is no mere academic exercise – my desire is to help others see that there is meaning, hope and joy in life. We are not limited to some preordained destiny, for better or worse, but should humbly, trustingly, seek God’s assistance to grow into all that he desires us to become.
FOH said: ” – – there are teens of thousands of conditional verses like this (Prov. 12:24) in the Bible demonstrating that it is not all set in stone… and we make choices that matter… that change the outcome.”
My Response :
1. It is denied (God is not pleased) because of the following reasons:
1.1 The action behind on how it was produced was derived from the fleshly efforts of the fallen man
1.2 The fallen man though working hard or struggling hard in his own accord to seek favor before God is still denied, why? because all of man’s good deeds are still filthy rags before God.
2. We cannot afford to bend God’s eternal decrees in order to conform to our own fleshly efforts or even to the one you are pushing that the fallen man has the capabilities to brag something before God.
3. Everything has been decreed by God including man’s inner convictions that will still happen in the future.
4. Nothing escapes from God’s Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence. He is sovereign in all things. He is not bounded by time and History.
5. Its not really “conditional verses”, why? Because it was already determined by God beforehand.
“3. Everything has been decreed by God including man’s inner convictions that will still happen in the future.”
Even child molestation? God decreed that some people would do that via a sovereignly designed impulse?
Such thinking makes Calvin’s god the author of evil — and that may well be true of Calvin’s god.
Good post Norm!
William Lane Craig agrees with your logic:
5 Reasons why Calvinism is untenable:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-vs.-calvinism
Reason 3: Universal, divine, determinism makes God the author of sin
br.d citing Craig, “Reason 3: Universal, divine, determinism makes God the author of sin”
Craig just flat out distorts on this point writing, “In contrast to the Molinist view, on the deterministic view even the movement of the human will is caused by God. God moves people to choose evil…and makes them do wrong.” That is Craig’s imagination and not Calvinism. Under Calvinism, God does not move people to choose evil or make people do wrong. Calvinists agree with James on this, “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone (i.e., does not move people to choose evil or make them do wrong). But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.”
Rhutchin writes:
‘Calvinists agree with James on this, “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone (i.e., does not move people to choose evil or make them do wrong). But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.”’
Actually they do not. A consistent Calvinist – I know, I know, that’s an oxymoron, but just for the sake of argument – would have to hate James as much as Luther did; for their loyalty is to their dogma, rather than the truth.
In actual fact, Calvinism makes James’ statement, and much of scripture, nonsensical. But you are not likely to find an honest Calvinist who will admit it. They will continue their doublespeaking, talking-out-of-both-sides-of-their-mouths, have-it-both-ways ways, no matter how obvious their contradictions are to all who are not thoroughly brainwashed. My Calvie pastor did always turn a little red when he launched into doublespeak – maybe that’s blushing?
TS00 writes, “Actually they do not. A consistent Calvinist would have to hate James as much as Luther did; for their loyalty is to their dogma, rather than the truth.”
Here is Calvin on this:
“Here, no doubt, he speaks of another kind of temptation. It is abundantly evident that the external temptations, hitherto mentioned, are sent to us by God. In this way God tempted Abraham, (Genesis 22:1,) and daily tempts us, that is, he tries us as to what are we by laying before us an occasion by which our hearts are made known. But to draw out what is hid in our hearts is a far different thing from inwardly alluring our hearts by wicked lusts.
He then treats here of inward temptations which are nothing else than the inordinate desires which entice to sin. He justly denies that God is the author of these, because they flow from the corruption of our nature.”
What is nonsensical about Calvin’s explanation?
rhutchin:
Craig’s imagination and not Calvinism. Under Calvinism, God does not move people to choose evil or make people do wrong.
br.d
Dr Craig is using deductive reasoning. He’s not fooled by Calvinism’s semantic word game arguments.
And I know – you don’t like the word MOVE in this context.
And I know – parsing words is hyper important in Calvinism – just like it is in politics and false advertising.
Interesting how that works as a red flag! :-]
br.d writes, “Dr Craig is using deductive reasoning. He’s not fooled by Calvinism’s semantic word game arguments.”
Do you know where he lays out his deductive reasoning argument for all to see?
What good would that do you?
Also – see my quotes of Calvin asserting that Calvin’s god MOVES man via decrees
br.d writes, “What good would that do you?”
So, it seems that br.d has no idea where Craig lays out his logical argument against Calvinism. For all br.d knows, Craig just makes up everything he says about Calvinism.
Let’s look at Craig’s teaching. Craig is a proponent of Molinism. Molinism describes how God considers all the possible worlds that He could create and then decides to create one specific world. We see that decision play out in Genesis. Calvinism comes along and looks at the world that Molinism says God created and uses Genesis to Revelation to describe that world.
Under Molinism, all things that happen in the world created by God come about through various means. Calvinism says the same thing. It is God who causes events to happen in the world, then that is the case under both Molinism and Calvinism. Craig’s objection to Calvinism is nothing more than an objection to Molinism as they both say the same thing.
So, if br.d can produce Craig’s argument against Calvinism, it would show that br.d might have read it and might even know what he is talking about and not just mindlessly quoting sound-bites from Craig.
rhutchin
Dr. Craig’s objection to Calvinism is nothing more than an objection to Molinism as they both say the same thing.
So, if br.d can produce Craig’s argument against Calvinism, it would show that br.d might have read it and might even know what he is talking about and not just mindlessly quoting sound-bites from Craig.
br.d
This is exactly why I said “What good would providing Dr. Craig’s Deductive analysis do you”.
Your logic is totally skewed by your need to make Calvinism masquerade as IN-determinism.
If you knew anything about Molina you would know his urgency was to show how Libertarian Free Will is Biblical and how (what Alvin Plantinga calls “Morally Significant Acts” by created beings are annihilated within the philosophy of Theological Determinism
So without realizing it – you’ve proven my point. :-]
“For all br.d knows, Craig just makes up everything he says about Calvinism.”
Really, Hutch?
Such content is why you were banned at SBCToday.
#snide
If that is the case – he’s probably been testing his efficacy at other online forums – as everyone has come to see through the semantic shell games we observe from him here. :-]
I seem to recall he got banned from another forum last year. So I wouldn’t anticipate it a surprise. He used to be highly pejorative to people here, especially to sisters who participated – and then unfortunately left having found the environment too aggressive. But he’s not doing that so much these days here – thank the Lord!
I’ve always considered it a wonderful thing when sisters can feel safe participating in dialogs and being treated with respect. But Calvinists tend to have an “all is fair in war” mode of operation. And derive a sense of power when they can chase people off the forums.
br.d writes, “I seem to recall he got banned from another forum last year.”
Not me. Only SBCToday has conferred that honor on me.
I’ll bet if I go back here to posts a year ago or so I will find it.
One of the other participants was nagging you about being banned from another forum.
Your explanation for why they banned you was similar to the one you provided for the SBC banning.
br.d writes, “Your explanation for why they banned you was similar to the one you provided for the SBC banning.”
Similar because the same event.
Thanks for confirming both events were bannings :-]
br.d writes, “Thanks for confirming both events were bannings ”
LOL!! What I confirmed was that both events were the same event – meaning that there really was only one event that you imagined to be two distinct events.
That’s what you get for learning the science of vague language. :-]
Norm writes, ‘Really, Hutch? Such content is why you were banned at SBCToday.”
No, I was banned from SBCToday because I was pressing people to explain why they should not be considered Pelagians. No one could explain it; so they banned me. I think I hurt some egos.
Here, we have br.d citing Craig and he can’t cite any article where Craig explains the difference between the Molinism he espouses and Calvinism. I can’t find anything either – They have a terrible search engine at the Reasonable Faith website.
No, you were banned for the reasons stated and for other behaviors you demonstrate at this blog. I know that because I was the moderator who banned you. Hurt egos? Don’t kid yourself.
Norm writes, ‘you were banned for the reasons stated and for other behaviors you demonstrate at this blog.”
No, Norm. I was there. I forget the man’s name, but he said I had three chances – and he said this after I had a couple comments in the pipeline that I could not withdraw. The final straw – already in the pipeline – was a comment where I merely defined the term, “Pelagian.” Immediately after, I was banned. It was all related to my pressing people on their Pelagian comments; they could not respond and did the only thing they could – ban me.
No, Hutch. It was I. When I moderated the blog, you had commenting privileges. Therefore, no predecessor of mine could have banned you. I recall banning you. And, I must confess, it was enjoyable. Were I the moderator of this site, I would ban you here, too. I don’t know why anyone would spend any time answering you. I suppose it makes good practice.
Norm writes, “When I moderated the blog, you had commenting privileges. Therefore, no predecessor of mine could have banned you. I recall banning you.”
You may have been moderator, but there were other people involved. Did you make the three strikes and your out rule for me?
rhutchin
You may have been moderator, but there were other people involved. Did you make the three strikes and your out rule for me?
br.d
I remember doing that on occasion – but only for the purpose of giving you three chances to come up with a rational answer. :-]
Thx, br.d — I needed a good laugh this morning.
Interesting that Hutch approaches the truth of a matter with skepticism and an alternate explanation.
Color me not surprised.
yes I know.
Many Calvinists on this forum (and I assume its the same for others) exhibit childish behavior patterns. Making up stuff as they go and then claiming to be rational. Occasional fight-flight behavior. A consistent high degree of hubris. etc. I suspect Calvinist authority figures promote that behavior based on an “end justifies the means” modus operandi.
But I don’t consider that a Christ honoring strategy any more than I consider their expansive use of dishonest language tactics Christ honoring. With a true believer, one expects to see indicators of a sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. And hubris behavior patterns is the antipathy of that.
But the bright side is that everyone gets a kick out of watching a puppy chase its own tail.
So I think part of God’s reason for giving us Calvinists is the entertainment they provide. :-]
br.d writes, “I remember doing that on occasion – but only for the purpose of giving you three chances to come up with a rational answer.”
LOL!! Yeah, given that you would only accept an answer that fit your worldview.
br.d writes, “I remember doing that on occasion – but only for the purpose of giving you three chances to come up with a rational answer.”
rhutchin
LOL!! Yeah, given that you would only accept an answer that fit your worldview.
br.d
Right! Worldview is a good perception.
So you should be able to see how that works in your case without my help.
Logic is very mathematical in its structure.
The law of non-contradiction for example.
Its either “yay” or “nay” – anything else comes of evil.
Let the SOT101 reader look for signs of “True-False”, “Yay-Nay” as the mode of thinking within Calvinism.
If you look for it – you’ll find it permeates their language.
Its so ingrained in them – they don’t have the ability to discern it themselves.
But the sincere observer can! :-]
Speaking about how William Lane Craig refers to Calvin’s god MOVING man – there are some interesting quotes from Calvin himself affirming this language:
“For, according to its abettors [of determinism], there is nothing in this providence, which they call universal, to prevent all the creatures from being MOVED CONTINGENTLY, or to prevent man from turning himself in this direction or in that, according to the mere freedom of his own will. In this ways they make man a partner with God”
Will it now be said that man is MOVED by God according to the bent of his nature, but that MAN HIMSELF gives the MOVEMENT any direction he pleases? Were it truly so, man would have the full disposal of his own ways.
Hence we maintain…….men are so governed as to MOVE exactly in the course which he [Calvin’s god] has destined
John Calvin Institutes chapter 16
Calvin is not afraid to declare his god MOVES people.
And not afraid to say people CANNOT DO OTHERWISE than what Calvin’s god MOVES them to do.
Perhaps your hyper sensitivity with the word is unnecessary. :-]
jtleosalaj: wrote, “3. Everything has been decreed by God including man’s inner convictions that will still happen in the future.”
Norm responded, “Even child molestation?”
Even Norm cannot deny this. Norm knows that God is present at each child molestation; that God sees every detail of the molestation and knows the thoughts of the child and the perpetrator; that God has the power to put a stop – even prevent – the child molestation; and that God makes a decision – a decree – not to become involved. The only think left for Norm to deny is that God has perfect knowledge of the future.
Then, “God decreed that some people would do that via a sovereignly designed impulse?”
The impulse arises from a corrupt nature – resulting from Adam’s sin. God designed Adam in His image and Adam began as sinless. he then sinned and blew everything.
Then, “Such thinking makes Calvin’s god the author of evil — and that may well be true of Calvin’s god.”
Author in the sense that God created Adam who then sinned.
Rhutchin writes:
‘The impulse arises from a corrupt nature – resulting from Adam’s sin. God designed Adam in His image and Adam began as sinless. he then sinned and blew everything.
Then, “Such thinking makes Calvin’s god the author of evil — and that may well be true of Calvin’s god.”
Author in the sense that God created Adam who then sinned.’
Let’s just unpack this little theory a bit. One more time.
So the impulse to ‘sin’ ‘arises from a corrupt nature’ – ‘resulting from Adam’s sin’. As Brian Wagner so rightly points out, the use of third tense does not eliminate God’s culpability. For the Calvinist ‘the impulse [to sin] arises from a corrupt nature’ cannot negate that it ultimately – like all things – arises from God. Tacking on ‘resulting from Adam’s sin’ is also illegal via Calvinism, as their God does not ‘respond’ to man’s actions, but determines them. It is absolutely absurd for a Calvinism to claim that their Sovereign God brings ‘whatsoever comes to pass’ to pass – except for the curse of the corrupt nature, which Adam brought to pass. Just sheer nonsense.
Not only, under Calvinism, did Adam have the ability to do anything other than God ordained him to do (and no, Calvinistic Sovereignty cannot borrow ‘permit’ from non-Calvinists; ordaining and permitting are two completely different things – one is causative, the other is responsive. Calvinism does not allow God to be responsive. Naturally, Adam had no power to institute a curse upon mankind; only God could change the very nature of his creation so that all would henceforth have a ‘corrupt nature’. This could only have been done by a Sovereign God. And if he only did it in response to Adam’s sin, then obviously God is NOT in Sovereign control of all things, but simply responding to a choice which he did NOT ordain Adam to make. Anyway you slice it, you still end up with Calvinism’s Sovereignty in shreds.
However, if the Calvinist wants to grant that ‘just this once’ man had real freedom and God’s response to ‘Adam’s sin’ was to ensure that all men in the future could do nothing but sin, ya still have to wonder about the character or intelligence of their God. He hates sin so much he makes everyone its slave? When you have a God who could make the world however he wishes – cause he is the sole causative power in the universe – you kinda think that if he didn’t like sin, he just wouldn’t invent it, right? I mean, this isn’t rocket science. He could have avoided all of the sin, evil, suffering, etc. and just made the world as perfect as he is. I guess sinless perfection just isn’t glorious enough. God needed evil.
‘God designed Adam in His image and Adam began as sinless. he then sinned and blew everything.’ Now this is about as deceptive as a Calvinist can get. What does this even mean, when spoken by a Calvinist? How could Adam, or anyone, ‘blow’ God’s plan? I thought he was Sovereign? That his will was always done, and only what he desires and ordains comes to pass? If Adam was capable of ‘blowing’ things, then Calvinism is dead wrong about God’s Sovereignty. Which is it – they simply cannot have it both ways. (But don’t think for a minute it will cause them to stop trying! They will just explain that God’s ways are higher than man’s ways, and we simply cannot perceive his magic God logic, which is the opposite of the logic which allows us to make sense of the world!)
And if Adam could choose to do evil, then there really isn’t any need for a curse, now is there? Obviously, mankind was already quite capable of doing evil. What sort of God would want men to be unable to do good? That is not only the most preposterous response one can imagine, it is downright evil. It doesn’t matter how many ‘sins’ Adam might have done, that in no way justifies God then cursing his creation so that sin was not only possible, but unavoidable. The true forewarned punishment was the curse of death, which indeed became man’s inescapable reality until Jesus created an escape route.
Of course the deceptive Calvinist will never come right out and say it, but if their definition of Sovereignty were true, then Adam could only have sinned if God wanted, predetermined, ordained and caused him to. Any other suggestion denies the Calvinism’s Sovereignty, which asserts that God planned and brings to pass whatsoever comes to pass. That means everything, all, the whole enchilada – including Adam’s alleged sin, which really belongs to God, lest we be guilty of attempting to take credit for something by our own ability.
So, God ordained Adam to sin, because he wanted him to sin. Whether this was an excuse to curse all of his creation with a sin nature that compelled all of them to sin because God enjoys sin, or just a clever ruse to get himself some ‘glory’, it nonetheless, unavoidably makes God the one and only reason that sin and evil exist in the world. Which should not even need ti be spelled out, as, under Calvinism’s Sovereignty, God is the one and only reason for the existence of anyone or anything. Don’t go trying to give man any of God’s glory – he is the one, sole, determinitive ordainer and bringer-to-pass of whatsoever comes to pass. To God be the glory!
The use of secondary means does not rob God of his well-deserved glory. Man can do nothing apart from God, nor hope to diminish his sole, Sovereign responsibility over ‘whatsoever comes to pass’ – however much the Westminster Divines (always sounds like a soul group) wished and asserted it.
Either God is the sole, Sovereign cause of all things, or he is not. No use asserting weasel words like ‘resulting from Adam’s sin’ or ‘Adam blew it’. Asserting that Adam – or any man – can be blamed for doing what God ordained him to do – whatever ol’ words one chooses to explain it – doesn’t hold any water. Unless, of course, Calvinists are ready to retract their longstanding claims that God is Sovereign in the manner which they staunchly assert.
Sorry, Hutch. I am not willing to engage your circular reason based on unbiblical biases. It is not that I am incapable or intimidated. It is that I’d rather spend my time more fruitfully than engaging your futility.
What, you don’t like going round and round in useless, illogical, contradictory, nonsensical circles? I suppose you prefer to talk with people who are honest, open and willing to genuinely interact with your ideas? Me too. (Yet sometimes he provokes me into a response, which of course just leads into the same, useless circular reasoning, leading nowhere. Someday I will learn.)
Exactly! Some prefer debate rather than discussion.
A superior debate team defending abortion could defeat a lesser team, but that does not make abortion right. It simply means that the winning team were more skilled in debate tactics (as so many Calvinists are) e.g., straw men, false equivalencies, etc.
Those who are willing to discuss (not debate) come to the table readily admitting that no one has a complete understanding of certain matters, but a thoughtful interaction may increase the knowledge of all involved and may even lead to the truth.
Thoughtful, well-intentioned discussion requires transparency. It is transparency of another type that leads one to proclaim, “The Emperor (Calvin) Has No Clothes!”
Norm, writes, “Thoughtful, well-intentioned discussion requires transparency.”
Yet, you seem to have a hard time revealing your positions are certain issues. For example, do you agree that God is present at every child molestation and while He has the power to stop any, or all, of them, He chooses not to do so? How about a little transparency on this issue.
Norm writes, “It is not that I am incapable or intimidated.”
You know that I am right. That’s enough.
You refer to my non-dialoguing dialogue – it’s a skill I learned under Calvinism. 😉 The Universalist at least starts with the proper premise – unlike the Calvinist: ‘God so loved the world’. Yet both fall on the same stone, which is a deterministic God which compels men like robots to his desired destiny. I agree with Universalism, that if God was a Meticulous Determinist, all men would be saved. But he is not, thus each and every individual ever loving created must choose, some day, at some moment in time, whom they will serve. All of history, with its terrible dichotomy between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is a reflection of the genuine freedom of choice that a good, holy, omnipotent Creator granted to his lovingly crafted creatures, and the choices that they made to choose evil over good.
Or, as per Calvinism, God secretly decreed the evil along with the good, causing WHATSOEVER comes to pass in his meticulously controlled creation. If I help a senior across the street, it is because God planned that I should. If I brutally murder my own child, it is because God planned that I should. Much as they hem and haw about compatibilism, and how the unregenerate ‘might’ believe if they so ‘desired’, they are just blowing smoke. Under their tidy little system, man has no choice. He will only believe, indeed only CAN believe, if God ‘makes’ him believe; and it does not matter what euphemism they employ.
But seriously, how can any honest Calvinist (Is that an oxymoron?) try and escape the central plank of their theological system, which is that the only reason any man will suffer eternal punishment is because God did not desire to extend to them his gracious offer of forgiveness. Worse, he created them for the very purpose of eternal torture. Which of Calvinism/Reformed Theology’s planks does Rhutchin wish to negate?
Total Depravity, or better Total Inability, which supposedly necessitates that God alone does whatever ‘believing’ is done in this world, because ‘dead men’ don’t ‘believe’? They don’t walk, talk and breathe either, but we’ll let that pass.
Unconditional Election, which is God’s arbitrary, irrevocable ‘decision’ necessitated by Total Depravity, to choose who will be saved?
Limited Atonement, which asserts Jesus only died for ‘some’, because God would never waste that precious blood? This plank alone assures that God most definitely did not offer all men a way to escape their predetermined destiny of eternal torment.
Irresistible Grace, also necessitated by that nasty little curse of Total Depravity, placed on utterly innocent men and women before they were born, which requires God to do some mystical, magical unforced forcing of men to do as HE chooses, and ‘believe’. (Hey, what’s a little brute force when its for the greater good? You’ll thank me someday. Said every cruel despot known to mankind, but never God.)
Perseverance of the Saints, which is the hook that draws so many well-meaning Baptists into such rank apostasy. I mean, who can pass up a ‘Get Out of Hell Free Card’ which allows one to keep a few pet sins to pass the time?
In spite of deceptive attempts to claim allegiance to scripture, Calvinism insists that God does NOT and NEVER DID desire to save ALL men. Why would he, when he dreamed up the whole sin, hell and cross scheme to ‘reveal’ his ‘glory’? Calvinism’s God needs sin, needs sinners and needs to have fuel for his eternal, wrathful fodder in order to impress the lucky few with just how lucky they are.
Calvinism’s God sent Jesus to die for only SOME (Calvinism’s elect) and all others, for whom Jesus did NOT die, most certainly DO NOT and NEVER WILL have an opportunity to turn from their preordained wickedness and ‘escape’ their preordained destiny – because it was not written in the cards for them. What possibly could they have ‘faith’ in even if Calvinism’s God repented of his stinginess and gave them some – the blood of Jesus which was not shed for them?
Alas, under Calvinism, men do not fit themselves for destruction because God respects the free choice which shaped men ‘in the image of God’ rather than animals, and sadly allows those he loved enough to die for to reject this marvelous, undeserved, Universal offer of grace. Oh, no, Calvinism wouldn’t want a namby-pamby God like that . . . they prefer the one who irresistibly breathes life into some, as in the first birth. (Even Calvinism grants a certain measure of Universalism – we were all born once, without choice.)
But the second ‘birth’ must be freely chosen, a ‘choice’ revealed and demonstrated throughout God’s history of dealing with men. No man, anywhere in scripture, was forcefully ‘born again’ as he was, initially, forcefully ‘born’; this is the clear meaning that somehow escapes Calvinists, who assert that God indeed coerces (by secretive ‘secondary means’) the new birth of a select group of individuals who alone will escape God’s inexplicable ‘wrath’ at those he created to carry out his predetermined ‘sin’ plan. Even Saul, temporarily stricken with blindness, had the freedom to refuse the call of God. God got Saul’s attention in a unique manner, but he was also called to a very unique mission – yet Saul had to choose to be ‘born again’ to become ‘Paul’ as Abram became Abraham, and Jacob became Israel. (I speak in the language of men, as God’s unfathomable omniscience knew which way Saul’s heart would lead him, before Saul or Paul was ever born.)
Hence Jesus pointed out the absurdity of a ‘teacher’ of Israel not understanding the groundwork that the history of Israel had laid for the message of the gospel: Although no man ever chose to be ‘born’ into existence, God graciously grants men the ability to choose to be ‘born again’. That is, for all men can choose – or refuse – to embrace the free offer of God’s atonement for sin and receive new life, which will be without sin, suffering or end. The first birth gives physical life, the second, spiritual life. The first birth is unchosen, the second, equally unattainable by man’s own effort, nonetheless must be freely chosen.
This is the gospel.
TS00
You made me notice something.
Our Calvinist friends play the “dirty universalist” card on us all the time….but it is actually the Calvinists who are universalists. Albeit, a small …very small universe.
They agree with the universalist that —in the end, God forces/ directs/ decrees all men to be saved. They just define the number as .015% and not 100%. It’s the same “forcing”.
FOH, writes:
‘….but it is actually the Calvinists who are universalists. Albeit, a small …very small universe.
They agree with the universalist that —in the end, God forces/ directs/ decrees all men to be saved. They just define the number as .015% and not 100%. It’s the same “forcing”.’
Exactly! Calvinists and Universalists alike believe that God predetermines who will be saved. The Universalist, at least, recognizes that a loving and gracious God, if deterministic, would save all. The Calvinist thinks God is a monster, who would deliberately predestine many to an unthinkably terrible fate, when he could so easily have saved them, in the exact same manner he chose to save the few.
Shall we call Calvinists….Universalists-lite?
I think of them more as ‘stingy Universalists’ – They both believe God does the exact same thing, but Calvinism’s God is so stingy he only saves a few.
Seriously, if you are going to believe it salvation all God’s unilateral choice and doing, why not at least go with the ‘choose ’em all’ bandwagon? You still have a tyrant for a God, but at least he is a benevolent tyrant.
Sorry for the mangled sentence. Should read: Seriously, if you are going to believe salvation is all God’s unilateral choice and doing, why not at least go with the ‘choose ’em all’ bandwagon? You still have a tyrant for a God, but at least he is a benevolent tyrant.
FOH writes, “it is actually the Calvinists who are universalists.”
Actually, the universalists are Calvinists. Calvinists believe that God saves whom He will but not all; Universalists, like the Calvinists, believe that God saves whom He will and will save all
TSOO said: “… total inability, which supposedly necessitates that God alone does whatever believing is done to this world, bec. dead man don’t believe ? They don’t walk, talk and breath either, but well let that pass…”
My Response :
1. God does not deny the limited freedom that He gave to man, but He can still make use of that limited freedom by BENDING IT in order to conform to His decreed plan.
2. Please don’t exaggerate because I also don’t believe that man was a created robot. Man was endowed with limited freedom that is not in equal amount with God nor it will supercede his Maker.
3. It is not true that the fallen man can’t have faith- but what kind of faith?—even the cults and demons have faith and yet they are not saved. Fallen man can still walk and breath… come on … may be this is just your way of pouring out your disgust…
4. God cannot be sovereign in all things if there is still somebody out there that is much powerful than Him. Being the bestower of limited freedom to man, He has the right to even manipulate it anytime He may wish to do so. And you cannot complain to that…
jtleosalaj
1. God does not deny the limited freedom that He gave to man, but He can still make use of that limited freedom by BENDING IT in order to conform to His decreed plan.
br.d
This is a great example of deceptive language.
It attempts to paint a false picture of Calvin’s god “Merely Permitting” man to think/say/do things that which Calvin’s god did not decree he think/say/do – which is totally rejected by Calvin. Yet Calvinists craft language designed to masquerade it.
To understand Calvinism and its double-speak just remember:
He is a “Determinist” wearing a mask of “IN-determinism” – he recites double-speak talking points.
The key is understanding that his mind is mentored in and embraces double-speak.
Then, to add insult to injury, guys like this parade forth scriptures in supposed defense of their schemes, wringing out of them meaning that would make even Calvin blush. I’ve seen a good deal of scripture twisting in my life, but seriously? I have often wondered why so many scoff at scripture. The Calvinist tells himself it is because they ‘hate God’; but sometimes it is simply that they despise the unsupportable suppositions he makes, abusing what should be treated with serious study and humble reflection.
TS00 and br.d,
You guys beat me to the response.
I will notice (comment on) very non-Calvinistic verses from my everyday reading. If I had the time I could do this every day…. I mean the Bible is literally FULL of passages that are either treated with “it doesnt really mean that” of completely ignored by Calvinists.
Then, well-intending Jose comes along and basically says
1. Nope. That’s not right.
2. Not right either , etc.
His last several responses have been just talking, or rather talking-points, no Scripture. And when we do get Scripture, rest assured that the same 10 verses will be used (out of context).
Daily reading. Nope, not true… filter with this verse. Rinse, repeat.
Romans 3:10 is the classic out-of-context verse he uses.
Elsewhere on this blog I have commented on and given the link for MacArthur’s 80-minute sermon on the Prodigal Son. MacArthur calls it the “Parable of the Seeking Father.” He goes on and on about how dead the son is (the father holds a burial service for him he says).
Even though he later reads that the son “comes to his sense” “in a faraway land” and “returns to the father” he still throws in a line from Romans 3 saying, “It’s the father who seeks him, because we all know what Romans 3 says…. no one can seek….”
I kid you not. That just demonstrates his commitment to the presuppositions of Calvinism. He elevates the we-all-have-viper-venom verse over all other “seek” verses:
Seek first the kingdom
Seek and you will find
Anyone coming to God must believe that He rewards those who seek Him
Devote your heart and soul to seeking the LORD
God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him
Look to the LORD and his strength; seek his face always.
You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.
Those who know your name trust in you, for you, LORD, have never forsaken those who seek you.
The lions may grow weak and hungry, but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.
Look to the LORD and his strength; seek his face always.
The LORD is good to those whose hope is in him, to the one who seeks him;
I seek you with all my heart; do not let me stray from your commands.
Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, you who do what he commands. Seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you will be sheltered on the day of the LORD’s anger.
Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near.
Many of these verses were spoken to large crowds of unbelievers. They are told that they can and should seek God!
But blind adherence to the one verse in Romans 3 (right next to the one that says we ALL have “viper venom on our lips,” and our “throats are open sepulchers”)—- makes them ignore all these verses and many more.
Great post FOH!
Speaking of how Calvinism twists everything in scripture……
CALVINISMS DOUBLE-SPEAK VERSION OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD
There once was a good shepherd who had 100 totally depraved sheep.
For one of the totally depraved sheep, the good shepherd dedicated a room in his house, ensuring it all the lush comforts his good house could provide.
The other 99 totally depraved sheep, he sent to a torture chamber to be tortured to death.
Once the shepherd’s good pleasure was accomplished, he turned to the one totally depraved sheep he had saved and said:
“I have saved the one totally depraved sheep and passed over the 99, because the 99 were totally depraved.”
br.d,
What you said makes me remember….
If a person is interested and open-minded he can see that the couple Calvinist go-to verses about “the things of the flesh cannot please God” are true for believers as well as unbelievers. Meaning… they use those verses to say we are “too-dead” …. but in Romans 7 Paul calls himself a slave to sin…. and tell us that his carnal actions cannot please God.
It is just bad hermeneutic to assume (presuppose) that any discussion of “things of the flesh” means pre-salvation.
It is even worse hermeneutic to say that any mentioned of things of the flesh means a person is too-dead to hear God’s call. Just read Roms 7 and see what Paul says about himself as a saved person. His description could easily be used as the “too-dead” person and yet he is talking about a saved person.
Yes I agree FOH.
Calvinism’s use of scripture always reminds me of a house of mirrors. :-]
FOH writes, “Calvinist go-to verses about “the things of the flesh cannot please God” are true for believers as well as unbelievers. etc.”
Oh, FOH!!! You, as a former Calvinist, know that the believer is just an unbeliever who has been quickened – made spiritually alive – and is now indwelt by the spirit of God. Paul says, “I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good (i.e.who is a believer). For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” Then, in Galatians, “you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” Only believers care about pleasing God and they know that “the things of the flesh cannot please God.” No Calvinist says that things of the flesh go away when one believes in Christ and becomes indwelt by His spirit – if anything they know that the war has just begun.
Well said.
God told the people of Israel that by their behavior, they blasphemed his reputation among the gentile nations.
The principle works the same way with Christians.
Case in point – Calvinist double-speak – even atheists are smart enough to see through it..
For an example watch “Calvinism: Intrinsically Irrational” on youtube.
Let me first address the question…
Has God chosen you from the beginning (for salvation)?
No. Not me at least.
Isaiah 45:4 (KJV)….
For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect……
Could it be just that simple?
How many times have our Calvinists brothers asked…. “Do we know who the elect are?” or say “we don’t know the identity of the elect, so we preach to all indiscriminately.”
So, do we really believe when Paul spoke of the elect, his audience had no clue to whom he was referring? Since all the people of Israel had during and up to Paul’s writings were the OT scriptures, do you really think the people had no clue who the elect were? Did Paul know?
I say “yes”. Paul knew exactly who the elect were.
2 Timothy 2:10 (KJV)……
Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Romans 9:3-4a (KJV)….
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh; Who are Israelites…
Romans 10:1 (KJV)….
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Romans 11:13-14 (NKJV)….
For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
Acts 28:20 (KJV)….
For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
So, with these scriptures in mind, we get the following…
2 Timothy 2:10 (KJV)……
Therefore I endure all things for Israel’s sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
That is the only interpretation that works. Both the Calvinistic and Arminian views of election fall short. The Calvinist view of unconditional election (to salvation) doesn’t work because of both “may” and “also”. “May” suggests the possibility that the elect won’t obtain salvation (which within their scheme the elect’s salvation is a certainty) and “also” suggests inclusion, not exclusion. For Calvinism to be correct, the verse would have to read….
Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they, and they alone, will obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
However, because “also” implies inclusion, whoever the elect are, the non-elect are not excluded. The non-elect may also obtain salvation. That would be the gentile nations. The Arminian view of election doesn’t work because for them the elect are those who are already “in Christ”. This is how the Arminian view would read….
Therefore I endure all things for those in Christ Jesus, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
These people are not in a position where they “may” obtain salvation. Those “in Christ” have already obtained salvation. The Arminian view, as well, suffers from the word “also”, because salvation is excluded to those in Christ.
I believe what Paul is writing to Timothy is to remind him that although he is out preaching the gospel of Christ to the gentiles, don’t think for a minute that he has turned his back on the people of Israel.
Acts 9:15 (KJV)…..
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel….
God bless.
In the face of all these verses, why, o why do Cals continue with a death grip to hold on to Calvin’s faulty doctrines? I think one reason is that they do not have the courage to admit that the Emperor has no clothes. There have been too many books, too many sermons, too many “Gospel” conferences for them to admit by the 1000s, “Hey, we’ve been wrong.”
Calvin’s soteriology is entirely bankrupt. When will our brethren admit it?
Blessings Norm.
Well, I agree with you that there is a form of “brainwashing” (for lack of a better term) going on, but we all suffer from that to some degree. There are even some non-reformed Baptists who would struggle with the verses/evidence provided. Also, there are some non-Calvinistic rebuttals that fall flat on their face.
Most people within Christendom see election as one or two options. The Calvinistic answer being unconditional and predestined. The basic non-Calvinistic, and Arminian response, is that we become elect once we are “in Christ”. According to this view, I am “elect” because I elected to believe. In other words, God chose me because I chose Him. I believe that view is just as weak (even laughable), perhaps even weaker than the Calvinist view.
The biblical fact is the word “elect” doesn’t appear in scripture until Israel is mentioned. In other words, prior to Israel there was no “elect”. Period. Even though Abram might have been chosen to be the father of that tiny nation, Abraham, himself, was not part of the elect (Abraham was not an Israelite). That distinction was reserved for the nation of Israel.
Satan knows full well who the “elect” are. That is why he has been after that tiny nation ever since God made His covenant with Abraham. All biblical prophecy is directed at Israel. All Christendom could be completely destroyed and wiped off the face of the earth and God’s promises could still be fulfilled. But if Satan could be successful in annihilating the nation of Israel, then God’s promises have failed and would make Him a liar. He would have lost His sovereignty and Satan knows it.
Matthew 24:22 (KJV)……
And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake (the nation of Israel) those days shall be shortened.
Revelation 12:13 and 17 (KJV)….
And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child……. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
There are actually people (preachers) out there declaring that “the woman” is the church. O the error of replacement theology. It should be obvious to the brain dead that “the woman” is the nation of Israel. “Mine Elect”.
Norm writes, “Calvin’s soteriology is entirely bankrupt. When will our brethren admit it?”
When those who claim it to be bankrupt are able to provide counter arguments to RC Sproul and others (e.g., Gertsner, the Puritans such as Edwards and Owens) who produced reasoned arguments from the Scriptures for Calvinist positions.
nurluhouse writes, “1. First of all it starts with the “you are a universalist” stick in your eye. (they play that card early and often!).”
If one uses the Universalist argument, then why isn’t he an Universalist? ts00’s primary point is that God loves all people. Yet, God knew before He created the universe that all people would not be saved nor was it God’s intent that all people would be saved. So, does God really love all people or some more than others. ts00 is somewhat shallow in his arguments.
Then, “Piper often quotes…Jonathan Edwards …..pointing that God DOES in fact take pleasure in evil since He needs it to contrast with His goodness.”
Maybe you could explain why God permits people to do evil when He could easily stop it. Certainly, God does not allow anything to happen unless it is according to His plan and serves His purpose. Do you know God’s purpose for the evil acts in which people engage while God watches and does not stop.
Then, “…we all know that in Calvinism, no such offer is made….”
It is not an offer; it is a command. “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17)
Hutch: You wrote this,
“When those who claim [Calvinism] to be bankrupt are able to provide counter arguments to RC Sproul and others (e.g., Gertsner, the Puritans such as Edwards and Owens) who produced reasoned arguments from the Scriptures for Calvinist positions.”
Your words were in response to my words: “Norm writes, ‘Calvin’s soteriology is entirely bankrupt. When will our brethren admit it?'”
The “counter arguments” you say are needed before Calvinism can be declared bankrupt already are voluminous. First, there is the BIble. Then, I refer you to former Calvinist Ronnie Rogers and his book, “Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist: the disquieting realities of Calvinism.” It’s an outstanding academic and theological treatise that shows Calvin’s utter bankruptcy. If you would read it, you will see that Rogers debunks the soteriology of Calvin as espoused by Sproul, Gertsner, Edwards and Owens and any other calvinistic writer for that matter. They may have provided “reasoned arguments,” but they are not reasonable.
At SBCToday, a blog where you once frequently commented, Calvin’s notions have repeatedly and roundly been exposed for their theological vacuity. Many times, the Calvinists who would normally comment there would not venture into the “room” when Rogers’ had a post on that “wall.”
I also commend the post on this blog by Dr. Eric Hankins on Romans 9 and reprobation. His sound hermeneutics and exegesis demolish Calvin’s invention of reprobation, and thus renders Calvinism impotent, bankrupt, pointless (multiple choice!).
Of course, this blog has done the same thing. So, it rings incredibly hollow for you to require counter arguments to Calvin’s progenitors on a very blog that continually offers such.
Come back after you have read Rogers’ book. You can get an e-version for $6.99 on Amazon.
Norm,
This is a common occurrence.
“You sleeping-in-class universalists have never given a response to _________________. ”
You can fill in that blank with any one of the scores of posts from this very site….with the very title!
Brian is incredibly patient answering the John 6:44 question many more times than I would have….. only to hear “you never dealt with John 6:44.”
Motto: When a biblical answer is not what you want, just claim you’ve never heard it!
Some Calvinists are like cult members. They need de-programming. Despite sound biblical evidence of Calvin’s bankruptcy, the Calvinites refuse to admit their error. They have too much invested in the faulty system to admit it is false. They are much more prone to quote Piper, Sproul or the Puritan writers than they are the Bible. I know this to be true b/c I moderated for two years the SBCToday blog. And I have just recently begun to regularly visit this blog.
I could hardly ascribe to the soteriology of man who says that God sends people to hell “for his good pleasure.” And Calvin wrote just that! That falsehood alone is enough for me to reject Calvin. But he also provides many others reasons for rejection as well.
Norm,
Many will quote Piper at length.
I have quoted him in dozens of comments in the comment section of quite a few different pages of SOT101.
He is so conflicted, organizing a campaign (bumper stickers!) and writing a book called “Don’t Waste Your Life.”
In the book, 100% of the time he is making the case that we can be different, think differently, impact the world, change our direction…… all good things but all “man-centered”. ((and all very —-the future is not settled —- on their face)).
At the same time, numerous places on his desiringgod site he affirms and re-affirms that all that happens —-good or bad— is orchestrated by God.
So….no real way to waste your life if you are just doing what you are programmed to do.
Determinism is not a way of life.
I am not sure why Piper does as you describe. I think it is a “mystery.”
FOH writes, “Brian is incredibly patient answering the John 6:44 question many more times than I would have….. only to hear “you never dealt with John 6:44.”
It appears to me that Brian is still working out the kinks in his explanation of 6:44. Nonetheless, I haven’t seen the “Traditionalists” going the route he has taken.
FOH… there will always be those who will see “kinks” where there aren’t any… and then ignore the clear teaching of God’s marvelous grace and mercy sufficiently available to all, enabled by Him to freely receive or reject it… I believe they just can’t picture God being more merciful then they are! Very sad.
brianwagner writes, ” there will always be those who will see “kinks” where there aren’t any…”
If I remember correctly, your explanation involved something about something being “distributed” across something. Kinda shows the impression your explanation made on me that I don’t remember the details. I then asked how that works given that the verbs are singular – how do you distribute anything over a single object. I don’t remember you responding to that question. Wouldn’t that count as a kink?
Then, “I believe they just can’t picture God being more merciful then they are! ”
Are you kidding! All Calvinists hope the Universalists turn out to be right. Doesn’t everyone??
First… you must not understand the term “distributed” as it relates to logic. Get someone to help you there. Geisler’s book – Come Let Us Reason, is good.
Second, I don’t hope universalism is true, because I exalt in God’s justice also. But creating people to be damned in not just.
brianwagner writes, “you must not understand the term “distributed” as it relates to logic. Get someone to help you there. Geisler’s book – Come Let Us Reason, is good.”
That supports my point. You cannot explain it yet, so that is a “kink” in your theory.
Very funny, Roger. Just because I don’t explain terms doesn’t mean I can’t. You really do need a course in logic. You could just ask what the term “distributed” means instead of saying I have “kinks” in my explanation. Perhaps the “kinks” are in your faulty education that didn’t teach you the basics of logic, or in your pride of not being willing to ask for the explanation but to just put forward a denial that one actually exists, even though an adequate one was given. You just didn’t understand it!
Basically – “distributed” means the term in the premise is true in all circumstances, and “undistributed” means the term in the premise is only by this statement proven to be true in some circumstances. So when the premise uses “all” or “none” with a term, that term is distributed in that premise. If there is not “all” or “none” used with a term, that term is undistributed in that premise. I won’t charge you for this lesson in logic, because I count you a friend, in spite of some of your seemingly haughty comments. 🙂
I always thought that Disturbed was the name of a band that did a very good cover of The Sound of Silence, myself. LOL.
I think you have some “kinks” in your reading ability! 😉 lol
brainwagner writes, “Basically – “distributed” means…”
I guess I was not clear. I meant to ask how “distributed” contributes to our understanding of John 6:44? Originally, you said something to the effect that the Calvinist understanding of John 6:44 was not necessarily the right one since the terms could be distributed (I don’t recall you saying that anything was undistributed, but if it fits, do so). I then asked you what you meant by that. You never explained. that I know of, and here we are.
We read, ““No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”
The logical argument would seem to run like this:
Initial condition: No one can come to Me..
Premise 1 – If the Father draws him, he will come to me
Premise 2 – If he comes to me, I will raise him up.
Conclusion: If the Father draws him, I will raise him up.
If you do not accept that sequence, you can offer another. Otherwise, we see the initial condition is distributed as we would expect from an universal negative. As the premises are in the singular, we look at this as undistributed or true only in some circumstances, i.e., those in which God draws a person. However, we could easily render the above as “All the Father draws…I will raise all.”
Somehow, I don’t think you had that in mind. Thus, I asked to explain what you were thinking with regard to 6:44.
Brian,
Dont fall for any request for further explanation. Your words (and lots of others like them) are easily found on the net for anyone with ears to hear.
As for the God having mercy part…. in the many years since I left the Calvinist camp, I have noticed that when people talk a tad ‘too much’ about God’s love and mercy, Calvinists are quick to pounce with justice and wrath. Calvin made no effort to hide his position that wrath, double-predestination, and even the having-people-think-they-are-saved-but-are-not idea all serve to better show His justice and glory.
Pretty hard to really be too merciful when you are carrying that wrath-is-good, torture-for-His-glory card up your sleeve.
If your theology dictates that God has unavoidable, inescapable, predetermined-to-bring-him-glory wrath toward any person then you absolutely have no right to talk about God’s mercy. Only the most merciless being could condemn – without even a possibility of escape – another being to suffering and death when he ‘rescues’ a select few in this exact same state, who are no more or less deserving.
It is this false and hideous corruption of God’s nature and revelation that has given many an excuse to reject him. All genuine believers should know, and defend, the true character of God, which is absolutely loving and merciful, extending grace to all without exception – conditioned only upon their putting their trust in Him and turning from the destructive paths of sin.
Yes, I believe it is another great error of Calvinism to claim that God is unconcerned with our life after regeneration, overlooking our sinful ‘works’ as long as our ‘doctrine’ is correct. Understanding the nature of God’s limitless love and grace introduces the ‘power of love’ to transform hearts and lives, which IS what God seeks, not doctrinally correct Pharisees.
ts00 writes, “Only the most merciless being could condemn – without even a possibility of escape – another being to suffering and death when he ‘rescues’ a select few in this exact same state, who are no more or less deserving.”
OK – that is the argument made by the Universalists. Perhaps you mean to waffle on the meaning of “possibility of escape.”
Rhutchin writes (once again!):
‘OK – that is the argument made by the Universalists.’
The Universalists are absolutely correct when they state that a good, gracious, loving and just God would never perform as Calvinism asserts. With this, nearly all non-Calvinists would agree. Where they part ways is in whether or not God warns of punishment and wrath against those who know and refuse his loving offer of grace. I agree with Universalists that there is no hint of unjustice with God, thus reject Calvinism’s assertions as not only ‘horrid’ but utterly inconceivable and untrue. Must God save all men to be just? Rhutchin, as well as most Calvinists, know full well that is not the argument of non-Universalist non-Calvinists. Rather, they assert that he ‘must’ – really ‘would’ – not pretend to desire that none perish while providing atonement for only a select few, and orchestrating inescapably the destruction of the rest and be just.
TS00
Here is the most pertinent idea in both your recent posts:
“…not pretend to desire that none perish while providing atonement for only a select few, and orchestrating inescapably the destruction of the rest and be just.”
One of the biggest flaws of Calvinism is that it promote a God who PRETENDS to want all/ love all, but really one makes atonement for .0015%. That does not make Him very “loving.”
It only makes Him monstrously deceptive.
fromoverhere,
You had said:
“That does not make Him very “loving.”
It only makes Him monstrously deceptive.”
My response:
“…for His TWISTED PERVERTED COSMIC enjoyment in entertainment called…GOD’S GLORY.”
FOH writes, “Calvinists are quick to pounce with justice and wrath.”
That is because Calvinists are convinced that the Scriptures clearly tell us that God will not save each and every person. Those who died at God’s hand – through means – such as in the flood of Noah, Sodom and the cities, the Amalekites and other tribes in the promised land, etc. are not thought to have been saved.
Hutch:
Yes, I read Ronnie’s book. But I never was convinced of Calvin’s tripe well before that.
I don’t intend to re-hash with you or anyone else the matters already settled by God, His word, and explained by Rogers, Flowers, et al.
If you will honestly interact with Ronnie’ book, I believe you will be pressed to re-evaluate your Calvinism.
I am sure we can get some of Ronnie’s posts from SBCToday to be posted here, and you can interact directly with him if you want. He will stay with you as long as you don’t restate his position in order to try to prove your own, which is a habit among many of the Calvies I’ve seen who post at SBCToday.
BTW: Citing John 6:44 is typical of Calvinists. It raises a point not at issue with the Trads I know. Neither does it undermine what Trads believe about the salvific process.
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
I know no Trad who would say this opposes any part of their beliefs. So if you believe it too, then, well…..
It is as simple as Leighton has said in the video above: Who finally decided that you would follow Christ, you or God? If you say God decided, then you hold to Calvin’s view.
Calvinists believe that God has decided for the “elect” that they will be saved irresistibly (even though there is not one single verse to support that notion. if you know any, please list them.) Where we part company is whether God’s drawing is the final action in one’s coming to Christ for salvation. Trads believe that God does draw, no question, but also that the one drawn has a choice in how to respond and is thus not irresistibly drawn.
If you want to deal directly with these matters, then further dialog is possible. But if you want to engage in the issues jn a manner as you did at SBCToday, then you will be talking to yourself.
Norm:
No need of biblical reference. They start with their own interpretation of “dead” and have to figure a way out from there….
And yes they talk to themselves a lot. My (adult) son saw the Bible study he was attending morph right in front of him over the space of a year. It went from studying passages systematically to studying only the “doctrines of grace.” He described it like a shark tank after about a year….all of them circling for the lone fish who was not following….
All topics, passages led to Calvin….ending often with internet perusing of Dordt and Westminster.
He left. Was no longer a Bible study.
Norm,
I don’t mean to step on anyone’s toes on this one, but I saw you mention a popular John 6:44.
I gotta ask a stupid question, cuz I don’t know the answer as to where that argument goes.
My question:
Doesn’t the very next verse continue the conversation of verse 44? To wit:
45 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.
Doesn’t that show a qualifier, that one must hear, and learned of the father first?
And if so, doesn’t that say that THEY that have, will be CONVINCED IN THEIR OWN MIND? Convinced in their own mind. Convinced in their own mind…
I think this goes along the line of a topic that was to the audience ONLY…the Jews…not the Gentiles. Why do I say that?
Simple…verse 45 again…and they shall e ALL TAUGHT OF GOD. If it’s written in the PROPHETS, that kinda tells me that this prophesy is in regards to Jews, not Gentiles.
ALL will be taught of God, not most, not some, but ALL, and that word convinces me that ALL is Jews…Hence ALL Israel will be saved (Romans 9-11)
So, to me, the whole context of Chapter 6 is regarding the Jews only, since it was THEIR forefathers that were fed MANNA, and Jesus is contrasting to THEM that he is the Bread of Life.
Jesus time and time again tells them of the one who the FATHER sent…and Jesus said that he was NOT SENT BUT TO THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.
Later, after he resurrected did he talk about us OTHER SHEEP.
Yes, many things that Jesus said pertain to us, but I think from time to time we need to separate between what is prophesy for the Jews that Jesus discusses with the Jews only, vs. everyone else, us lowly Gentiles.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “So, to me, the whole context of Chapter 6 is regarding the Jews only, since it was THEIR forefathers that were fed MANNA, and Jesus is contrasting to THEM that he is the Bread of Life.”
Had Christ said in 6:44, “None of you can come to me,,,” it would be easy to conclude that Christ was speaking directly of the Jews and specifically His audience. Instead, He says, “No one can come to me…” He uses a universal negative. However, there is no reason to limit this to the Jews. Certainly, if the Jews could not come to Christ, there is no reason to think that a non-Jew could do so.
Yes, there is a reason, and that reason is so stated in the very next verse. PROPHECY. That is not prophesy to the Gentiles, but to the Jews.
chapmaned24 writes, “Yes, there is a reason, and that reason is so stated in the very next verse. PROPHECY. That is not prophesy to the Gentiles, but to the Jews.”
However, it is only through prophecy that any person, Jew or gentile, can believe in Christ. That is Paul’s message in Romans 10. Jesus is using generic language, and while the Jews in His audience would certainly understand that His teaching applies to them, God inspired John to write these words so that we today would understand that this applies to us equally.
That very next verse is also key as it states a PROCEDURE on how the Father draws them.
chapmaned24 writes, “That very next verse is also key as it states a PROCEDURE on how the Father draws them. ”
I agree. So, we should not think that God’s drawing has to force the person against his will nor does God merely persuade (not really meant by “draw”). Rather God opens his mind to understanding thereby Christ becomes irresistible to him.
It has nothing to do with IRRESISTIBLE. I’ll never forget the first time I heard that word in your circles. It’s misleading.
They have the ability to reject. They will CHOOSE from their own free will by in fact being persuaded. Why? Because Jesus REVEALS HIMSELF to them.
Deuteronomy 29:4 (TO THE JEW ONLY)
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
That is a quote that Paul mentions in Romans 9-11.
The Lord BLINDED the Jews, so that they may NOT SEE.
John 9:41 (NOTE THE WORDS “NO SIN”????????????????????????
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Blind Jews have NO SIN until they say that they can see.
It’s up to God to UNBLIND whom he blinded. He did allow SOME Jews to understand. The REST of the Jews are in a SLUMBER.
He didn’t blind the Gentiles.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “It has nothing to do with IRRESISTIBLE…They have the ability to reject.”
Reject what?? God’s drawing? God’s teaching? The drawing and teaching are irresistible. Perhaps you mean that once drawn, they have the ability to turn around and go back to where they were or that they decide not to follow God’s teaching. That would require motive – What motive would a person have to draw back from God or not do what God had taught him? Maybe, you mean that a person draws back because God blinds him to truth. So, what are you trying to say??
Stop using that word, “irresistible”. Only a steak dinner is irresistible. You Calvinists need to ditch that word, because YES, the fathers drawing is indeed irresistible. They WONT reject, because they will finally KNOW, because Jesus will REVEAL HIMSELF to them. Irresistible has NOTHING to do with it. Get rid of that word, man. Free will.
Do you know WHY God used the Pharaoh? Do you? He was going to let the people go several times. God tells Moses to go tell the Pharaoh to let the people go. Pharaoh says, “OK”, but God hardened his heart to change his mind so that he would NOT let the people go?
WHY?
Let’s hear your NATURAL MAN routine of an explanation!
See, now YOUR religion will tell you that this is the forefront example that God does what he will to people. NO NO NO NO.
God has a STORY to tell, THRU the Pharaoh, but you people don’t get it because you are the NATURAL MAN.
Like I said about Joseph. The natural man only thinks it’s a story about Joseph. But God USED Joseph to tell a story about Jesus. God used Abraham to tell a story about Jesus. God used David to tell a story about Jesus. God used Noah, to tell us a story about Jesus. God used Soloman to tell us a story about Jesus. God used ALL of the Jewish required FEASTS to tell us a story about Jesus. God used Jonah to tell us a story about Jesus.
So, your unregenerate garbage is just that….garbage. Natural man sees none of what I said above. Expository preaching sees none of that stuff, either.
The Pharaoh was indeed shown mercy by God all because God USED him to tell a story. Pharaoh is in heaven. There is no doubt in my mind at all. BASED ON THE BIBLE.
Ed Chapman
The rich young ruler was drawn to Jesus, but found the God-man’s teaching resistible.
Good point Norm… and Jesus loved him to… but he went away in unbelief. Did Jesus love someone God hated eternally immutably? 😉
Norm and Brian:
Calvinists will say just that!! Piper’s site, referring to the man’s wealth says…
“But its power is so blinding that when Jesus held out real treasure to this man in exchange for the counterfeit, he wouldn’t trade. And what he did was choose poverty over incalculable eternal wealth.”
The story says that Jesus loved him and offered him life (and the site makes that clear), and then goes on to say that the man chose not to follow.
We are left with the idea that God has really given man the possible choice…… or that
Christ loved the man wanted and wanted him to come, but the Father had immutably NOT enabled him.
That means either Christ was not able to achieve his goal, or his offer was really insincere.
Norm and Brian:
If you think this story (Rich young man) leaves Calvinists conflicted (Christ loves and calls but man resists)…. oh no!
They just preach like Arminians “earthly prosperity can make people spiritually destitute.” (meaning: you aren’t destitute inherently, but money might make you that way!)
Have a look at this message on Piper’s site and see that several times they make Arminian claims about money making the man able to resist the call of Christ.
Then they say rather shamelessly…. “Your generosity is helping make others rich.” Meaning….you give to us and we tell others about the riches they have in Christ. They become rich because you give to us. Notice a real lack of immutable, eternal call in the whole message.
Determinism is not a way of life.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/rich-young-man-the-impoverishing-power-of-financial-prosperity
norm writes, “The rich young ruler was drawn to Jesus, but found the God-man’s teaching resistible.”
Many find the teachings of Jesus attractive but Jesus will say to some of them, “I never knew you.” Such is the rich young ruler. However, as it says that Christ loved him, there is implied here that God will draw him to Christ and this drawing will not be resisted.
Norm;
Be prepared for those who say that the “rich young man” eventually did come to Christ.
If Christ’s love and call are irresistible…. then the man must have come later (they will say).
But this demonstrates clearly that they MAKE the Scripture say what they want it to say.
The Scripture gives us the very clear passage that this man outright resisted/ rejected Christ. Calvinists will say “yes, but we dont want this example since we know better!”
Wait for it….
FOH, already implied, with no valid evidence for doing so – merely the desire to ‘make up’ whatever is necessary to cling to faulty theology.
Hey Norm,
This just in….
I went to monergism.com (a hub for determinists) and looked for their interpretation of the rich young man…..
https://www.monergism.com/search?keywords=rich+young+man&format=All
If you listen to their posted recording you will hear a very, very Arminian message all about the choice of the young man.
This preacher does not pretend that the young man went on to accept Christ. He says that the man goes away “haunted by what might have been.”
Is there anything that “might have been” for a determinist? No!
Is there any way (within Calvinism) for a man called by Christ to resist? No! (and yet….this story, and this “Calvinist” pastor, show it to be the case).
More statements in this message:
“Wealth is a handicap. The greater your wealth the higher your handicap.” “It’s difficult to have a lot and trust a lot.”
“It is easy for an earnest person wanting to serve God to be drug away and enslaved.”
“Wealth can pervert one’s values.”
“Wealth can corrupt attitudes.”
“Wealth can destroy and steel one against the objective requirement to enter the kingdom of God.
“What you do with your wealth will determine your spiritual health, and to a great extent, the destiny of your family.”
“If you are becoming wealthy, then you stand in great danger.”
“Give this way [a lot] so that if affects your life…for your soul’s sake.”
“Divestment and investment. That is what God calls us to.”
“Everyone needs to drop the thing that they are holding on to; whether it is their wealth, or their pride, or a passion, or a person…. you are to drop it. And Ask God to come in His grace. And change your life. And He can do the miracle which you cannot do.”
I fail to see how this message made its way on to the monergism site!!!
If this guy was not a card-carrying Calvinist, his words would be excoriated BY Calvinists as extremely “man-centered”. His Calvinism makes absolutely no difference in his preaching.
Determinism is not a way of life.
Reminds me of the sermon my former (Calvinist) pastor taught, telling us how he ‘literally’ wept for the millions who would be ‘lost’ because we – ‘The Church’ – were not faithful to our calling. WHAT??? I looked around expecting others to be either stunned or laughing, but all just nodded their unthinking heads in heartfelt sorrow and repentance. My spouse gave me a dirty look for not just submitting humbly to the teaching of the dear leader.
TS00
Dont forget we can just pick up a copy of Piper’s best-selling “Don’t Waste Your Life” where he says similar things many times!
His disciple Jon Bloom says it over and over in all of his books and articles.
It is like the proof-reader is living in two worlds (the every-dust-particle determinist world, and the “we can possibly waste our lives” world).
Oh…that’s right…. they ARE living in both those worlds. It’s ALL good! Just claim Calvinism —- and then you can say whatever Arminian thing you want!
Will the Calvinist god be crying for the unsaved, as well? And I will bet that the Calvinist preacher was flat out lying about crying, too. I get the feeling that Calvinists boast with a “neener neenner, neener, I was chosen, but you are not!”.
But what I want to know…How does a Calvinist KNOW that they are IN THE CLUB of chosen or not? How do they know that THEY HAVE FAITH? It could be that Satan gave them a counterfeit faith. How do they know?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned1924 writes, “How does a Calvinist KNOW that they are IN THE CLUB of chosen or not? How do they know that THEY HAVE FAITH?”
The same way all believers know – they find Christ irresistible and hope in Christ for forgiveness of sin, justification, and eternal life.
Only Calvinists see Christ as irresistible. The rest of us see him as the Christ, voluntarily.
chapmaned24 writes, “Only Calvinists see Christ as irresistible.”
If you say so. Somehow, I don’t think that is the case for all non-Calvinists.
In my last I stated:
“YES, the fathers drawing is indeed irresistible”
Change the last word to “RESISTIBLE”
If the Jews were NOT blind, then Jesus would have never been crucified. And I know that would make many in Christendom happy, because they can’t stand the Jews for crucifying Jesus.
But what if Jesus wasn’t crucified? Peter drew his sword to stop it from happening.
You would still be in your sins, with no savior if he hadn’t died on that cross. It pleased the Father to bruise him.
Why? So you can be saved.
That is why the Jews are blind. For YOUR SAKE. But people want to bad mouth the Jews for rejecting Jesus. Pffffft.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “That is why the Jews are blind. For YOUR SAKE. But people want to bad mouth the Jews for rejecting Jesus. Pffffft.”
I agree.
And please note that verse 45 states:
“Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
EVERY MAN EVERY EVERY EVERY MAN. Not some, not a few, not many, but every. Heard and Learned. Therefore, no one rejects.
Hmmmmm….where can you find an example of this? How about the PROPHESY of Joseph and his BRETHREN?
Joseph is Jesus, and the BRETHREN of Joseph is the JEWS. Hence, Romans 9-11.
Jews are the clay that God is USING to show us that righteousness cannot be by the law that God gave THEM ONLY, and told them to obey,and God fully knew that NO ONE can obey.
Why would God give them a list of do’s and don’ts, knowing that they would fail?
Wouldn’t it be to SHOW US the way? So that he could give THEM mercy?
The Jews treated Jesus badly, just like the brothers of Joseph. Joseph HID himself so that his brothers had no clue as to who he was.
But his brethren went to him for FOOD (BREAD OF LIFE, Jesus), and then Joseph REVEALED to his brothers who he was, and Joseph gave them mercy.
Not one brother was doomed.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “And please note that verse 45 states:
“Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
EVERY MAN EVERY EVERY EVERY MAN. Not some, not a few, not many, but every. Heard and Learned. Therefore, no one rejects.”
That is wrong. We have a conditional. It is not every man in the world but every man “who has heard/learned from God” The phrase “comes to me” has the meaning, “believe in me.” The Universalist argues that every man means that each and every individual in the world will learn from God, so all are saved. The non-Universalist argues that the conditional, “who learns from God,” can be some number less than each and every individual, so the statement does not mean that all will be saved. We have a similar situation in John 3:16. God loves the world but not every individual is saved – only those believing in Christ inherit eternal life.
then, “where can you find an example of this? How about the PROPHESY of Joseph and his BRETHREN?”
I like your explanation. I don’t think it applies to John 6:44-45.
I am not a universalist, so let’s dispense with that nonsense. All Israel will be saved. The Jews were given a law of Moses that God knew that they would fail at.
You people spread a fairy tale about God imputing faith, yet that is not the truth.
God BLINDED the Jews, and God will UNBLIND the Jews. Simple as that. Therefore, DUE to the fact that God gave them a law of Moses fully knowing that they will fail, God will show them mercy.
You see, I am NOT from the circles of REFORM theology. And because of that, we do not argue “regeneration”, a topic that you guys can’t seem to shut up about.
Righteousness is the word to concentrate on.
Self, and God’s.
Law vs. No Law. Self is by the law, which equals FAIL, NO LAW at all equals WIN WIN. Belief is YOUR OWN, not an imputation.
Because that is where you will find the truth, rather than a mysterious fairy tale about a god that must FORCE you to believe. No one outside of reform theology buys off on that stuff.
I will give you an example about that NATURAL MAN thing that you guys always bring up.
The Story of Joseph is PROPHESY of the relationship between Jesus and the Jews that rejected him. The SPIRITUAL MAN sees that.
The NATURAL MAN will reject that the story of Joseph is anything other than JUST a story of Joseph.
That is what that means, and since you guys are all about Expository preaching, you do indeed reject the story of Joseph being prophesy of Jesus, regarding his relationship with the Jews that rejected him.
So you guys can’t even interpret that NATURAL MAN doctrine right. You would have missed Jesus, too..all because YOU would be looking for a man named Emanuel.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “All Israel will be saved.”
Does that include each and every Jew from Jacob down to judgment day?
Then, “You people spread a fairy tale about God imputing faith, yet that is not the truth.”
Actually, I say God gives His elect faith, but He imputes righteousness to them.
Then, “And because of that, we do not argue “regeneration”, a topic that you guys can’t seem to shut up about.”
Just think new birth of John 3 as it is one and the same to the Calvinist.
Then, “…rather than a mysterious fairy tale about a god that must FORCE you to believe. No one outside of reform theology buys off on that stuff. ”
No one inside reformed theology buys that stuff either.
Then, “The NATURAL MAN will reject that the story of Joseph is anything other than JUST a story of Joseph.”
Good think the Calvinists understand that the story of Joseph is more than just an event in history. Joseph was a type of Christ.
Just a couple of drive-by comments, as I have no interest in being drawn into one of these slug fests:
I would suggest that the ‘blinding of the Jews’ describes what occurred in order for what would seem unthinkable to take place: the crucifixion of their own long-awaited Messiah. Once this occurred, Paul and the other apostles were free to reveal the ‘mystery’ of what Jesus was all about, hence the New Testament. The Jews are not still ‘blinded’ by God and awaiting some future unblinding – all of that took place long ago. At this point in time, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles; all distinctions have been forever eradicated. Read Paul a little more carefully.
Hint to Ed: Many Calvinists seek to assert an illogical irresistible ‘force’ that does not force. God irresistible, irrevocably determines ‘whatsoever comes to pass’, yet men somehow ‘choose’ to follow this irresistible, inevitable plan. Not sure if they actually believe this, or if it is just an argument they use to mask the cruelty and injustice of God ordaining evil then punishing the patsies who performed his will.
TS00
Your 2nd paragraph is especially accurate. There are some who ignore biblical answers to Calvin’s “irreconcilable tensions.” They would rather argue than discover truth, obviously. I choose not to engage such types, and that is usually borne out to be a wise decision since such people eventually are banned from commenting because their true motives eventually become evident. Besides, the Bible tells us to stay away from contentious people.
Speaking of contentious people!
Have you ever gone to Amazon and looked at the book reviews of a good Arminian or non-Calvinist book? Amazing. Just go to the one-star reviews. Most of them will not be reviews at all—in fact no indication that the person has ever even seen the book!
They just paste in there some ranting tirade against anything but the “doctrines of grace” (which is kind of ‘ungracious’ and ironic if you think of it). Give it one star, call him a universalist, add some aggressive no-one-is-right-but-us comments, and call that a review!
Why do they allow themselves to do such an ungracious and disingenuous thing? They feel like they are on a mission for God… a mission for the truth, and the end justify the means!
ts00 writes, “Many Calvinists seek to assert an illogical irresistible ‘force’ that does not force. God irresistible, irrevocably determines ‘whatsoever comes to pass’, yet men somehow ‘choose’ to follow this irresistible, inevitable plan.”
The “illogical irresistible ‘force’” is regeneration or the new birth. Then, “men somehow ‘choose’ to follow this irresistible, inevitable plan” because of the faith (i.e., hope in Christ) that they receive through hearing the gospel.
truthseeker,
You had said:
“The Jews are not still ‘blinded’ by God and awaiting some future unblinding – all of that took place long ago.”
My response:
YES they are still blinded and are indeed still awaiting some future unblinding.
truthseeker,
You had said:
At this point in time, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles; all distinctions have been forever eradicated. Read Paul a little more carefully.
My response:
Read Paul a little more carefully. There is a difference UNLESS both are “in Christ”. In Christ there is no difference. But if one or both are NOT “in Christ”, then there is indeed a difference between Jew and Gentile.
However, comma, try telling Calvinists that there is no difference between male and female in Christ. Males, in Calvinism, want female slaves for wives, barefoot and pregnant, that gets a new mop for a birthday gift, and a vacuum for an anniversary present, and a washer/dryer for a Christmas gift.
Ed
rhutchin,
You ask:
“Does that include each and every Jew from Jacob down to judgment day?”
God shows mercy to the IGNORANT.
Romans 10:3
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Paul, talking about himself for receiving mercy:
1 Timothy 1:13
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
Do you have a problem with knowing that ALL ISRAEL will be saved?
I guess all doesn’t mean everyone in Calvinist minds, huh? Just some. A few. Paul didn’t add any adjectives to that, no adverbs.
Ed
chapmaned24 asks “Do you have a problem with knowing that ALL ISRAEL will be saved?”
No. Do you have a problem with God saving all Israel? Or anyone else He wants.
God does NOT save WHO HE WANTS. He saves those who wants to be saved, and he does not impute that want.
chapmaned24 writes, “God does NOT save WHO HE WANTS. He saves those who wants to be saved,…”
Why can’t God do both? Man has free will; God has free will. God can save people who want to be saved and God can save people who don’t want to be saved.
God does not have free will. God cannot do things. God cannot lie…can he? Free will? God cannot do evil deeds…can he? Oh, but wait…in Calvinism he sure can…a sick and twisted god who uses people for his sick and twisted cosmic pleasure called God’s Glory…I forgot.
chapmaned24 writes, “God does not have free will.
On this point you disagree with the Calvinists (and probably everyone else).
God can’t lie, can he? If not, he is LIMITED in what he can do. He can’t do evil. But Calvin’s God does all the time. It is God’s will that a woman get raped…so that good can come out of it. God’s will that a woman gets raped. So he THOUGHT of evil for that woman. And Jesus said of adultery, if you think it, you are guilty. So Calvin’s god is guilty of THINKING evil, so he is evil.
Norm writes, “At SBCToday, a blog where you once frequently commented, Calvin’s notions have repeatedly and roundly been exposed for their theological vacuity.”
Why don’t you get me reinstated and let’s interact on Calvinist issues. But then, most of what you see about Calvinism other than Rogers is Leighton Flowers and those are just re-runs of his stuff here.
I’ll guess and say that you have not personally read Rogers’ book. But, I will read it anyway. Not expecting much given what he puts on SBCToday.
Hi Norm,
You wrote… “I refer you to former Calvinist Ronnie Rogers…”
I know this is what a lot of those at SBC Today believe, but brother Rogers is not a “former” Calvinist. In fact, he is a 2 point Calvinist (or Arminian if you prefer). Brother Leighton is a true “former” Calvinist.
Leighton rejects all 5 points of Calvinism, while Rogers still adheres strongly to total depravity (evident by his articles) and a form of irresistible grace (evident by his logic). Now while his form of irresistible grace might not force someone to believe, it does however force someone to a point where they can choose. Either way, force is not grace. Its coercion.
If our brothers and sisters over at SBCT would read his writings more carefully, they would see this.
Something to think about, brother.
God bless.
Phillip – I actually believe God irresistibly enables at least a few times in a person’s life to be able to choose to seek His mercy. I know illustrations don’t prove doctrine… but don’t you think it is grace to save the life of one who has overdosed on drugs so that they can decide if they want to get the help they need to stay sober?
Blessings, Brian.
Always enjoy your input and perspective.
I just don’t think fallen man is in a comatose state. At least generally speaking.
There are those folks who make me wonder. 🙂
Norm wrote, “Come back after you have read Rogers’ book.”
I got the book and have started reading it. This guy is one confused little puppy. Don’t know if I can sort out what he writes, but I will start with something easy. His chapter 2 is titled, “Predestination and Foreknowledge” It has nothing to do with predestination and is all about foreknowledge, so I found the title amusing. Regardless, he agrees completely with the Calvinists on foreknowledge writing, “God has always known all contingencies (decisions yet to be actualized) because even though they do not exist external to the mind of God, they have eternally existed in the mind of God by virtue of the nature of His being…I further affirm God’s omniscience…God knows everything about the future including every potential and actual choice of every person.”
So, Rogers has not rejected all of his prior Calvinist beliefs. Yet, having said these things, he ignores the major implication of omniscience/foreknowledge – Before God created the world, He knew who would be saved and who would not be saved. The big issue between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is not who will be saved but the manner in which people come to Christ – specifically God’s role in making this happen.
Rogers does make an interesting commenting the chapter – “Therefore, contrary to Calvinism, foreknowledge establishes certainty but not causation.” However, he must know that Calvinism attaches causation to God’s decrees (thus, God’s sovereignty) and not to foreknowledge. In addition, he writes, “I disaffirm that foreknowledge is the same as causation because epistemology (study of knowledge) deals with foreknowledge and etiology (study of cause) deals with causation, and to conflate the two is a fallacious confusion of categories. I am not saying that all knowledgeable Calvinists do this, but it is a common mistake among young Calvinists, as well as many others who label themselves as Calvinist.” It seems he has confused that which Calvinism teaches with that which some Calvinists (young ones) mistakenly think Calvinism teaches.
There was so much more that Rogers could have said about God’s omniscience especially as it relates to Calvinism, but he didn’t. I found it disappointing.
That was an easy chapter to sort out.
Brian,
For further clarity, let me add the following…
Acts 9:3-6 (NKJV)….
As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
Now, was Paul irresistibly thrown of the donkey? Yes. Did it have anything to do with overcoming Paul’s depravity? Nope. Not one little bit.
And that’s just it. For the Calvinist/Arminian, grace (of the irresistible nature) is the solution for total depravity/total inability.
Now does that mean that God can’t (forcibly) tap us on the shoulder from time to time? Of course not. But I don’t think that means God is overcoming our fallen nature and restoring us to a pre-fall condition either; which Calvinists/Arminians (like brother Rogers) insist must happen first.
Phillip and Brian:
Another example is Jonah. I would say that God intervened significantly there!
I think we all agree that Jonah could have STILL said no —and many in similar situations have said no.
I tried to make it hard for my kids to make bad decisions. they still did sometimes.
That’s why we call it a “personal relationship.”
FOH writes, “For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.”
The issue is not whether Jonah “could” have said, No. Nothing suggests that this option was unavailable to him. The issue is what Jonah “would” do under the circumstances in which he made the choice. God does not work against the will of a person, but bends the will of a person to want and choose God’s will.
Thanks for the clarification Phillip. Not sure there was a donkey… 😁 but he certainly was blinded and heard Jesus voice. The issue is the needed opportunity of grace not the ability of the will. “Ability is nothing without opportunity” the great theologian Napolean said. 😉
But Barnabas said – Hebrews 3:7-8 NKJV — “Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: ‘Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion….'”
I believe God overcomes the hardness sufficiently a few times at least with opportunities that the will can respond to, and then will be given more light if it responds positively. But hardness without opportunity leads nowhere. And God sometimes hardens those who have rejected their opportunities so that they never “see” the grace right in front of them any more.
phillip writes, “For the Calvinist/Arminian, grace (of the irresistible nature) is the solution for total depravity/total inability….I don’t think that means God is overcoming our fallen nature and restoring us to a pre-fall condition either; which Calvinists/Arminians (like brother Rogers) insist must happen first.”
Ronnie Rogers, in his book, “Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist,” has agreed with the Calvinists that God is omniscient and knows all future decisions, including salvation decisions, I also have found that he agrees with the Calvinists on Total Depravity and the need for grace to enable a person to freely choose salvation – of course, rather than just enabling His elect, Rogers has God enabling those He knows are not to be saved (for reasons that I I am trying to sort out).
The only real complaint I have come across (and I have only read about half the book) concerns free will and Rogers’s complaint that Calvinism does not give people real freedom to choose salvation. I look forward to his definition of “real freedom” (or words to that effect).
He does have an issue with the regeneration-faith order, but I think he mistakenly takes regeneration to be salvation when it is not.
I don’t think he is as disenchanted with Calvinism as he implies in the title and in some of the comments in the book. He will make a harsh comment about Calvinism on a point and then later affirm that point. He is really caught up with the free will thing and that is his only consistent objection to Calvinism that I am reading of.
As you well noted, the key word in that verse i the word, “THROUGH”, and the subject is NOT chosen. The word THROUGH shows the procedure by which anyone is saved. He was talking to the already saved, telling them how they were saved. THRU faith. He was not telling anyone that they were chosen at all. This same kind of context is in ALL of the CHOSEN references in Ephesians, too. In THIS case, the key word was THROUGH. In the case of Ephesians, the key words are “TO BE”, not chosen. The subject of the context is AFTER the TO BE, not before the TO BE.
chapmaned24 writes, “The word THROUGH shows the procedure by which anyone is saved. He was talking to the already saved, telling them how they were saved.”
All agree on this.
We have, “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through…” The issue is with, “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation…” You say, “He was not telling anyone that they were chosen at all.” However, the translation of the verse suggests otherwise.
Bad translation. English Composition states otherwise.
chapmaned24 writes, “Bad translation.”
How about giving us your better translation. And tell us why it is better – maybe explaining how all the current translations are “bad.”
How about??????? Ya gotta ask me nicely…you see Danny, I can live with the bombs and the bullets…
How about it…phhhhh.
THRU is describing a PROCESS by which anyone is SAVED. Salvation is the SUBJECT, not YOU, not CHOSEN. Salvation was PREDETERMINED by a process.
The YOU is the ALREADY SAVED that he was talking to.
The word CHOSEN is in DIRECT RELATION TO “THRU”, not “YOU”. From the beginning, salvation is THRU Faith…HENCE ABRAHAM HAVING FAITH, and get this….NOT THE LAW OF MOSES.
THE LAW OF MOSES IS WHAT CAUSES WRATH, NOT FAITH.
Faith came first. From the beginning.
What I want to see from you is how you think that faith is a work.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “What I want to see from you is how you think that faith is a work.”
Faith is a work where a person has some inherent natural ability to exercise faith when unregenerate and who can exercise that faith without God’s help (i.e., without regeneration). Exercising faith to believe is an act of the individual and obligates God to regenerate the person. Faith is not a work if it can only be exercised by a person who has been regenerated by God and is received through the “hearing of the word.” Regeneration provides the environment necessary for faith to manifest outwardly as belief. Exercising faith is a synergistic act requiring God’s help. The unregenerate do not receive faith through “hearing the word” because the gospel is foolishness to them (or a stumbling block where one is a Jew).
Wrong…the word “works” is ONLY ONLY ONLY pertaining to the obedience of the law of Moses.
Hence, the phrase, “works of the law”.
The law is not of faith. The law is a barrier to faith. It’s EITHER law OR faith. Not both
Works is SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS in the law of Moses. Works requires a WAGE.
If you can obey perfectly, you WORKED for a wage ,and that wage is…ETERNAL LIFE.
But no one can, so the WAGE is death, for by the LAW, which is not of faith, is the knowledge of sin.
Did ABRAHAM have the Law of Moses?
No Works
1 John 3:4
sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 3:20
the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 6:7
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead
Romans 7:4
ye also are become dead to the law
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law,
Romans 7:8
For without the law sin was dead.
Galatians 2:21
if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested
Romans 4:5
faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:13
not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace
Galatians 3:12
the law is not of faith
Galatians 3:21
if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Romans 4:5-6
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Faith is NOT imputed.
There is ONLY two things that can be “IMPUTED” to us.
1. Sin
2. Righteousness
Righteousness can only be imputed in two different ways.
1. Works (DEEDS/OBEYING/OBSERVING) The Law of Moses
2. Faith
chapmaned24 writes, “the word “works” is ONLY ONLY ONLY pertaining to the obedience of the law of Moses.”
We also have from James 2, “…just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.”
Also, Ephesians 2, “we are [God’s] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
There are the works of the law and the works that God does through a person. You refer to those works done by the person apart from God to obtain salvation. In this context, we speak of the “faith” that is the foundation for these works and ask how Calvinists can label the “faith” that gives rise to works of the law as a “work.” Calvinist mean that such faith is not of God but of the man – that faith is not rooted in Christ but in the desires of the person. Have the Calvinists mischaracterized it as a “work”? Perhaps, but the point being made by the Calvinist is that the “faith” that does not lead to salvation (not being of God) reflects man’s effort (work) to obtain salvation through obedience to the law – whether the law of Moses or the persons’ personal law.
Then, “Faith is NOT imputed.”
OK. Here, we refer to Paul’s explanation that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” The meaning here is that a person has no faith (that faith required for salvation), then hears the word with the result that they now have faith. Such faith is the substance and evidence a person’s hope in Christ for forgiveness of sin, justification, and eternal life.
Then, “There is ONLY two things that can be “IMPUTED” to us.
1. Sin
2. Righteousness”
I don’t think sin is imputed to us. The term, “impute,” suggests the crediting of something to a person that he does not deserve . Sin is not imputed to a person – the person actually sins.
Then, “Righteousness can only be imputed in two different ways.
1. Works (DEEDS/OBEYING/OBSERVING) The Law of Moses
2. Faith”
I don’t think righteousness can be imputed by obedience to the law. I think this is Paul’s point when he wrote, “For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.” (Galatians 3)
The works that James speaks of has nothing to do with the works that Romans speaks of. This is what also confused Luther, which is why he didn’t like the book of James.
Works, as it relates to James is LIVING what you believe.
Abraham believed God, in that the promised land would be given to the descendants of Isaac. So, Abraham had no problem sacrificing his son on the mountain. That is the works that James discusses. Also:
James is discussing LOVE. Your WORKS OF FAITH is THRU Love.
Living your life of faith thru love is the works James discusses.
But works that Romans discusses…that is works of the Law of Moses.
To WIT:
Note the word “DO”, and “RIGHTEOUSNESS” in the following:
Exodus 24:3
And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.
Notice the last word in that verse, “do”. Later, in Deuteronomy 5, Moses once again reiterates what was spoken in Exodus 20 – 24. After that review, the children of Israel responds:
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
That is self righteousness. That is deeds, aka works of the law. Do.
OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, which is shown in the verse, vs. God’s RIGHTEOUSNESS without the law.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Works, as it relates to James is LIVING what you believe….Living your life of faith thru love is the works James discusses. But works that Romans discusses…that is works of the Law of Moses….That is self righteousness. That is deeds, aka works of the law. Do.OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, which is shown in the verse, vs. God’s RIGHTEOUSNESS without the law.”
No disagreement from me on this. Well said.
One thing that you are really missing out on is that God is the one who gave the law to Moses and told everyone to OBEY, knowing full and well that no one can.
But most importantly, that Abraham did not have the law.
I noticed that you completely missed the quoted scriptures:
1 John 3:4
sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 3:20
the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Sin is indeed imputed when you sin…UNLESS there is NO LAW. Abraham was in an era where there was NO LAW. Romans 5:13, therefore, sin was not imputed to Abraham, EVEN THO for all have sinned.
chapmaned24 writes, “Salvation is the SUBJECT, not YOU, not CHOSEN. Salvation was PREDETERMINED by a process.
The YOU is the ALREADY SAVED that he was talking to.
The word CHOSEN is in DIRECT RELATION TO “THRU”, not “YOU”.”
I understand 2:13 to say directly, “God choose you to salvation (i.e., to be saved).” The means that God used to bring them to salvation is “through” a process that included sanctification by the Spirit and belief of the truth.
God is the subject; chose is the verb (God’s action), and you is the object for God’s action.
So, you put a period after the word salvation, which changes the whole topic. But I would suggest that the sentence is not over with yet.
chapmaned24 writes, “So, you put a period after the word salvation, which changes the whole topic.”
No, I don’t. I agree with you that the phrase beginning with “through” describes the means whereby God is working. However, Paul describes that means after saying that God chose them for salvation. The order of thought in the verse is:
— God has chosen you
— for salvation
— through…
No, that is not how one is to comprehend that sentence at all. English Composition does not work that way. The procedure for salvation is what was chosen from the beginning, and you just so happen to be the one Paul is speaking to.
That is how it is to be interpreted by English Composition. The subject is not “you”, but “salvation”. IF the subject was “YOU”, there would be a period after the word Salvation. So you are indeed putting a period after the word salvation. Based on your breakdown, you are putting a period after the word salvation, all because you are indicating that the subject is “you”, even tho you don’t, what is word, “explicitly” say it.
I know English Composition. When you put a period after the word “salvation”, salvation is NOT the subject. “YOU” is the subject.
And YOU is what you are really talking about. The person(s).
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “The subject is not “you”, but “salvation”. ”
The verse: “…God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.”
The subject is “God.” The action God takes is the verb, “CHOSEN.” The object of God’s action is “YOU.” We then have several prepositional phrases that modify, and provide more information, about what God has done and how He has done it.
I do not understand how you take a prepositional phrase, “for salvation,” and make it the subject.
Because the subject is not about you, but the PROCEDURE of salvation. Another example…your Ephesians.
Ephesians 1:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
The subject is what is to the right of THAT WE, not before.
You have to remember, this is 1611 English, not modern day English re-translated from Old English. It’s almost like reading Japanese. I was stationed there. Tomoko Takigamisan imaska in English is: “Is Tomoko Tagami there? FORGET ME NOT means DON’T FORGET ME. LET NOT YOUR HEART BE TROUBLED…LET, being the first word, isn’t the way we speak today. God intends the saved TO BE Holy and Blameless in Love. That is what he chose from the foundation of the earth, and YOU were the people he was talking to.
Just a test.
A couple of observations.
First, I agree with my non-reformed brothers about engaging rhutchin. I question (unfortunately) his motives (and sincerity).
Second, “All Israel will be saved” is referring to the 12 tribes, or the nation as a whole (check out Revelation 7:4-8), and not every single Israelite.
“At this point in time, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles; all distinctions have been forever eradicated.”
In a salvific sense, that is true. However, Paul writes…
Romans 3:1-2 (NKJV)…
“What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.”
And Romans 9:4-5 (NKJV)…
“….who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.”
All present tense. 201 times in the Bible He is referred to as “the God of Israel”. No one else can make that claim.
Now read very closely what our Lord says here….
Matthew 15:21-28 (NKJV)….
Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
Now this Canaanite woman was a Gentile. A believing Gentile. And our Lord called her a “dog”. Dogs are not sheep. Nor do dogs ever become sheep. Gentiles, though “wild” (Romans 11:17) get grafted in, but they never become the “natural” branches (the Jews).
I believe the point of our Lord’s conversation with the Canaanite woman is that we (the Gentile nations) only get what we get because of God’s overabundant love, covenants, and promises to the nation of Israel, mine elect (Isaiah 45:4).
phillip writes, “I believe the point of our Lord’s conversation with the Canaanite woman is that we (the Gentile nations) only get what we get because of God’s overabundant love, covenants, and promises to the nation of Israel, mine elect (Isaiah 45:4).”
A good Calvinist, and even non-Calvinist, explanation.
“A good Calvinist……explanation.”
No need to be hateful, brother. 😉
The difference though is I see the nation of Israel being God’s elect. Period. That would make the gentile nations the non-elect. So, we have non-elect peoples (gentiles) being saved. And some of His elect (Israelites) being lost. That was Israel’s blunder. They believed salvation was reserved only for His elect (Israel) and denied to the non-elect (gentiles). But their election didn’t guarantee them their salvation (Romans 11:28).
However, that mystery (of the Gentiles inclusion for salvation, not election) was revealed only to the apostle Paul (Romans 11:25, Romans 16:25, Ephesians 3:3).
phillip writes, ““A good Calvinist……explanation.” No need to be hateful, brother. ”
Nothing hateful here. I merely noted that your explanation is that pretty much accepted by all. Perhaps, I should have said “A good explanation..” without the additional baggage. But, what fun would that be??
Then, “The difference though is I see the nation of Israel being God’s elect. Period. That would make the gentile nations the non-elect.”
A reading of the OT would suggest this conclusion.
Then, “However, that mystery (of the Gentiles inclusion for salvation, not election) was revealed only to the apostle Paul (Romans 11:25, Romans 16:25, Ephesians 3:3).”
The message of the NT seems to be that gentiles were always among the elect – but the drawing of significant numbers of gentiles to salvation did not happen until after Jesus had been crucified. In reading John, he uses the term, “world,” to say that salvation is not just about the Jews – it includes the gentiles, also. Thus, God loves the world, Christ takes away the sins of the world, Christ gives life to the world, Christ came to save the world.
Rhutchin writes….
“The message of the NT seems to be that gentiles were always among the elect – but the drawing of significant numbers of gentiles to salvation did not happen until after Jesus had been crucified.”
Precisely the same error the nation of Israel made. Confusing election with salvation.
Again, prior to the nation of Israel, there were no “elect”. That’s just scriptural. And yet thousands, perhaps millions, of people were saved before that tiny nation came into existence. That alone should tell us that election has nothing do to with salvation. Was Adam elect? Nope. Was Seth elect? Nope. Was Noah elect? Nope. Was Abram elect? Nope. That distinction was reserved only for the people of Israel.
Outstanding comment. Much of Christendom outside of Reform theology tells us this, too. For example, Adam and Eve are not burning in hell.
Phillip,
There is much that I disagree with you here:
When you say, for example that there is no Jew/Gentile…YES, there is Jew Gentile. The caveat is IN CHRIST. If both Jew and Gentile are Christians, then your statement stands. But if either one is not a Christian, then there is Jew/Gentile.
Paul did not say anything about tribes when he discussed “all Israel”. What he did say:
Do a word search for EXACT PHRASE “ALL ISRAEL”. That comes up NUMEROUS times in the bible. 145 times.
Ed,
I know brother, and that’s okay.
Romans 10:1 (NKJV)….
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.
Romans 11:13 (NKJV)…
For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh (Israelites) and save some of them.
I don’t think Paul shared your optimism.
Phillip,
You had quoted me:
Romans 10:1 (NKJV)….
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.
This verse has many in your league totally confused by what he meant by this.
As I keep saying over and over again, all Israel will be saved. All Israel will be saved. All Israel will be saved.
So, what does Romans 10:1 mean?
Somewhere you missed the words, IN THE FLESH.
Meaning that he wishes that they would be saved IN THIS LIFE BEFORE THEY DIE.
It is after they die that they will be saved.
Hebrews 9:27 it is appointed unto man once to die…AND THEN then judgment. You are not judged until after you die…not before.
Jesus was not judged for our sins until after he died. Not while on the cross. He received our sins on the cross. But he suffered for our sins after he died.
Jesus REVEALS himself to the Jews, after they die. All Israel will be saved, but Paul wishes that they would be saved NOW, instead of needing to wait, hence IN THE FLESH, which is the key words many seem to miss, especially in the reform doctrines.
Ed Chapman
2 Thessalonians 2:13 (ESV)…..
But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as THE FIRSTFRUITS TO BE SAVED, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 (CEB)…..
But we always must thank God for you, brothers and sisters who are loved by God. This is because he chose you from the beginning to be THE FIRST CROP OF THE HARVEST. This brought salvation, through your dedication to God by the Spirit and through your belief in the truth.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 (NLT)…..
As for us, we can’t help but thank God for you, dear brothers and sisters loved by the Lord. We are always thankful that God chose you to be among THE FIRST TO EXPERIENCE SALVATION—a salvation that came through the Spirit who makes you holy and through your belief in the truth.
Firstfruits? First Crop of the Harvest? First to experience salvation?
So here we are some 2,000 years later (with most thinking we are in the last days), but somehow we are the firstfruits? The first crop? The first to experience salvation?
Romans 1:16 (NKJV)…
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew FIRST and also for the Greek.
Think this thru, brothers and sisters.
First in Europe, Phillip –
Philippians 4:15 NKJV — Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia…
phillip writes, “2 Thessalonians 2:13 (ESV)…..
But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as THE FIRSTFRUITS TO BE SAVED, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.”
There seems to be some discussion whether the Greek says “first fruits” or “from the beginning.” Regardless, it applies to the Thessalonian believers who were not necessarily Jews. Paul’s next comment is, “He called you to this salvation through our gospel, so that you may possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here, “this salvation” would have the same meaning as “THE FIRSTFRUITS TO BE SAVED.” Thus, all whom God chose for savation can be called “first fruits” as God chose them and held them back to be a sacrifice to Himself. If you mean to understand Paul to be speaking of the Jews as the first fruits, I don’t think the context supports this conclusion.
Yes… He chose them through faith, which means they exercised faith and He added them to the chosen one Christ and they became chosen ones in Him. Praise His Name.
brianwagner writes, “He chose them through faith, which means they exercised faith and He added them to the chosen one Christ and they became chosen ones in Him.”
Or God chose him to receive faith and then he exercised that faith. Either way, it’s the same person under both systems.
Nope… not the same person! The one thought of in determinism as eternally immutably existing in God’s mind as a necessity is a wild figment of one’s imagination and a rejection of the clear teaching of Scripture about individual identity.
brianwagner writes, “Nope… not the same person!”
But aren’t the ones God would have chosen had you allowed Him those you describe as exercising faith?
Roger, you asked- “But aren’t the ones God would have chosen had you allowed Him those you describe as exercising faith?”
Not sure what you are asking in such a convoluted way. I don’t “allow” God anything. He’s the sovereign that does any allowing that happens. And as far as “the ones God would have chosen”… I’m assuming you mean those who are now dead that He would have chosen to join the Chosen One – Jesus – if they would have freely trusted Him when He offered them the opportunity to do so.
But they did not exist as an eternally immutably completed life in His mind before creation… nor did you or I… sorry. We’re just not that eternally immutably important as you might think. Yours is a made up fantasy from man’s pagan philosophy that contradicts God’s Holy Word! Sad.
Brian,
You are so right. That is another of the downsides of Calvinism. They make man be eternal when The Lord God is the Eternal one.
brianwagner writes, “I’m assuming you mean those who are now dead that He would have chosen to join the Chosen One – Jesus – if they would have freely trusted Him when He offered them the opportunity to do so.”
Those who are saved under your system are the same who are saved under my system. The difference is how they come to salvation.
Roger… I wish you would open your eyes on the logic of that point… the saved are not the same in both our theological systems as their identity before salvation and after was not eternally, immutably locked in to one set life forever… therefore they are different identities in God’s mind for those individuals… therefore not the same individuals.
It is like the Abraham and Jesus of Islam are not the same Abraham and Jesus of Scripture. Sooner or later there are significant enough descriptives that make their identities not the same.
Acts 2:5 (NKJV)….
And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.
Acts 17:1 (NKJV)….
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
James (1:18 NKJV) writing to the 12 tribes of Israel…
Of His own will He brought us (the Jews) forth by the word of truth, that we (the Jews) might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.
Acts 13:47 (NKJV)….
For so the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth
So, yes. I believe the Jews are the firstfruits.
And, no, I am not chosen because I chose to believe. I am not elect, because I elected to believe. Yes, we get grafted in, but we (unnatural/wild) never become the natural branches (Romans 11:21, 24).
phillip writes, ” I believe the Jews are the firstfruits.”
So, are you saying that the “Thessalonians” to whom Paul is writing are Jewish believers in Thessalonica?
Phillip, I don’t think the word “elect” or “chosen” in the NT can be limited to just Jews in every context… especially in this passage talking to all the believers in Thessalonica. Is that what you are trying to limit its meaning to?
Brian,
I think Phillip has a very very valid point. TO THE JEW FIRST. Jews were the first saved. Paul could not go to the Gentiles until going to Jewish Synagogues first. For a long time, the gospel was not brought to the Gentiles. Peter didn’t even get it until God told him to eat unclean animals. So, the Jews were indeed the FIRST FRUITS, which is PENTECOST, a JEWISH FEAST. The NEXT Jewish feast is about Jesus and the Jews, too. Like I said before, either in this blog, or the other one, the Feasts are a story about Jesus, not about food and drink and being obedient. They all have a prophetic meaning. And the Jews are a part of that prophesy, regarding Jesus…THEY hold the oracles of God…WE DON’T, although many Christian Cemetery grads think that they have all the goods…who have the nerve to think that it is their job to proselytize the Jews to Jesus, when Jesus states to LEAVE THAT UP TO ME, FOR I PROPHESIED THAT I WILL REVEAL MYSELF TO THEM, SHOWING THEM MY HANDS AND MY FEET, and I will have mercy on them due to their ignorance and unbelief…just like the Apostle Paul, who also did bad things to my people, the Jews, because as Paul states of himself receiving mercy, he got mercy BECAUSE of ignorance in his UNBELIEF. We need to give Jews more credit than what we give them. We worship their God, they don’t worship ours.
Chapman… we agree salvation is of the Jews and the gospel was for the Jews first. But did you notice how you ignored the exegetical evidence I was offering for this verse in 2Thess. The readers Paul was addressing were not Jewish Christians only…
But there had to be Gentiles in that readership that Paul says “God from the beginning chose”, especially when you compare with 1Thessalonians and Paul’s use of “election” (1:4) for that “church” there and then contrasting it with the churches of the Judeans –
1 Thessalonians 2:14 NKJV — For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans.
And we Gentiles worship God! He is not just the God of the Jews. He’s always been the God of mankind… as Paul confirmed in Acts 17:26-30… we are His offspring.
Romans 3:29 NKJV — Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,
Brian, Thanks for that comment. There have always been those who seek to repair the veil that was torn in two, to separate the oneness of the Body of Christ, in which Paul asserts rather clearly, ‘There is no longer Jew or Gentile’. Those who make God’s plan ‘all about the Jews’ make the exact same error as those who make it ‘all about the elect’, with the difference of one word.
God’s love, as scripture carefully sets forth, in passage after passage, is for all of his creation, each and every single human being who ever has been or ever will be born.
Few deny that God chose Israel as his firstborn, the nation to which he revealed himself, miraculously rescued from slavery, dwelt with and taught about who he is and what he desires from men. However, as Jesus taught and his apostles after him, properly understood, all of the revelations of the Old Testament, via Israel, proclaim that his love is for all men and that his plan of salvation ALWAYS was about ‘all men’. The Jews first, simply because he made them, through no merit of their own, his people, chosen and elected for the most precious role in history – to foreshadow, produce and demonstrate the purpose of God’s anointed Messiah, who is to bring good news to all men.
However, in the Romans 9 passage that Calvinists misinterpret, Paul carefully sets forth the truth that, apart from being the ‘first’ and truly loved people, they are no more or less valuable than any other people, and will be treated no differently. Those who believe, will be received as forgiven. Those who reject, will be judged by the law. The real point of justification by faith is to prove that salvation is NOT partial, is NOT about Israel, the elect, or any other pre-selected, predetermined few, but about ‘whosoever will believe’ – a truth which, contrary to Calvinism, opens up salvation to the entire world of men.
While many interpret Paul, when saying ‘Thus ALL Israel will be saved’ as meaning each and every physical descendant of Abraham, a careful reading of Romans makes such an interpretation nearly impossible. This is exactly what the Jews he was speaking to believed, and he was very carefully revealing how and why this was FALSE!
He explained that not all children of Abraham were considered Israel even by Israel. He demonstrated, through Israel’s own revered history, how frequently individual Israelites had rebelled, disobeyed and been punished. Read Romans 2 through 6 in particular; but all of Romans seeks to explain why it is not, and NEVER WAS ‘all about the Jews’. Unless, of course, one is speaking metaphorically, using Paul’s own definition that ‘He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal.’ Which of course leads to ‘But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law (Israel), although the law and the prophets (Israel) bear witness to it: the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe’. Note, however, in order to avoid unnecessary confusion, the New Testament ekklesia did not continue to call themselves ‘Jews’ or, on an every day basis, ‘Israel’, even though, based on Paul’s definitions, they could have.
How could one possibly glean from these, and countless similar statements, that ‘in the end, it will be ‘all about the Jews’, fleshly Isreael or a small number of the physical descendents of Abraham’?
In summation, Paul suggests that the error of those who would suggest that all Israel MUST be saved or else God’s word and promises would prove to be untrustworthy, was the error of thinking that it ‘was all about the Jews’ (Israel). He writes:
‘But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are descended from (fleshly) Israel belong to (spiritual or true) Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his (physical) descendants; but through Isaac (faith in God’s promise) shall your descendants be named.’
It is this summation of how faith in God’s promise, such as Abraham demonstrated, is the example of the faith that is required of all men, Paul had just lengthily disclaimed: God’s offer of salvation was not limited to any particular group of people; not by birth, not by gifting, not by works but is – praise God – a gift wholly of God, freely offered to ALL upon one and only one condition: faith. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
‘For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him,’ is of course found in Hebrews 11:6. My problem with Calvinism, what sets it apart from nearly every other doctrinal error, is that it makes out of believers, unbelievers. Many who once fully believed that all men can freely draw near to a loving and merciful God, now sadly accept, based on the misinformation with which they have been brainwashed, that God actually took away man’s ability to draw near or seek him, except for a limited few.
It essentially wipes out all of the hope and beauty of the gospel message, and sets forth as ‘Truth’ that God exists, but that all men cannot ‘draw near’, thus, while technically true that ‘he rewards those who seek him’ it is based on a false, complicated model that insists that no one CAN seek him, no one CAN draw near, thus Hebrews 11:6 is meaningless without the ‘secret knowledge’ that reveals what it really means.
Thus, I can more readily live with doctrinal errors concerning gender issues or other ‘critical’ issues that Calvinist put on the front burner than with a doctrine that denies the hope of the gospel to most of mankind.
Thank you, TS00, for your thoughtful replies… we agree there were no chosen individuals from all eternity past. That is the most important agreement. We do not agree that Paul talks about a spiritual Israel/elect that includes the Gentiles. There is a spiritual Israel that is part of the elect and spiritual Gentiles that are part of the elect… and always have been since Adam and before Abraham and also after Israel became a nation and also after the church began at Pentecost.
The main issue is understanding that God is not done with the physical nation of Israel in their promised land as part of His sovereign use of them to be a testimony to His faithfulness to His promises. The passage – Rom 11:25-27 NKJV – 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this [is] My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” — speaks of a future coming of Christ, not the past one… and “Jacob” here is physical Israel on that day, not all of physical Israel throughout all their generations… and not spiritual Israel throughout all generations of humanity either.
Another verse that helps me see a difference between Jew and Gentile after the church was started is – 1Co 10:32 NKJV – 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God.
Brian writes:
‘The main issue is understanding that God is not done with the physical nation of Israel in their promised land as part of His sovereign use of them to be a testimony to His faithfulness to His promises. The passage – Rom 11:25-27 NKJV – 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this [is] My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” — speaks of a future coming of Christ, not the past one… ‘
Again, I hesitate to even open my mouth, and will gladly bow out to others who are far more capable – anyone, anyone? – but may I just offer that it is at least possible to interpret these passages other than as you have?
I would agree that the quoted passage: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this [is] My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” when written, was indeed speaking of a coming Christ, for Jesus had not yet come. Granting that, it is certainly feasible that Paul was saying – and obviously quoting the verse as written in future tense – that this had now come to pass, and that now, indeed, ‘all Israel’ would be saved, as was God’s plan all along. You might grant that Paul is referring to all who will believe, not a predetermined ‘elect’ few, whether they be defined as ‘fleshly Israel’ or ‘the elect, which includes some Jews and some Gentiles’. Paul took great pains in Romans 2-9 to explain that :
“For not all who are descended from (fleshly) Israel belong to (spiritual or true) Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his (physical) descendants; but through Isaac (faith in God’s promise) shall your descendants be named. This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.” Rom 9:6-8 (parentheses mine)
In other words, ‘all Israel being saved’ could just as feasibly be interpreted as all who would ever believe in Jesus; and this would appear slightly more logical, after his lengthy explanation of who and what Israel was and was not, in God’s eyes.
Surely you do not mean to suggest in quoting ‘For this [is] My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.’ that Jesus has not yet taken away the sins of the world, and that this awaits another coming? I presume – and please correct me if I am wrong – that you view the death and resurrection of Jesus as already having taken away the sins of ‘whoever’ one defines as Israel?
I freely admit that the concept I have struggled most with understanding is ‘that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.’ I will in no way assert that I know, without question what this means. I can only suggest that at least one possibility is that it refers to the almost impossible blindness of not recognizing that Jesus fit all of the qualifications for being the long-awaited Messiah. Had this ‘blindness’ not been allowed, without doubt the Jews would never have allowed Jesus to be crucified. They fully understood that their sacrifices were only no sufficient, thus had to be repeatedly offered, year after year. They understood that God promised a future ‘sacrifice’ that would be effectual and permanent and remove all guilt for sin. I that my interpretation – while perhaps not extensive – does no error to the beliefs of the Judaisers of the reality of sin and the need for a Messiah/Redeemer.
If – and again, I can only ponder – this is what Paul was referring to, he could be suggesting that, now, as the Deliverer who was promised to come out of Zion has indeed come, the door has at long last been opened for the Gentiles to receive the ‘good news’ that salvation is not, and has never been, ‘all about the Jews’. In other words, the ‘blindness’ was a very limited blindness, and had nothing to do with casting Israel into hell, but only in temporarily allowing them to not recognize who Jesus undoubtedly was. Would this not also explain why Jesus did not outright claim to be ‘the Messiah’, but spoke in parables? Had he set forth clearly who he was and what he had come to do, would not the Jews have proclaimed triumphantly that their Messiah and day had come and perhaps have attempted a violent revolution?
Thus, when Paul writes, ‘And so ALL Israel will be saved’ he could very well be contrasting that to merely ‘fleshly’ Israel. Again, Paul took great pains to discount the Judaiser’s error of claiming that ‘All (fleshly) Israel will be saved’. Are we to believe that this lengthy explanation was for nothing, and now he is asserting that the Judaisers were right all along? Huh?
This is close to the understanding I long ago had of this passage, admittedly gleaned from my uneducated reading as a young person. Through the years, I have been exposed to various other interpretations, and no doubt there are others with which I am yet unfamiliar. As I said at the outset, I make no claims to be any kind of expert. I have from time to time, adopted one or another parts of these explanations as necessary to ‘fit’ with other beliefs. In hindsight, my original interpretation seems, in my humble opinion, to make at least as much sense as the others I have embraced, and possibly more.
Thanks TS00 for another thoughtful reply. I think the phrase – “until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in” is definitive on what coming of the LORD is being seen in that prophecy… it is the future one. And in a day, the nation will turn to the LORD, when they look on Him whom they pierced.
Brian, I appreciate your response. That is a phrase that will indeed give me pause. I will be more than happy to discover that not only will ‘all (fleshly) Israel’ be saved, but if indeed ‘every knee shall bow’ savingly. Way over my head to try and grasp fully either one, but there certainly seems to be some ‘after this life’ activity that I do not understand. Or are you suggesting that it only suggests ‘all Israel’ who happen to be alive at the time? Which would seem a bit of a letdown for the rest. 🙂 I would be thrilled if it is as Unviversalists suggest, for I, like God, desire that none perish in their sin, even if my current limited vision can’t quite imagine how to ‘get that’ out of scripture. Much of this is non-essential to our understanding of the gospel, but it is always beneficial to be open to growing in knowledge and understanding, and this I hope to continue.
Thank you, TS00, for expressing your appreciation of my comments. I do think Jews have been and are being added to the church since Pentecost. But Rom 11 is speaking about generations of Israel being cut off from and generations of nations being grafted into the blessings of the gospel. And the final promise, when Israel is grafted in again, is “all Israel will be saved.” So I believe it is speaking about that generation of Israel which is alive at that Second coming, including all resurrected Jewish saints that join them for Christ’s earthly rule.
I do think that “all Israel will be saved” will still be through faith in Christ, so those who had followed the Antichrist up until Christ’s return will not get saved that day, but will be destroyed along with him. So “all Israel” is only “all Israel” that remains because of their having been added to Christ through faith.
Ultimately, we are going to have to wait and see how it all works out! And it will! 😉 I just believe this view I’m sharing has the best exegetical backing using normal rules of grammar and context that a layperson could see for themselves.
A few last questions, Brian, as now I am unsure if I even understood/understand your position properly. (No looking for debate, just clarification.)
Are you saying that you do not believe all fleshly Israel will be saved, but simply all spiritual Israel? And if so, how does this differ from those who posit a ‘spiritual’ Israel requiring no future mass conversion of so-called ‘Jews’? I think this is one of those subjects that will require some time for me to sort out, as I have not reexamined it since becoming aware of the tendency to succumb to false dichotomies. You seem to posit something of a hybrid of the positions I am familiar with, which I am having trouble wrapping my mind around – maybe I just don’t ‘get it’.
The most unique perspective I have heard was years ago from a friend, originally from (and since returned to) South Africa. He was raised Dutch Reformed, but his mother was of Jewish heritage, making him, technically, by modern definition, ‘a Jew’. The use of quotes is in deference to his claim that there is no longer any such thing as a fleshly ‘Jew’, and, arguably, never has been. (Those who call themselves Jews, but are not.) Modern Israel grants this same contention, as anyone is allowed to convert to Judaism, no Abrahamic blood required. My friend contended that this was Paul’s argument – that from the very start, anyone could become an Israelite by being circumcised and following the Law, thus only the original group that escaped from Egypt ‘perhaps’ shared Abrahamic blood, although some contend that there were Egyptians who joined them and were part of the original nation of ‘Israel’. (Hence the debate over Moses’ wife.)
In other words, being an Israelite or Jew, in my friend’s opinion, is, and always has been, about religion, not about bloodline. The distortion of ‘Jew by birth’, that the Pharisees and other Judaisers taught, gave rise to a false self-righteousness and arrogance to those who claimed Abrahamic heritage. It was this ‘myth’ that Jesus, and later Paul, exposed. This earned him the enmity of the Judaisers, who sought to limit God’s approval and blessings to those whom the Pharisees judged viable. (Similar to Calvinism’s ‘elect’, although my friend was a staunch Calvinist!) Since the religion of Judaism rejected and rejects Jesus as God’s anointed Messiah, one cannot be both a ‘Jew’ and a ‘Christian’; that is, there can be no such thing as a ‘Christian Jew’, but merely a Christian who was formerly a Jew. This, according to my friend, makes Zionism and the whole debate about ‘all Israel’ being saved something of a mute debate, as one who converts from Judaism is no different than one who converts from atheism, Pantheism or any other non-Christian religion. He would suggest that all of the covenant promises to Israel were fulfilled before Jesus’ first coming, (Joshua 21:45) and that all of the prophetic promises were fulfilled in Jesus (It is finished). The future promises are to all ‘true’ or spiritual Israel, which is made up of all who are circumcised of heart and joined to Christ though faith; the first birth, or bloodline, has absolutely nothing to do with it. His perspective seems to grant a different perspective on Romans than commonly accepted. Or maybe I misunderstood what he was saying?
Alas, there is a lot that I ‘don’t get’. Thanks for your patience.
Thank you for sharing more of your thoughts. I guess I was not clear, but I believe that the Israelites alive when Jesus returns, and who have put their faith in Him as Messiah and Savior will enter under Christ’s earthly rule along with Jews resurrected at that time. The rest who had joined the Antichrist will be dead.
How that works with also the resurrected church at that time, I am not totally sure… but I believe there is a period after the church is raptured, and during the rule of the Antichrist, that there will be the salvation of multitudes of Christians, both from Jewish backgrounds and none Jewish.
The issue of being “of Israel” by blood or conversion to Judaism is not the issue, except in the fulfillment of the 144000 witnesses from Israel during that time (Rev 7). I believe that genetics will help identify those 12 tribes again, and they were still being identified in Jesus’ day –
Luk 2:36 NKJV – 36 Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.
Act 4:36 NKJV – 36 And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus,
Rom 11:1 NKJV – 1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.
Mat 19:28 NKJV – 28 So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
After the church is gone, Christianity will once again be viewed as a sect of Judaism, since the witness will be mainly from the 2 prophets and 144000 Israelites.
Brian,
You talk about exegesis, and you have not even do so correctly in Romans 11. Read the whole thing. It’s talking about a DIFFERENCE between Gentiles and Jews, and the SO part of the All Israel will be saved is STILL discussing ONLY the Jews, not us who are grafted in.
It’s like I discuss something, and put in an OH BY THE WAY, then I RETURN to the main topic in the next sentence stating, SO…ANYWAY…
Ed Chapman
Truthseeker, BRIAN, Phillip et all,
Truthseeker, I noticed that you used the word, “fleshly”.
I gotta ask you as to what YOU mean by “FLESHLY”.
Because when you read the Bible, flesh is BODY.
Hear me out. YOU are a spirit, first and foremost…RIGHT? You, that is, your spirit, which is the REAL YOU, lives in FLESH.
So, when scripture states, FLESH, in the case of Romans 9-11, Paul is WISHING that the Jews would be saved BEFORE THEY DIE, so that they can EXPERIENCE salvation BEFORE they die.
However, THEY WILL BE SAVED AS SOON AS THEY ARE DEAD. All because God blinded them from the GIT GO.
So, all Israel will be saved, whether in this lifetime, or the next. They will ALL SEE WHOM THEY PIERCED…but they will be saved, nonetheless, ALL BECAUSE God USED THEM as CLAY, to TEACH US what NOT TO DO, and that is to NOT be SELF RIGHTEOUS, but just BELIEVE.
The Topic of Romans 9-11 has nothing to do with Gentiles at all. It has nothing to do with UNIVERSALISM at all.
If God blinded us all, we would all be saved, and that would be universalism. God saves the ignorant. Paul was given mercy, WHY?
What does the scripture state? It states that he was given mercy due to IGNORANCE in UNBELIEF. God states that he WINKS at ignorance. Romans 9-11 quotes a verse from Deuteronomy, that God has not given the JEWS a heart that comprehends…ears to hear, etc.
The Jews are Ignorant. Becaus eGod wanted it that way. They are the only ones who are ELECT. We are saved, but they are elect.
All elect will be saved. But we Gentile believers…no no no…we are not elect. The Jews are. Brian…I agree with Phillip.
Ed Chapman
Btw, I am not reading Universalism out of your response, merely one-upping you to suggest that if ‘all Israel’, why not ‘all men’?
Sorry for editing errors. They are so obvious after hitting ‘post’, but harder for me to see in the smaller print in which I must type them!
ts00 writes, “My problem with Calvinism…is that it makes out of believers, unbelievers. Many who once fully believed that all men can freely draw near to a loving and merciful God, now sadly accept, based on the misinformation with which they have been brainwashed, that God actually took away man’s ability to draw near or seek him, except for a limited few.”
That ability was taken away by Adam’s sin. It is the consistent testimony of Scripture that none seek God and that no one can come to Christ. There is only one who can enable a person to come to Christ to be saved and only one who can provide the faith necessary to salvation – that is God.
I would submit to you that just because God created humanity, that does not mean that we are “in the family”. We Gentiles are “adopted” into the family, when we believe, and are therefore children of God at that point. Yes, God is the God of the Gentiles, too. But to be a child of God…that is a different story.
In addition, I would also submit to you that the audience that Paul was speaking to in both Thessalonian epistles were indeed Jews only.
Reading both Epistles, to me, shows that, even with your reference regarding their “countrymen”. Jews lived in every country known to man at that time, and they were citizens of those countries, like Paul was a Roman citizen, yet a Jew. And the only reason that he was in Jerusalem at Passover was because it was required of all Jewish males to be in Jerusalem at the 3 major required feasts.
Paul mentions the man of perdition. Many of us Gentiles interpret Revelation as showing that Christians will not be here for that event. So why would we need to know about that?
The Jews are still awaiting their Messiah…and THAT so-called messiah is THE anti-Christ…their false savior. This has nothing to do with us. Flee to the mountains? That is for the Jews, too.
And there are more clues, too. Now, when you see the word Bereans, the ONLY scripture they had to go off of, what The Law and the Prophets. And the ONLY place that you would find that…is in Jewish Synagogues. But Acts 17 gives an understanding of what Paul is discussing in both epistles of Thessalonians. It shows me that his audience was not Gentiles at all.
Acts 17 ties in with Thessalonians regarding the what is said in the Epistles of Thessalonians.
Acts 17 King James Version (KJV)
17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
8 And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
9 And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.
14 And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still.
15 And they that conducted Paul brought him unto Athens: and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed.
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.
17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Chapman, but I think the exegesis is in my favor. The believers in Thessalonica were not just former Jews, but also “devout Greeks a great multitude and chief woman, not a few” according to the passage you quoted. All these were the “elect” to whom he was writing to in 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1Th 1:1, 4 NKJV – 1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. … 4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.
I’m not a fan of reformers ‘exegesis’. Just so you know. Leaves out the rest of the story. I gotta see the WHOLE movie to understand it. Not a few sentences to make a thoughtful review.
Greeks were mentioned, but they were not the focus of the, how you say, exegesis?
Devout Jews keep separate from the, how you say, Greeks? That is the Jews Law. The Greeks would never be able to step one foot in any synagogue whatsoever at any time…unless they wish to be a convert to Judaism.
Paul goes to the Jew first. Always. He can’t go to the Gentile until…
So the lesson is regarding the Jews, because the uproar was regarding the Jews anger to Paul and company, and therefore, that anger would extend to all Jews converting to Christianity. I’m sure that the Jews could care less about what the Greeks do in their own circles…just as long as it isn’t to convert the Jews to Christianity…like the Southern Baptists think that they can do as well.
And the story that I see in Acts 17 regarding the Jews anger, extends to the explanation of Paul in the epistles of Thessalonians.
Now, if there was a letter written TO THE GREEKs of Thessalonians, I don’t see it in either epistle…but that is not to say that he didn’t write one. I just don’t see it.
Ed Chapman
Ok Ed… others can decide which of us is representing those texts the best. I think I shared the Scripture evidence accurately. There were not only saved Jews in the church of the Thessalonians, but saved Greeks, a multitude, also. And when Paul writes to that church, he calls them the elect, chosen by God. Blessings.
I am not implying that Greeks were not saved. What I am implying is that the letters are to the Jewish believers, not addressed to the Greek believers. I’m sure that James wrote to Gentiles, too. But we just don’t have those letters. I am saying that Thessalonians 1 and 2 are to Jewish believers, not to Greek believers.
I understand your view, Ed… but you are reading that into the text because you do not want “elect” to include Gentiles… But the church includes Jews and Gentiles, and Paul is addressing the “church of the Thessalonians” and calls them “elect”… That’s exegesis… not eisegesis, which is reading into a word your definition that contradicts the grammar and context. Thanks again.
Brian,
You had said:
“but you are reading that into the text because you do not want “elect” to include Gentiles… ”
My response:
that’s not true. My “wants” have nothing to do with it. It is what is said throughout the whole 2 Epistles, things that would only be told to Jews, things that only Jews would understand at that time. Things that were FOR the Jews in future. Paul didn’t go about telling gentiles those things in his letters. I gave an example of the man of perdition that Paul describes…is that for Gentiles? No. We won’t be here for that event.
Unless of course, you don’t believe how many of us interpret Revelation. Is the Man of Perdition someone from the United Nations? United States? Who is he? He’s gonna be a jew, from the family line of David…when you see the OBAMA NATION of desolation standing in the TEMPLE (HOLY PLACE)…that is in Jerusalem, not New York.
Some things are said to Jews that have nothing to do with Gentiles. And that is how I see both epistles of Thessalonians. It’s not about my wants.
I think that some serious research in the matter should be done. I don’t buy into exegesis. I buy into Jesus. Exegesis will NEVER reveal Jesus in such things as the story of Joseph and his brethren as a prophesy of Jesus and the Jews, in that Jesus will reveal himself to the Jews and give them mercy, but in the mean time, he’s gonna TOY WITH THEM for a while. It won’t reveal Jesus in the story of Abraham, either, showing that Abraham was gonna sacrifice his ONLY SON…only is what scripture states. It won’t show Jesus as the promised seed, either. It only shows Isaac as the promised seed. So I don’t buy into expository exegesis one bit. The Jews used that method, and it got them nowhere fast.
Ed Chapman
Ed… is the church made of Jew and Gentile?
Brian,
You ask:
“is the church made of Jew and Gentile?”
My response:
Was the letters that James and Peter wrote to the Gentiles? No, they were to the Jews. Jewish believers, regardless of Gentiles.
Ed… why didn’t you answer my question if you think the word “church” means Jew and Gentile? Why discuss other epistles? I’m just looking for your view if the word “church” means those from both Jews and Gentiles. Thanks.
Brian,
You had asked:
“why didn’t you answer my question if you think the word “church” means Jew and Gentile? Why discuss other epistles? I’m just looking for your view if the word “church” means those from both Jews and Gentiles. Thanks.”
I have answered your question…with a question. Church does not mean Gentile. Church does not mean Jew. Church does not mean Gentile and Jew. Church is Ecclesia, assembly, a body of believers. The church that was in Jerusalem included absolutely NO GENTILES whatsoever. It was just a gathering of believers, assembly. And it just so happened that it was ONLY Jewish believers in Jerusalem. Yet they were THE CHURCH. No distinction of race. So I will NOT answer your question about Gentile or Jew as a meaning of the word Church. Race has nothing to do with the word. Gathering, or assembly is all it means. We used to have CHURCH in school, for example…assemblies. Nothing to do with religion. Just an assembly. Why does your definition involve race?
Why do I discuss other epistles? Because James and Peter also wrote to THE CHURCH…the Jewish assembly, that is, the Jewish ecclesia.
Thanks for your clarification, Ed. So since Gentiles were converted by Paul in Thessalonica as you demonstrated from Acts 17… why are they not in view in the word “church” in 1Thess 1:1? Thanks.
Because the persecution was from the Jews to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. Orthodox Jews are not allowed to mingle with Gentiles in or around synagogues, not even on a Sabbath.
Do you remember a certain individual that Paul did circumcise a Jew? Why? He was Jewish on his mothers side, Greek on his fathers side, and Paul, formerly known as Saul, circumcised him. But didn’t Paul say that circumcision of the flesh is unprofitable…or something like that. Yet Paul performed the circumcision on him.
Now, WHO WOULD BE LOOKING AT HIS JUNK IN THE TRUNK? Jews, of course. Not Gentiles. WHY? Especially since this newly fresh CUT dude was a Christian now.
Orthodox Jews persecuted Jewish converts to Christianity because they saw that as a threat, so they used that to their advantage to stir up local authorities, who were Gentiles, to threaten Paul and Company with.
There was NO THREAT to Gentile Christians at all. Just the Jewish Christians were being persecuted, and Paul talks about this JEWISH persecution in both Acts and the Thessalonian epistles.
Jews who lived and were residents to countries other
Interesting speculation Ed. But I don’t think the Jews persecutors would have minded persecuting Gentiles who were a part of this new Jewish sect. Remember that the evil one is behind it all. But the word “church” in 1Thess 1:1 includes all the believers in it. Many of whom were Gentiles. Thanks for the conversation. It is interesting you are so loyal to your view in spite of the clear evidence. All the best.
Yes, you and I definitely do not see eye to eye regarding the Jews. Your take on things reminds me of the reason that the Southern Baptists, in their infinite unsolicited wisdom, seems to think that it is their job, their duty, their mandate, their commission to proselytize the Jews…for which the Southern Baptist Convention got a HUGE backlash from Jews about that stupid idea. You see, it’s not up to Gentiles to do God’s work regarding the Jews. If the Southern Baptists KNEW the scriptures, other than historical context, expository exegesis, then they would have known that Prophesy dictates that the Jews will be saved when HE unblinds them, and Jews proselytize Jews. 144000 Jews get sealed just for that purpose. The dead ones will see the one who they pierced, and they will mourn…but that mourning will turn to joy, JUST LIKE the story of Joseph, when Joseph REVEALED himself to his brethren.
Yes, Brian, we see Jews differently when it comes to THE CHURCH, especially in the story that Paul is describing to us.
IN CHRIST there is no Jew and Gentile. BUT, there is a separate story line for the Jew, than for the Gentile.
In addition, whoever wrote the book of Hebrews certainly was not addressing Gentiles, but Jewish believers, as well. The Jewish assembly.
The Gentiles were not being persecuted for becoming Christians. The Jews were.
My last was meant for Brian Wagner. Wish WordPress already would note that even if we forget.
I got notification, Chapman, that it was a response to my response. Thanks.
1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 (NKJV)…..
For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen (Jews living in Thessalonica), just as they did from the Judeans (Jews living in Judah), who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us (Jews who believe); and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us (Jews who believe) to speak to the Gentiles (NOT to you Gentiles) that they (NOT you) may be saved,
What was happening in Thessalonica was precisely the same thing happening in Judea. Jews persecuting other Jews. It was unlawful for a Jew to even associate with Gentiles. Paul was telling the Thessalonian Jews that “Don’t be surprised when the Jews persecute you for preaching to the Gentiles, because they have been persecuting me for doing the same.”
Now…..
John 4:22 (NKJV)….
…..for salvation is of (or from) the Jews.
That was part of their election (Romans 9:5). It says “salvation is of the Jews”, but it doesn’t say “salvation is limited to the Jews”, which is how the Jews, unfortunately, understood it.
Luke 2:32 (NKJV)….
A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel
See the distinction? Israel is His chosen people (His elect). That makes the Gentiles the non-elect. Its based on lineage, not faith. Israel knew they were God’s elect. The OT told them that. But they thought, mistakenly, that being God’s elect, excluded the other nations from salvation. And that is what Paul was trying to get thru their heads in Romans 3:9. Don’t confuse election with salvation.
1 Thessalonians 1:2-4 (NKJV)….
We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the sight of our God and Father, knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.
Now when we see that word “election” we should immediately think “the Jews”. They are “elect” because of their lineage (Romans 11:28), regardless if they believe or not.
“Concerning the gospel they (the Jews) are enemies for your (the Gentiles) sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.” NKJV
You can’t read that any other way. The Jews are loved (and elected) by God because they are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Gentiles cannot make that claim.
1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 (NKJV)…..
For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen (Jews living in Thessalonica (Acts 17:5 NKJV)), just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they (the unbelieving Jews) do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us (believing Jews) to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.
Notice the language. They (the unbelieving Jews) are forbidding “us” (the Jews who do believe; including Paul) from speaking to the Gentiles.
Now reading further…..
1 Thessalonians 5:27 (NKJV)….
I charge you (the Jewish leaders) by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren.
I am saying that Paul was writing to the church leaders, who were believing Jews living in Thessalonica. I have no doubt that some, perhaps most, members of the congregation were Gentiles at the time (we don’t know for sure), but the leadership, to whom Paul was writing, was made up of Jews.
Remember, first to the Jew and then, and only then, to the Gentiles (Romans 1:16). Find Jews. Make them believers. Then let these Jews teach the Gentiles. That was their calling and election (2 Peter 1:10). To be a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6, Luke 2:32, Acts 13:47).
The problem, as I see it, is we are letting the Calvinists and their Arminian offspring, dictate the concept of election. For the Calvinist, God chose from eternity past who He would save and who He wouldn’t. And for them, the elect are guaranteed salvation. Bless their hearts, our Calvinist brothers made the same mistake Israel did. Confusing election with salvation.
Then here comes the Arminians, naturally uncomfortable with this, so they come up with this idea of the elect being those in Christ. Believers (both Jews and Gentiles) become elect once they are in Christ Jesus, the Elect One. The problem with this notion is that man decides if he is elect or not. “God chooses me, but only because I chose Him.” Here, you have man in control of election. Pretty lame if you ask me.
Deuteronomy 7:6-7 (NKJV)
“For you (the nation of Israel) are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples (that would be the Gentiles; making them the non-elect) on the face of the earth. The LORD did not set His love on you (Israel) nor choose you (Israel) because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least (fewest) of all peoples….
I am no more elect because I elected to believe than Israel is elect because they elected God. God chose His people. “Israel My elect” (Isaiah 45:4). And He tells us why.
God bless.
Phillip,
You understand! You know, recently I’ve been researching the Southern Baptists stance regarding the Jewish people. They don’t get it…not one bit. But I read your last few comments, and I say, YES…you get it. There is so much animosity against the Jews…from these Christians. These Christians just have NO CLUE. If the Jews killed Jesus, then the blood of Jesus covers ME. What is so wrong about that? Southern Baptists have no clue regarding the TNK regarding JEWISH prophesy. If they did, they would not be acting so snobbish to the Jews, thinking that they can spread the gospel to them…especially when the NT clearly shows that JEWS only can proselytize JEWS. Gentiles are NOT ALLOWED in a Synagogue where Paul would preach to the Jew first…THEN the Gentile. Yes…you get it.
Ed Chapman
Phillip – you said – “I am no more elect because I elected to believe than Israel is elect because they elected God. God chose His people. ‘Israel My elect’ (Isaiah 45:4).”
Are you aware that all choosing by God in the Scripture is not for individual salvation or made before the foundation of the world according to God’s own words in the Scripture? So wouldn’t it be unwise to compare the reasons and methods for choosing Israel as a nation in God’s plan for redemptive history as proving how He must have had the same reasons and methods when choosing/adding individuals to His Elect One, the Christ?
And, anyway, actually, Israel corporately and individually made a choice to put the blood on their doorposts during the Passover, and to follow Moses through the Red Sea. Those seem like moments of individual choice and faith that determined if they would be in the elect nation that was being formed, to me. Right?
phillip writes, “I am saying that Paul was writing to the church leaders, who were believing Jews living in Thessalonica. I have no doubt that some, perhaps most, members of the congregation were Gentiles at the time (we don’t know for sure), but the leadership, to whom Paul was writing, was made up of Jews.”
So, we have two positions identified: (1) Paul was writing to the leadership of the church in Thessalonica who were Jews and (2) Paul was writing to the entire church (wherever that church might reside) and would include gentiles.
1 Thessalonians 1:1 KJV — Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus.
The word “church” never means clergy in the NT… but always the congregation of believers when Christians are in view. Why do people want to reject the clarity of Scripture that a normal reading of a layperson would understand?
My through-the-Bible reading today has me in Joshua 24.
I am not gonna quote the famous (and important) “Chose for yourselves this day….” verse. That one is so obvious.
Look farther down at ….
24:31 “The people of Israel served the Lord throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him—those who had personally experienced all that the Lord had done for Israel.”
Does this indicate that they were “given faith”? No. It says that people served the Lord because they had personally seen what He had done. That is personal. The personal relationship factor. Not the impersonal “gave some people faith” factor.
FOH writes:
‘ That is personal. The personal relationship factor. Not the impersonal “gave some people faith” factor.’
That is, truly, where the rubber meets the road. I write of this constantly in my personal meanderings. My heart aches to think that many, even among those I most love in this world, may not understand that what God desires of us is a genuine, intimate, ongoing relationship.
I had the blessing of ‘growing up’ with that understanding. And of needing that personal relationship to get me through a turbulent childhood. And of experiencing the love, mercy and faithful hand of he who so loved me that he not only sent his Son, but would provide all things that I might need in order to continue in my faith.
At the height of my Calvinist experience, I realized that I had traded that oh so precious personal relationship for a shiny, fake insurance card that was inscribed: ‘Get out of hell free. No need to stop sinning. No need to continue growing in sanctification and maturity. Once in, always in.’
It was so tempting. I mean, who wouldn’t want to have the hope of heaven and still be able to keep a few of their favorite personal sins too? Then God stepped in and destroyed the mirage. He presented himself to me in a spiritual Joshua 24 moment, and demanded that I ‘Choose this day’ who I would serve – him, in all of his truth and justice, or the false illusions I had been sold. I saw in my minds eye, and even heard hymns that I had not thought of for decades, all that God had been to me, and done for me. It was as if, for a brief moment, I was looking at me from God’s perspective, and seeing all of my life at the same time. And I knew the choice was mine. That I could not rely on my past relationship or choices, but that God sought an ongoing relationship with me. It was literally like starting over, after having been a ‘believer’ my entire adult life.
And oh, the sadness, to think that my children had been raised under the false doctrines of the Calvinist church! They had heard ‘personal relationship’ and ‘following the spirit’ and ‘walking with God’ mocked and scoffed at as the ‘foolishness’ of evangelical holiness folk who didn’t understand the ‘true doctrines’ of the faith. They all had those shiny cards in their pockets. But did they ever ‘know’ God? The burden I bear, perhaps to my grave, is trying to undo what I unwittingly did, in allowing my children to be brainwashed into a faulty understanding of who God is, what he has done, why he has done it, and what he seeks from us – which is simply our complete trust and undivided hearts.
Thanks for that personal story.
I have shared several times here how we watched my nephew, who was under a newly-minted, cage-phase, YRR youth pastor, say to himself…..”well if God determined all things….. and I do this/ that, then it is really God…right?”
Of course the youth pastor had no way of answering him (he was just crazed on the “Doctrines or Grace” that led to determinism).
So…little by little and sin by sin….this young, baptized leader of his age youth-group nephew….just drifted away.
FOH,
Agreed. If sin is rebellion against God, but I (we) somehow keep all of His secret decrees perfectly, then just how am I (we) rebelling?
It sounds to me that Jesus isn’t the only one who lived a perfect life. And, yet, most are damned for doing so.
God bless.
The words below are not mine, but from a beloved brother in Christ. I just want to share, because I believe this shows who, and why, Israel is the chosen people of God; Mine Elect.
“2 Timothy 1:8b-9…..of the gospel according to the power of God; 9. Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, (not because of anything we deserve, but only because His grace is poured out to bring about the fulfilling of His own purposes. Now look at the rest of the verse) which was given us in Christ Jesus (when?) before the world (or the ages) began,’ Now that ties right in with everything we’ve been saying all afternoon. Right from eternity past, when the Triune God in counsel decided to create the universe, to put mankind in it, knowing that he would fall into sin. Knowing that He would bring about a Plan of Redemption, and in that Plan of Redemption He would have to bring to fruition the Nation of Israel. So that out of the Nation of Israel would come their Messiah. And that their Messiah could be rejected and go to the cross. It was all preplanned before the ages ever began. Miracle of miracles, the eternal purposes of God to bring about a Savior, not just for Israel, for the whole human race – but it starts with Israel.
And that’s why you know I’ve made the illustration (at least in my classes and in my seminars), that if you take a wheel, especially the old covered wagon wheel with the wooden spokes and the steel tire around the edge and the hub. Well, you can lose a good portion of the rim and you can lose several of the spokes and the wheel will still turn. But you pull the hub out of that wheel and you’ve got nothing. Nothing!
All right, what’s my point? Israel is the hub of God’s wheel. You take Israel out of the mix and you’ve got nothing. And that’s where most of Christendom is. They have totally rejected Israel as a part of God’s eternal purposes and you cannot do it. Somebody told me the other day that their pastor had said from the pulpit ‘There is not one word in the Bible that says that Israel should ever come back to their homeland.’ How in the world can they say something like that, as the Old Testament prophecies are full of it.”
Phillip, I am no expert, and I would recommend you seek out those who can explain it much better, but I believe that we can take Joshua’s word for it in Joshua 21:43-45:
“Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land which he swore to give to their fathers; and having taken possession of it, they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one of all the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.”
I believe, and I could be mistaken, that these teachers are pointing out the common error of conflating the temporal, land promises to the nation of Israel, of which Joshua tells us: “Not one of all the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.” with the eternal, spiritual promises and blessings which are to be to ‘all people’.
There are non-Zionist Jews, who also believe that what is today held up as God’s fulfillment of his ‘promises to Israel’ is no such thing, being based upon brutal bloodshed and ongoing oppression. Some might argue that there is yet a spiritual fulfillment to come, but if so, it must be based on Paul’s definition:
“For not all who are descended from (fleshly) Israel belong to (spiritual or true) Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his (physical) descendants; but through Isaac (faith in God’s promise) shall your descendants be named. This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.” Rom 9:6-8 (parentheses mine)
That is pretty much all I can offer, and would suggest that such ‘political’ topics often serve to confuse, divide and arouse believers into all sorts of unhealthy conflict. I can only say, with Paul, that it is not, and never has been, ‘about the Jews’. There is no longer any difference between Jew and Gentile, and all are the same in the Body of Christ, entering in by a faith that is equally available to all. The ploy of dragging ‘Israel’ back into play is a very ancient one. It is my fallible opinion that the concept of a future plan for Israel has sadly led to much bloodshed, oppression and division, and taken believers’ eyes off of their true charge, which is to spread the ‘good news which shall be unto all people’, Jew and Gentile alike.
phillip writes, “Israel is the hub of God’s wheel. You take Israel out of the mix and you’ve got nothing. And that’s where most of Christendom is. They have totally rejected Israel as a part of God’s eternal purposes and you cannot do it.”
I don’t think that is true. It is after the crucifixion that people started to say that Israel had no role in God’s plans anymore. Even here people were undecided. Certainly the restoration of Israel in 1948 was hailed by many as a prophetic event ushering in the last days. However, I don’t see anyone rejecting Israel as a part of God’s eternal purposes as Israel is the subject of the OT especially from Genesis 12 forward.
More from the same brother (again, not my words)…..
“Alright but now the point that I’m really wanting to make is concerning the nation of Israel. Now we know that anti-Semitism is coming up much like it did in the thirties, and forties, especially over in Europe, and it prompts me, and I want to remind my listening audience, why since day one, have the Jewish people suffered such hatred and such opposition from the rest of the world? Well, it isn’t because of their unique makeup, it isn’t because of their personality, it isn’t because of their looks, it’s because this adversary of God, this Lucifer, fallen now, and we know he’s Satan – knows that if he can knock Israel out of the earth’s existence, then God’s whole program falls apart. Because, as you see, as I’ve said over and over on this program, Israel is at the heart of everything that God does. And if you take the heart out, that kills the whole. And this is what Satan knows.
And so all you have to do is reflect back. Just as soon as the race was called out through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, my, what begins to befall those people? Well, the first glaring act of course, is when the brothers sold Joseph down into slavery. Hatred! Sin! Now you come all the way up through their history. Now there comes all of this what we think is, how could those people who have been blessed so richly, be so blind and practice such unbelief? Because Satan knows and he works on them constantly. If he can get Israel out of the way, he’s the winner.
Alright, let’s bring you all the way up to the Book of Esther. What happened in the Book of Esther? Well old Haman convinced the king to set out a decree that would kill every Jew in the empire, because they were the problem. And so the king fell for it. Fortunately God had His own little Jewish girl in the right place at the right time and thanks to Esther, the whole thing fell apart. But did Satan quit? No! He keeps on and so everything is directed to stop God’s program. When Christ is born, why in the world did Herod put out the decree to kill all the boy babies under the age of 2? To hopefully, get that Christ child that has been born in that two year interval. Well, why kill the Christ child? Oh, that’s what Satan wanted.
Now, you take it on up to the work of the cross, as many of you now have seen the movie, “The Passion”. Oh, what was behind the whole scenario? Satanic power! And so all the way down now since. Satan working overtime to stop God’s prophetic Scripture. And so why the hatred of Israel tonight? Why the threat to throw them into the sea? Why the threat to get rid of every Jew on the planet again? Oh that’s what Satan wants, because if Israel is gone, then everything falls apart. Never lose sight of that. And so this is the reason that they are so hated and so despised, is because Satan knows that without them God’s promises would fail.”
Brian,
I would say that God, according scripture, didn’t choose any individual for salvation. But at some point, long ago, God had a plan of redemption and providing a Savior. And in that plan, He saw the nation of Israel.
So when I see terms like “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4), “predestined us to adoption” (Ephesians 1:5), “your election by God” (1 Thess. 1:4), “from the beginning…” (2 Thess. 2:13) and “elect according to the foreknowledge of God” (1 Peter 1:2), I believe He is referring to the Jews.
Now you ask… “Those seem like moments of individual choice and faith that determined if they would be in the elect nation that was being formed, to me. Right?”
I would say those moments of individual choice and faith determined their salvation. I believe they never lost their election. If I am understanding you correctly (and please correct me if I am wrong), you are suggesting that these Israelites lost their election because of unbelief. And that would imply that Gentiles could be added to the elect via faith.
While I certainly believe that salvation is acquired by faith, I still lean towards election being by God’s sovereign choice. While we are grafted in thru faith, we never become the natural branches (Romans 11:17). And while the natural branches are cut off because of unbelief, they never become unnatural (Romans 11:24).
Please believe me, brother, I am not trying to be difficult, I am searching for continuity. Nobody (I hope) wants to reject the clarity of scripture. God is very clear when He calls “Israel my elect” (Isaiah 45:4), and those same scriptures are silent on this description prior to Israel. But now we have folks claiming that Adam, Abel, Noah, Lot, and Abram… “Yeah, they were elect too”. God never said they were. And that is very clear. We know they were saved, but God never called them “elect”.
So, again, if we are looking for consistency, let’s look again at 2 Timothy 2:10. I believe I have provided the exegetical evidence (Romans 9:3-4a, Romans 10:1, Romans 11:13-14, Acts 28:20) that Paul was referring to Israelites (apparently lost Israelites) when he refers to “the elect”.
2 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV)….
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
2 Timothy 2:10 (NET)….
So I endure all things for the sake of those chosen by God, that they too may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus and its eternal glory.
Who would you say, in this verse, are “the elect” or “those chosen by God” to be?
Thanks for the question Phillip. I believe no-one is eternally immutably individually chosen by God before creation. The Son was the first Elect One. And before joined to Him by the Spirit through faith we are not His, not one of His people or His beloved (Rom 8:9, 9:25)
My exegesis of Eph 1:4 might help. See it at https://www.academia.edu/31113015/Ephesians_1_4_-_exegetical_dialog Paul uses the personal pronoun “us” in a general reference and anachronistic way, like me saying – “Before the American Revolution we pushed the Native Americans west of the Appalachian mountains.”
Brian,
Thanks for the link, brother. Again, I always appreciate your insight.
But for the sake of the discussion here, who is Paul referring to as “the elect” or “those chosen by God” to be in 2 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV)? I believe I have successfully proven it is lost Israel.
What say you?
“Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”
Thank you Phillip for the kind remarks. You have probably done this already, but if not, here are all Paul’s verses on elect, election, and to elect, from the same Greek root – εκλεγ. I can see how Paul might be pointing to Jews as the “elect” in 2Tim 2:10 since he is currently in custody with the Romans because of their false accusations. But I rather think he is talking about his suffering as a sweet savor of Christ to all elect believers – 2Co 4:7-12, 15 NKJV – But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. 8 [We are] hard-pressed on every side, yet not crushed; [we are] perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed– always carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So then death is working in us, but life in you. … For all things [are] for your sakes, that grace, having spread through the many, may cause thanksgiving to abound to the glory of God.
Paul’s Verses about the Elect, Election, and Being Chosen
NOUN – Elect
Rom 8:33 NKJV – Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? [It is] God who justifies.
Rom 16:13 NKJV – Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.
Col 3:12 NKJV – Therefore, as [the] elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering;
1Ti 5:21 NKJV – I charge [you] before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.
2Ti 2:10 NKJV – Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Tit 1:1 NKJV – Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness
NOUN – Election
Rom 9:11 NKJV – (for [the children] not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),
Rom 11:5, 7, 28 NKJV – Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. … What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. … Concerning the gospel [they are] enemies for your sake, but concerning the election [they are] beloved for the sake of the fathers.
1Th 1:4 NKJV – knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.
VERB – Chosen
1Co 1:27-28 NKJV – But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,
Eph 1:4 NKJV – just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
I think Rom 8:33, Col 3:12, 1Thess 1:4, and 1Cor 1:27-28 are most naturally speaking of believers in the church from both Jew and Gentile. To say these are speaking only of Jews would be forcing a very unnatural interpretation into those contexts considering the original readership.
Brian,
It’s always best to start of the beginning of a book, not in the middle or the end.
Besides, God states that he declared the end from the beginning anyway. So if ya wanna know the end…it’s in the beginning.
That was a side note, but the first sentence is a clue to you. Look in the Hebrew scriptures and that tells you who the elect are.
And like I said last night, too. Thessalonians was to a Jewish “audience”, or assembly. Not to Gentiles. There is more than just one way to prove that. But, you have this notion that all believers are elect. So you gotta read, as Paul Harvey would say…
The Rest of the Story.
That is why I despise Reform exegesis. You don’t learn anything that way.
Ed Chapman
Brian,
Jacob vs. Esau…all that means is that God “chose”, if you will, the FAMILY LINE of Jacob…uh, the Jews…to be the ELECT. Not the family line of Esau. He saw she saw. Nothing more. Nothing less.
BINGO BINGO AND MIC DROP!
Phillip,
You are GOOD at this, Phillip. Do not depart from stating that the Elect is Jews only. I agree ten thousand times ten thousand percent with you.
Now, if we can only convince the rest of the reformers, who are Catholics in disguise…without the collar device, but highly edumacated.
Brian,
With that in mind, we have….
“Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect believers, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”
Wouldn’t the elect believers have already obtain salvation? And why would Paul say that “elect believers” MAY obtain salvation? Thus implying they MAY NOT. And since “also” suggests inclusion, is there such a thing as non-elect believers?
Seems to me that interpretation struggles a bit. Even a lot.
However, knowing Paul’s sacrificial love for Israel (Romans 9:3) my exegesis is more sound.
“Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the Israel, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”
Ed,
Thanks for the gracious words, brother.
But honestly, I could be wrong (obviously I don’t think so). I have discussed this notion of Israel, and Israel alone, as being the elect with other brothers “behind closed doors”. So I am not the only one willing to entertain this idea.
It was when I first came across Calvinism with its notion of “unconditional election” that cause me to study this more closely. In my studies, I came across 2 schools of thought. The Calvinistic one: Unconditional Election. And Arminianism; Conditional Election.
I reject both.
I have chosen to take the road less traveled, which leaves me open to attack from both sides. And that’s okay. I believe the nation of Israel is God’s elect. Period. Saved or not.
I find brother Brian very opened-minded and easy to converse with. Though I have never met him, I love and respect him. Not just because of the attributes already mentioned, but for his gracious tone and demeanor. I have personally witnessed him turning the other check on this blog many times. And he has shown Rhutchin so much love and grace. We’re blessed to have him.
That said, is he infallible? Of course not. And he would be the first to admit it. I will never throw a stone at him. Mainly because I’m too busy ducking boulders myself. 🙂
But here’s the kicker for me. If God is anything, He is consistent. So when we start with the word “elect” what do we find? The word “elect” or “election” only appears 27 times (KJV) or 28 times (NKJV) in all of scripture. The words “elect” or “election” only appear 4 times in the OT.
Isaiah 42:1 (NKJV)….
“Behold! My Servant (Israel) whom I uphold, My Elect One (Messiah) in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.
Israel: A Jewish nation. Elect One: One Jew (Messiah). And the Elect One is a physical descendant of the elect nation. No Gentiles here.
Isaiah 45:4 (NKJV)…
For Jacob My servant’s sake, And Israel My elect, I have even called you by your name; I have named you, though you have not known Me.
Israel, My Elect. Speaks for itself. Making all the Gentile nations the non-elect.
Isaiah 65:9 (NKJV)…
I will bring forth descendants from Jacob, And from Judah an heir of My mountains; My elect shall inherit it, And My servants shall dwell there.
Physical descendants. An actual blood line. No Gentiles in this group. The “elect” are the Jewish people.
Isaiah 65:22 (NKJV)….
They shall not build and another inhabit; They shall not plant and another eat; For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people, And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
My People. My elect. This is the people of Israel. No Gentiles.
Consistency.
Phillip,
Yep, you and me both get attacked from both sides. I don’t come from a “reform” mindset. Therefore, to me, the “non-Calvinist” is still from the reform community, which is why Artesians, or whatever that word is, and Palag…whatever that word is, is constantly used in arguments. My side of Christendom is ignorant of those words, not part of our language. Only a reform would know that stuff.
I’m not a Baptist, either, which also puts me at odds with the Baptist mindset. I keep harping against the word, “exegesis”, and bringing in ideas against “expository” preaching and studying. I’m just a lowly UNEDUCATED (NO CEMETERY and proud of that) Berean. Call me Dr. Ed, for Dr. Paul…I mean the Apostle Paul considered his education…what is word, dung? Expository has its place, but the real meat is when you spiritually study, hence, the natural man vs the spiritual man. The Natural man is expository.
I found that there is no way to see the spiritual story by doing expository. And, I listen to Jews, where many in Christendom badmouth them. Including the Southern Baptists, who have a history of badmouthing the Jews, officially.
I’ve read the experts, the educated experts, and I disagree with them. I’ve been studying the Bible ALONE for years. I’m not one to study the commentaries to see if the Bible is right.
It’s funny, the reform is quick to say, Bible Alone, but they are anything but. They have something called, CONFESSIONS…something about a meeting 600 years ago that I never got the memo for. Dead people made decisions as to what you are supposed to believe, so they come up with WE BELIEVE statements. No one is allowed to make up their own mind based on their own study. Except the Bereans.
Ed Chapman
Thank you Phillip again for the kind remarks. What? I’m not infallible?… lol 🤣🤣🤣 Now I’m going to have to rethink my whole theology. 🤣
But I am wondering how much you and Ed are really on the same page when it comes to the NT definition of “elect” in all its occurrences. It seems you mean the nation, both saved and unsaved, and Ed means just the saved Jews… but I could be fallible on that. 😉
And Ed – I wonder if you are a pastor or if you are under the leadership of a pastor who agrees with you on this view of the word “elect” and if you think your view is necessary for qualification in sound doctrine (Titus 1:9) to be a pastor. Let me know, would you? I certainly believe that believers baptism is a necessary sound doctrine for qualification to be a pastor. Thanks.
Brian,
No. I don’t agree with Ed on everything. And I’m fine with that.
For instance, when I see the phrase “all Israel” I understand that to be the 12 tribes. It is the 12 tribes that make up “all Israel”. In the book of Revelation, we see the 144,000 or the 12,000 representatives from the 12 tribes. Do I think every Israelite, or offspring of Jacob/Israel will be saved. Nope. What about the tribe of Dan? Israelites for sure, but not mentioned in the book of Revelation. What about Judas? Surely an Israelite. Saved? I don’t think so. The apostle Paul, a Jew himself, was willing to be accursed from Christ for the sake of his own people. He didn’t seem sure of his people’s salvation. Personally, I would love to see every Israelite saved. I hope I’m wrong. Bless their hearts; what they had to go thru.
Phillip asks:
What about Judas? Surely an Israelite. Saved? I don’t think so. The apostle Paul, a Jew himself, was willing to be accursed from Christ for the sake of his own people. He didn’t seem sure of his people’s salvation. Personally, I would love to see every Israelite saved. I hope I’m wrong. Bless their hearts; what they had to go thru.”
My response:
Judas was SORRY that he did what he did…and it was JESUS that allowed Satan to take a hold of him, so YES, I believe that God USED Judas for HIS purpose of getting JESUS to that cross. So yes, I believe that Judas is in heaven. In addition, I also believe that the Pharaoh is also in heaven. Why? Because God USED him as CLAY to tell a story about the POWER OF SIN, and MOSES is Jesus the REDEEMER.
Calvinists think that all people are used as clay, all because of that Pharaoh reference. But that is not true God used, PAST TENSE people in the bible to tell a story about Jesus. It goes no further than that.
In addition, ISRAELITE’S, Israel, the 12 Tribes,, children of Israel, Jacob, the children of Jacob, no matter how ya slice it, they all are known as the ELECT. Yes, including Dan.
Now, let’s discuss Paul’s anguish about being willing to be accursed.
Paul wanted his people saved NOW…not having to WAIT until after death. The story isn’t over just because they die.
God UNBLINDED SOME ELECT to be saved during THIS LIFETIME. The REST are in SLUMBER. But those in slumber will be saved, too.
Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid. That is a big fat NO. They will not fall because of their stumbling.
If God blinded them, then God will unblind them. Simple as that. No need to go into details about Judas, or the tribe of Dan, etc.
And that shows that OUR God is NOT A TYRANT as the Calvin god that does what he pleases calling it god’s glory.
Ed Chapman
Brian,
Hey dude. I don’t have much time tonight to discuss things…but I see many many comments. I don’t even have time to go thru them tonight. Much to do and many miles to drive tonight. But…
What I am saying is that the Elect are JEWS ONLY from the family line of Jacob…Jacob’s name was changed to Israel. Therefore, we are NOT SPIRITUAL ISRAEL. The Children of Jacob are the children of Israel.
We, on the other hand, are children of Abraham thru Jesus.
Our family is Abraham, Jesus, YOU. Jacob is bypassed with us. There is no spiritual Israel.
Elect are Jews BOTH SAVED, AND UNSAVED, because as I said, the UNSAVED will be saved, and if the unsaved dies, they will be saved after they die.
And why? The same reason that Paul got MERCY.
1 Timothy 1:13 Paul’s Mercy
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
Romans 11:32 Jews Mercy (ELECT)
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
There is not a Gentile on this planet that is the ELECT. Never was…never will be.
Respectfully,
Ed Chapman
Brian, and Phillip…need to respond to both of you in this one….
Why do I believe that it is ALL JEWS from the family line of Jacob? Jacob is Israel. Family line of Jacob is the Elect, as I said moments ago.
However, a verse that you might be interested in is
Romans 11:8
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
That was Romans 11, right? 11? Romans? Right? Not 1 Corinthians?
Now, notice it states, AS IT IS WRITTEN?
This is where it was written, spoken to the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL by Moses:
Deuteronomy 29:4
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
UNTO THIS DAY MEANS NEVER NEVER EVER NEVER EVER EVER.
Now, I have no idea the discussion about 12 tribes, but I do know the story of JOSEPH, and his BRETHREN. Please NOTE: The 12 Tribes in Revelation is not the same 12 Tribes that began the Twelve Tribes? Ever notice that? Where’s Dan? The Tribe of Dan?
So, the Jews are blind, and God MUST give them mercy, because he said so in Romans 11, and let’s not forget the REASON that Paul got mercy…ignorance in unbelief.
Ed Chapman
Brian, you asked me this:
“And Ed – I wonder if you are a pastor or if you are under the leadership of a pastor who agrees with you on this view of the word “elect” and if you think your view is necessary for qualification in sound doctrine (Titus 1:9) to be a pastor. Let me know, would you? I certainly believe that believers baptism is a necessary sound doctrine for qualification to be a pastor. Thanks.”
1st, I’d NEVER be a pastor.
2nd, I’m NOT from the REFORMED belief system, and therefore, I’d knock out any pastor/elders that wishes to put me or my family under a false doctrine of CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
3rd, I don’t see our discussion as being a QUALIFICATION of anything at all. I see our conversation as being REVELATION…what we do with it, is up to us. I’m not about DOGMA, or CONFESSIONS or CONVENTIONS.
4th, regarding Baptisms, Jesus baptized, or IMMERSED us in the HOLY GHOST AND FIRE. I don’t see baptism the same as you do regarding magical water. We see it as an OUTWARD show of an inward experience. Unless that water is turned to wine, or blood, water has no magical act to show that you are IN THE CLUB.
And based on what I am hearing from others here, Lutherans are BROTHERS, and if that be the case, then THEIR baptism is JUST FINE.
Right? OK, Now I’m off to drive for a while. Won’t be back til tomorrow.
Ed Chapman
Ed – You didn’t answer if you were under submission to any pastor(s) leadership as the Lord clearly commands – Heb 13:17 NKJV – 17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.
Also, what about all those Jews that Jesus spoke to, warning them of hell fire… That seems contrary to your view that all Jews end up in heaven after death. I don’t think the Holy Spirit has taught that view in His Word, nor have I ever heard any godly teacher teach it.
Mat 23:15, 33 NKJV – 15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. … 33 “Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
The rich man in Luke 16 ended up in hell. He certainly was a Jew.
phillip writes, “My People. My elect. This is the people of Israel. No Gentiles.”
Within the OT context that you present, it is clear that Israel is God’s elect.
When we come to the NT, we have Paul writing n Ephesians 3, “…when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,…” Thus, we read in Romans 11, “…if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches;…” and so, from Romans 2, “…he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit,…”
The Israel we read of in the OT is a picture of the true Israel, a people united by circumcision of the heart, and this Israel consists of Jews and gentiles.
But Roger… are you saying that Israel the “picture” (both of the heart and not of the heart/national Israel) was not clearly called “chosen” by God?
brianwagner writs, “…are you saying that Israel the “picture” (both of the heart and not of the heart/national Israel) was not clearly called “chosen” by God?”
No. I think Israel was clearly chosen and the OT makes that clear in the verses Phillip cited.
Roger, thank you for confirming you believe Israel as a nation was chosen and not just some supposed remnant within that nation. It confirms you recognize that the term “elect” does not always mean only the saved.
Now if you can begin to see how choosing by God for salvation was not before creation but is still going on… we can plan the coming out party. 😂
brianwagner writes, “Now if you can begin to see how choosing by God for salvation was not before creation but is still going on…”
To do that, I would have to make God a god. Don’t think I can do that.
Maybe it’s actually needing to see your God is not a god, locked into a determinist definition of His character and actions! 😉
Indeed, Brian this is the problem…..making Him small and weak like Tozer said.
I went to Amazon to read some book reviews today and saw the usual Calvinist trolls on some books I was looking at. No review offered by them….just bashing and name-calling the author. But (and how this fits with what you just wrote) they always add things like “God is not like that…. He is…” (fill in with their perception of what He “must” be like).
Yeah….bringing Greek philosophy to the text is a significant problem.
brianwagner writes, “Maybe it’s actually needing to see your God is not a god,”
I am not the one dumbing Him down.
Brian,
As you know I have several kids. When they were little they thought I was the strongest person in the world, the smartest person in the world (humm….sure miss those days!).
I never told them I was….they just “needed” me to be that way… I “must” be that way.
Same with the Greek-Reformed version of God. They make Him be what He never said He is.
That’s a matter of definition, Roger. I believe you are… limiting and locking Him into a set mind as if that is best or perfect… even though it contradicts with Scripture. That is dumbing God’s mind down, since Scripture reveals His mind.
brianwagner writes, ” I believe you are… limiting and locking Him into a set mind as if that is best or perfect… ”
You do the same thing. That which “limits and locks God into a set mind” are His decrees. We both have God making the same decrees – the difference being the timing of those decrees.
Misdirection Roger… you believe God is limited and locked into one set future by one never actually made decree. I don’t believe God is limited and locked into one set future, and though He obligates Himself to any unconditional decree He makes, He is very free to make decrees and does actually make them.
brianwagner writes, “He is very free to make decrees and does actually make them.”
We both take that position. The decrees God makes are the same whether your system or mine. Once God makes a decree, He is locked into a set mind that is best or perfect. That is true regardless when God makes that decision. So, now we need to find misdirection.
Then, “you believe God is limited and locked into one set future by one never actually made decree.”
God actually made a decree – to create the heavens and earth (and that one decree encompassed all His decrees regarding His involvement in that creation). I maintain that God does not decree without an end in view – God has a purpose for everything He does. A decree to create is for the purpose of the end result. I think you agree that God had to decree to create if He did create. Are you saying that God had no specific purpose in creating the earth or that His purpose could be thwarted by someone? I don’t see where the “timing” of God’s decree to create the earth affects His purpose or the end result.
Then, “I don’t believe God is limited and locked into one set future, and though He obligates Himself to any unconditional decree He makes, He is very free to make decrees and does actually make them.”
If I understand this, you say God can have a general purpose for a decree but not a specific purpose and a general end in mind but not a specific end.
Roger, I don’t think you understand the logic of you position, or should say illogic. If something is eternal or immutable it is never made for it always has existed that one way. So God never decreed anything based on a purpose… He is locked into something you want to call a decree He made… but it never was “made”.
His theoretical free will that you say He has, was never exercised in decision making. So you cannot prove it is free… though the Scripture does prove it. Yes He has an eternal purpose subject to His nature, which is basically the purpose of being true to His nature.
Brian,
You know this of course, but they dont have to be logical. They just cry “mystery” and “compatible” and say “nothing to see here. Move on.”
You also know that they bring to the text who God “must” be (sorry, must “necessarily” be).
So…..if you (they) bring to the text the idea that God is a certain way (decreed everything, knew everything —meaning that it was all fixed, no change from the beginning), then you need …. NEED to have God be a certain way…. despite any verse that is shown to you.
All verses, narratives, even whole chapters of the Bible must be forced to pass through this narrow funnel of presuppositions.
It is so obviously a Greek philosophical understand of deity, but they cannot accept that…. and around and around we go.
brianwagner writes, “If something is eternal or immutable it is never made for it always has existed that one way. So God never decreed anything based on a purpose… He is locked into something you want to call a decree He made… but it never was “made”.”
Yet, we read that God takes action in His creation according to purpose. Paul refers to this as an “eternal purpose” in Ephesians 3:11, “the purpose of him who works all things after the counsel of his own will:” (Ephesians 1:11). Then God saves people according to His purpose (2 Timothy 1:9) and people are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28). So God does act according to purpose and His actions execute His decrees. By whatever means God has decreed to act within His creation, those decrees occurred before the creation of the universe because God’s purpose to create would include all aspects of that creation from beginning to end. This is so, because God begins to refer to aspects of His purpose as early as Genesis 3:15 and then in His interaction with Moses and then the prophets. Then, Hebrews tells us that the tabernacle was to be constructed in precise detail as God instructed because it had a purpose that pointed to Christ. The Scriptures tell us that God has perfect wisdom and perfect wisdom points to a purpose in the exercise of wisdom. So, you are correct in what you reason but what you reason is not really correct – according to the Scriptures.
So, you say, “Yes He has an eternal purpose subject to His nature, which is basically the purpose of being true to His nature.” God’s purpose seems to do that and more.
Roger… You rightly point out – “we read that God takes action in His creation according to purpose.” But no where do we read that such a purpose is locked into one eternally immutably set future forever. In fact, what we READ, rejects clearly that idea. So I think you need to rethink and reread how God has described and works out His purpose, instead of reading into it a determinism that is not there!
brianwagner writes, ” But no where do we read that such a purpose is locked into one eternally immutably set future forever. In fact, what we READ, rejects clearly that idea”
We have two key verses speaking to God’s understanding.
“Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; His understanding (or wisdom) is infinite.” (Psalm 147:5)
“With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge, And informed Him of the way of understanding?” (Isaiah 40:14)
The key point from these verses is that God is not increasing in understanding – if He were, then those verses would need to be modified. An infinite understanding requires complete knowledge as any increase to knowledge would contribute to a greater understanding. If Psalm 147 were taken to be “wisdom,” then an infinite wisdom would call for an infinite understanding and complete knowledge – if knowledge were to increase, understanding would increase and wisdom would be greater.
So, when did God achieve infinite wisdom or infinite understanding or complete knowledge? God must have these as part of who He is. If we put God in a position where He gains knowledge, then we also put Him is a position where He gains understanding and wisdom. As far as I can tell, that is not possible. Thus, I disagree with your assessment above.
Infinite understanding does not lock God into and limit Him to one set future forever. That’s a non-sequitor argument. His infinite understanding knows all the possibilities His freewill can choose between, and the free will of man in His image can choose between as He works to develop a true love relationship with man. Such a relationship does not exist within a deterministic world. Sorry.
brianwagner writes, “His infinite understanding knows all the possibilities His freewill can choose between,…”
It does more than that. It ensures that God’s purposes are accomplished. God works all things after the counsel of His will; this counsel includes His infinite understanding and perfect knowledge. God knows all the possibilities He can choose among, and by His understanding He understands the choices He would and did make.
Then, “…and the free will of man in His image can choose between as He works to develop a true love relationship with man.”
And by infinite understanding, God understands what a person will choose in the course of time. No one can teach God something new that God did not already know. God does not need to learn new things to enhance His understanding or His wisdom. God’s wisdom is perfect thus there is no lack in His understanding nor any new thing that He needs to learn.
Then, “Such a relationship does not exist within a deterministic world”
Why not? It is God who opens the womb for a person to be born; it is God who sustains the life of each person from minute to minute; it is God who sets the day of a person’s death. It is God who sustains the physical and chemical properties of elements and maintains laws of gravity and thermodynamics providing for order in the universe. Satan asked God to remove His protection over Job and God did so with the results recorded of Job’s life. Satan would do the same to any of God’s elect if God decreed it. This is a highly deterministic world and God is the primary determiner. There is no way to avoid this conclusion. Within this deterministic world, Adam chose to sin without compulsion from God and humanity was corrupted. Even as God restrains Satan, God now restrains the evil that people want to do so that the total depravity of people does not degrade to utter depravity. Depraved man cannot engage in any relationship with God unless God helps Him – this occurs in a deterministic world.
Even your system does not allow God to take a hands-off approach to governing His creation because the result would be that described in Genesis 6, “the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” You seem to have this imaginative, utopian idea about how you think the world works and it is only imagination – the world does not work that way.
It continues to be sad, Roger, that you use the unbiblical tenet of determinism to define what God’s purpose should look like and how freewill and to believe that love-inspired events can be set eternally immutably. That might give you a feeling of satisfaction, but hopefully dissatisfaction in your now chosen rejection of clear revelation from God will grow to overcome your satisfied loyalty to determinism some day. I’ll keep praying. Take the last word in this thread… until we meet again. 😊
Oh, Brian! You can be so dramatic at times. I still enjoy your comments.
Rhutchin, I’ll admit it – I never thought I’d say this – I absolutely agree with what you wrote! 😉
ts00 writes, “I’ll admit it – I never thought I’d say this – I absolutely agree with what you wrote! ”
That because we disagree on Calvinist type issues and not, necessarily, all Biblical issues.
Although I would probably drop the ‘Jews and Gentiles’, which is easily misunderstood by we who are far from ancient times.
‘All people’ – which is also scriptural – is better understood in the eras after the division between ‘God’s people’ and ‘all the rest’ was torn down, once and for all, by the coming of Jesus to reveal the ‘mystery’ of the gospel. Thus, as Paul explains, there IS NO LONGER Jew and gentile in God’s eyes. Why do so many seek to restore this distinction which Jesus and the apostles sought to eliminate?
Jew/Gentile no difference has a CONTEXT that is unrelated to what I speak about.
Male Female no difference? If you look hard enough, you will SEE a difference. Otherwise, why fight against gay rights? Ponder that one. No difference between male/female, right? I’d say that there is a HUGE difference between the sexes. Huge.
Phillip, and the rest:
I am responding here since this is the first comment I have found with the word “reply” underneath it.
I have enjoyed reading these comments, except for Hutch’s shuck-n-jive. It is hard to take anyone seriously who calls an astute brother in Christ a “confused little puppy.” And also who will write “The drawing and teaching [of Christ] are irresistible,” but when challenged cannot provide a single verse of support. Still waiting on that, Hutch.
And whoever says the rich young ruler eventually came to Christ must believe irresistibility has a delayed reaction. Very interesting! I thought that whatever God does he does perfectly. Further, to make such a pronouncement about the young man is an argument from silence – and thus should remain such: silent! How theologically responsible is such a claim when there is not one iota of evidence the man was saved later? I guess if you can say grace is irresistible with no supporting verses, then you are predisposed to make many other such unqualified statements. And Calvinists do.
I would want to re-think whether Ronnie really is a 2-point Calvinist. But in a general sense, if anyone does happen to agree with Calvin on some truly biblical point, that does not make that person a “so-many-point” Calvinist. No. Just makes that person a believer who properly understands the scripture. Additionally, I prefer not to have my theology defined/identified with any earthly person, especially an eisegetical murderer such as Calvin, whose cronies burned-at-the-stake and drowned our Anabaptist forebears for rejecting infant sprinkling in preference for believer’s only immersion.
As one who works more than 70 hrs/wk, I have little time for blog stuff. If I don’t answer henceforth, you will know why.
Blessings, all.
Norm,
I believe the story of the Rich Young Man is exactly what it appears to be and why it appears to be.
Christ’s love and call are resistible….and it is easy to see that. So dont do as this man did and put money or anything before God.
What other lesson is there for us? Uh….. he resisted, but we assume that he came to Christ later. (adding to the story)
Or….. here’s the point…. Christ was not sincerely calling him since he could and did resist (Christ was only faking a call —for His greater glory!)
We often read on Calvinist sites (and it turns heads!!! and wins converts!!)
“for if Christ died for persons who will not enjoy the benefits of the forgiveness of sins, then Christ failed.”
Why? Who made that rule?
The Rich Young Man said no.
Christ stands at the hillside outside Jerusalem….. “….how oft I would have taken you under my wings…. but you would not….”
He TELLS us He can be refused.
Who turned the word of God on its head by some man-made rule and said “this means He failed”?
Indeed!
It is utterly disingenuous of God to command “all men everywhere to repent” while knowing some are already damned to hell (which Calvin says in Institutes that God does “for his good pleasure”). The God I serve is not a bait-and-switch con artist.
Another sticky wicket for the Calvinist — one that still remains unanswered by any Calvinist — and that is this: Who can commit the unpardonable sin?
The question is not what the sin is, but who can commit it?
The elect? Predeterminedly NOT!
The reprobate? No, for he is already condemned.
BTW: LOVED Phillip’s collection of verses on the “elect,” which is synonymous with “the Jews.”
Underscores CS Lewis’s quote twice noted at this post.
Norm,
You wrote… “I would want to re-think whether Ronnie really is a 2-point Calvinist.”
However, he is a firm believer in total depravity/total inability. His articles over at SBCT are clear on this. And if you believe in TD/TI then you have to believe in some form of irresistible grace.
You and I (and Leighton and Rick Patrick) believe in FREE will. Brother Rogers believes in FREED will. And there’s the difference (I can provide evidence if need be).
Rogers believes in total depravity/total inability and a form of irresistible grace (a grace that overcomes man’s depravity, thus restoring man to a pre-fall condition enabling him to believe). Leighton rejects both. Both cannot be scriptural. One has to be right, the other wrong. I go with brother Leighton.
If you agree with 2 points of the TULIP, that makes you a 40% Calvinist in my book (or Arminian if you like).
Galatians 5:9… Alas, it takes only a little leaven to affect the whole lump!
I mean no ill-will towards brother Rogers. I love him.
Just discern, brother. That’s all I ask.
As per the (endless?) discussions ongoing on this blog on this topic . . . those who interpret (most well-meaning) Paul’s words to indicate that God continues to distinguish between Jew and gentile, man and woman, slave and free, do not, in my opinion, understand the oneness that Jesus set forth, and how incredibly important it is to those who were and are marginalized. No gentile, woman or slave could possibly put much store in their newly granted ‘equality’ if there exists an asterisk which states that ‘this is all temporary’, and, someday in the future, God plans to restore the divisions that he so carefully eradicated. Gee, it was good while it lasted; back to second class status.
Now, in the 4 gospels, the word “elect” appears 7 times. The book of Matthew, 3 times. The book of Mark, 3 times. And the book of Luke, 1 time. I will use those in Matthew (in context), since Mark would be redundancy.
Matthew 24:3-25 (NKJV)…..
Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples (all Jews) came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. “Then they will deliver you (the Jews) up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations (the Gentiles) for My name’s sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom (not the gospel of the cross) will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place”, whoever reads, let him understand, “then let those (Jews) who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath (why would a gentile care about the Sabbath? He wouldn’t. O, but for a Jew living under the Law, he could only go so far) For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh (all of mankind) would be saved; but for the elect’s sake (the nation of Israel) those days will be shortened. “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect (the nation of Israel). See, I have told you beforehand.
Revelation 12:13-17 (NKJV)…..
Now when the dragon (Satan) saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman (Israel) who gave birth to the male Child (Messiah). But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time (3 and a half years), from the presence of the serpent. So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. And the dragon was enraged with the woman (Israel), and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring (the Jews), who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Luke 18:1-8 (NKJV)….
Then He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart, saying: “There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man. Now there was a widow in that city; and she came to him, saying, ‘Get justice for me from my adversary.’ And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, ‘Though I do not fear God nor regard man, yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.’” Then the Lord said, “Hear what the unjust judge said. And shall God not avenge His own elect (the nation of Israel) who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”
No other nation, since they came into existence, has been more hated and persecuted than that tiny nation of Israel. And they still are today. Now, since all the people had during Christ’s earthly ministry were the OT scriptures, when our Lord spoke of “the elect”, to whom do you think He was referring? Who do you think His audience thought He was referring to?
Israel, my elect.
phillip writes, “when our Lord spoke of “the elect”, to whom do you think He was referring? Who do you think His audience thought He was referring to? Israel, my elect.”
His audience, comprised of Jews, would think Israel. Jesus would be thinking more broadly. Thus, He says in John 10, “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold [Not of Israel?]; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice; and they shall become one flock with one shepherd.” However, we get a glimpse into His thinking when He says, “God so loved the world…” or “…you are the light of the world…” or ““Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.”
Ezekiel 34:25-31 (NKJV)…..
“I will make a covenant of peace with them, and cause wild beasts to cease from the land; and they will dwell safely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods. I will make them and the places all around My hill a blessing; and I will cause showers to come down in their season; there shall be showers of blessing. Then the trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield her increase. They shall be safe in their land; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke and delivered them from the hand of those who enslaved them. And they shall no longer be a prey for the nations, nor shall beasts of the land devour them; but they shall dwell safely, and no one shall make them afraid. I will raise up for them a garden of renown, and they shall no longer be consumed with hunger in the land, nor bear the shame of the Gentiles anymore. Thus they shall know that I, the LORD their God, am with them, and they, the house of Israel, are My people,” says the Lord GOD.’ “You are My flock, the flock of My pasture; you are men, and I am your God,” says the Lord GOD.
I guess just another “picture” for you.
phillip writes, “I guess just another “picture” for you.”
A very vivid picture. The citation describes a future event yet to come to pass doesn’t it?
Rhutchin writes…
“His audience, comprised of Jews, would think Israel. Jesus would be thinking more broadly.”
Just like a Calvinist. Always throwing a curve ball.
Amen.
And to whom did all the personal possessive pronouns refer as mentioned in the first 12 verses of Eph. 1?
Exactly!
In verse 13 there is a distinct shift in pronouns. Paul says, “And you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit…”
And to whom does “you also” refer? The Gentile believers in Ephesus.
“The chosen were chosen for the sake of the unchosen” – CS Lewis.
Thanks, brother.
You see it.
God bless
norm writes, “In verse 13 there is a distinct shift in pronouns.”
1 Paul…to the saints who are at Ephesus,…:
2 Grace to you…
3 Blessed be the God…who has blessed us…
4 just as He chose us…that we should be holy…
5 He predestined us…
6 …He freely bestowed on us…
7 In Him we have redemption…,
8 which He lavished upon us…
9 He made known to us…
11 also we have obtained an inheritance,…
12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ…
13 In Him, you also,.
14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance…
15 …having heard of the faith…which exists among you, and your love for all the saints,
There is no shift in the meaning of the pronouns because the antecedent goes back to v1 – the saints who are at Ephesus. If there is a shift in the pronoun, where is it’s antecedent? There is change from “we” in v12 to “you in v13 with και emphasizing Paul’s point.
Romans 9:3-5 (NKJV)….
For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
Ephesians 2:12 (NKJV)….
Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
The verse above makes it quite clear. Our Gentile forefathers were strangers from the covenants of Promise, without hope and without God in this world. This wasn’t the case for Israel, which God had predestined them for. However, because of the finishing works of Christ, we are brought near, not via covenants, but by the blood of Christ. The covenants were directed only to the nation of Israel (actual physical descendants of Israel. Now I feel I have to state the bleeding obvious). However, in order for the covenants to be fulfilled, Christ had to go to the cross. Not just for Israel, but the whole world. Now, by His grace, that sacrifice was extended beyond the covenants (Israel) and opened heaven’s door for the whole human race (including the gentiles).
phillip writes, ‘Our Gentile forefathers were strangers from the covenants of Promise, without hope and without God in this world. This wasn’t the case for Israel, which God had predestined them for. ”
That was the case in the OT prior to Christ’s death. Very few gentiles were saved in OT days.
Then, “However, because of the finishing works of Christ, we are brought near, not via covenants, but by the blood of Christ….Now, by His grace, that sacrifice was extended beyond the covenants (Israel) and opened heaven’s door for the whole human race (including the gentiles).”
Fortunately for us gentiles.
Hey Phillip,
While we are both at it, I think it is IMPORTANT to state WHY Israel is THE ELECT.
There was a purpose. I think that nobody is getting that, and i have stated huge hints over and over and over again. But it still goes over their heads.
Pearls before swine, maybe?
Ed Chapman
Rhutchin writes… “The Israel we read of in the OT is a picture of the true Israel, a people united by circumcision of the heart, and this Israel consists of Jews and gentiles.”
So, rhutchin. Who is the Dragon making war with (and this is still future) in Revelation? Physical “picture” Israel or “true” Israel?
And we are still waiting for your response to Brian’s question “….are you saying that Israel the ‘picture’ was not clearly called ‘chosen’ by God?”
phillip writes, “Who is the Dragon making war with (and this is still future) in Revelation? Physical “picture” Israel or “true” Israel?”
In Revelation 12, the Dragon is obviously a reference to Satan (v9). He makes war with Michael (v7) and is thrown done to earth Here he persecutes the “woman” who is Israel (and probably the remnant) (v13). Then Satan wages “war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” This would be all believers whether Jew or gentile who are called the offspring of true Israel who went out, as Paul, preaching the gospel to the world..
“This would be all believers whether Jew or gentile who are called the offspring of true Israel who went out, as Paul, preaching the gospel to the world..”
And there you have it everyone. The “true” Israel goes thru the tribulation period.
Lol… yes… the true Israel, saved Israelites, and other believers, saved Gentiles, but not the church, which is neither Jew or Gentile and is in heaven waiting to come back with the Lord to defeat the Antichrist! 😉
phillip writes, “The “true” Israel goes thru the tribulation period.”
Even all Israel. i lean amil on this.
Brian,
Since rhutchin sees the body of Christ as the “true” Israel, he has the church experiencing the tribulation period.
Jeremiah 30:7 (NKJV)….
Alas! For that day is great, So that none is like it; And it is the time of Jacob’s trouble, But he shall be saved out of it.
Just more “pictures”.
Rhutchin writes…
“I lean amil (Amillennialism) on this.”
Of course you do, brother. Confusing the body of Christ with “true” Israel, it would only make sense. At least you’re consistent.
Of all the brothers who post here, I probably have the least in common with you.
But you are still my brother and for that, I am thankful.
Things have really gone off the rails discussion wise. What does all this have to do with Calvinism? Seems like some folks jumped on the wrong blog, or are looking to derail this one. 😉
Well, I’m not sure if you are talking about me or not, but what does GOD have to do with Calvinism? Nothing. I thought we were talking about DEBUNKING Calvinism, in all of its deranged thinking. Chose, Chosen, Elect, you name it.
Ed Chapman
This blog is about 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 and the phrase “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.”
While the “goal” might be to debunk Calvinism, we should not be so eager to embrace its offspring, Arminianism, or Calvinism “lite” either.
This blog has provided two options. Unconditional Election (Calvinism) and Conditional Election (Arminianism). My “goal” is to show there just might be a plausible (and biblical) alternative to both.
Phillip writes:
‘This blog is about 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 and the phrase “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.”
While the “goal” might be to debunk Calvinism, we should not be so eager to embrace its offspring, Arminianism, or Calvinism “lite” either.
This blog has provided two options. Unconditional Election (Calvinism) and Conditional Election (Arminianism). My “goal” is to show there just might be a plausible (and biblical) alternative to both.’
I also do not subscribe to either Calvinism or Arminianism. I also believe that historical Christianity has long offered mostly false alternatives to not only what ‘election’ means, but much else in scripture. That is the goal of Satan, to corrupt, distort and deceive.
What I am suggesting is that we might credibly ignore debates over the theory that it is ‘all about the Jews’, when, in my opinion, Jesus and Paul dealt with that and took it off the table. 🙂
Whether you define ‘election’ as being corporate, or to certain tasks or otherwise, what I think we most non-Calvinists can agree on is that there is no unconditional election unto Salvation, for Jews, gentiles or any mix thereof. The gift of salvation has been made available to all.
I tend to agree with much of what you have written; I just see the discussion easily derailed into one with essentially eschatological and political undertones. I personally do not read out of scripture a re-division of men into Jew and not-Jew at some later date, or any other ‘partiality’ according to birth or bloodline. Such interpretations seem to engender partiality, inequity, misunderstanding and abuse of others who are judged ‘less important’ for one reason or another.
Although, in my opinion, the Social Justice Warriors err in attempting to slip behavior into the equation, they correctly assert that God does not judge people on the basis of race, nationality, skin color and other unchosen distinctives. Scripture does assert that we will be judged on our actions, for which we do have the ability and responsibility to choose. So-called ‘Science’ may be manufactured/distorted to allege that obesity, alcoholism and gender confusion are physiological – scripture appears to assert otherwise. I have read more than a few scholarly journal articles suggesting that much of so-called ‘proven’ Science is, in fact, eventually proven to be untrue, so I’m not too worried about what ‘Science’ declares. Yet few would deny that we have no choice over our parents, race or bloodline.
Whether it is Calvinism, or some other fiction; whomever or whatever asserts that God judges and condemns men based on that which they cannot control or choose is assuredly false. We may be deceived by the masterful Deceiver about such categories, but God judges truly and justly.
It does seem to me a wee bit of a distraction to wander into discussions that are ultimately more about eschatology than soteriology.
Truthseeker00 writes…
“What I am suggesting is that we might credibly ignore debates over the theory that it is ‘all about the Jews’, when, in my opinion, Jesus and Paul dealt with that and took it off the table.”
Dear brother, that is not my intent. Again, the topic of this thread is “from the beginning He chose you for salvation.”
In my humble attempt, I just wanted to offer an alternative interpretation. That it was the Jews that God “from the beginning” chose for salvation; not that salvation was limited to the Jews.
The dialogue continued and I felt compelled to make my case, using the scriptures. My view was challenged (understandably so) and I believe I have successfully done that via biblical exegesis.
Again, the topic of this thread is “from the beginning He chose (elected) you for salvation”. Granted, the verses I provided open the door for extended discussion, but I think, for the most part, I have stayed on topic.
God bless.
Phillip, no disrespect intended. I won’t repeat my earlier comment, but will just add that I reject all forms of Divine Determinism as to salvation. Israel was indeed chosen, or ‘elected’, for a very precious and unique role, but it did not grant them salvation, which was and always is about personal choice to trust in God’s promises. Many others have also been called to unique roles in revealing God’s redemptive plan, such as the prophets and apostles, but none, in my opinion, irresistibly. We who were chosen or elected for salvation are ‘whosoever will believe’, excluding none.
And truthseeker, this is where I highly disagree with you.
Take the word, “salvation” out of it just for a moment.
Did God blind the Jews? I know you will say yes.
When WILL He Unblind the Jews?
I know your answer, because you already stated so, that he already unblinded them. But that is not so. Their salvation is in the unblinding.
I keep mentioning the story of Joseph and his brothers. Doesn’t that mean anything to you at all? Which one of his brothers was punished? NONE, right?
So why do you think that ALL Jews (Israel) WONT be saved, when Romans clearly states that they will be. I’m not getting your logic, and I keep giving reason after reason after reason.
Ed Chapman
“I won’t repeat my earlier comment, but will just add that I reject all forms of Divine Determinism as to salvation (Agreed). Israel was indeed chosen, or ‘elected’, for a very precious and unique role, but it did not grant them salvation, which was and always is about personal choice to trust in God’s promises (Exactly). Many others have also been called to unique roles in revealing God’s redemptive plan, such as the prophets and apostles (all Jews), but none, in my opinion, irresistibly (Agreed). We who were chosen or elected for salvation are ‘whosoever will believe’, excluding none (Disagree, and that’s the point of my posts. Don’t confuse election with salvation. Election was reserved for the nation of Israel. Salvation has always been for “whosoever will believe”).”
And I appreciate your contributions here, brother.
Thanks for the kind words. And it may be mostly semantics – we seem to agree more than disagree. 😉
Phillip,
You had me at hello. You had me at, do you want to come in? You had me at , would you like some coffee. But ya lost me in your explanation with truthseeker. WHO is ALL ISRAEL?
All Israel will be saved. So you say something about 12 tribes. The 144000 will be SEALED with the Holy Spirit so that they can EVANGELIZE TO THE UNBELIEVING JEWS Left Behind for the Great Tribulation.
So all the other Jews are doomed, just because they died before that? If an unbelieving Jew dies TODAY, is he NOT SAVED, just because we haven’t gotten to Revelation 7 yet? The Jews that died in the Holocaust. What about them? Too bad, so sad???
If your answer is NO, then I disagree BIGLY.
I will try to stay awake for your response, cuz I cant wait to hear your response.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Zachariah 8:23 (KJV)…..
Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations (Gentiles), even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
I believe that during the tribulation period, when “this gospel of the kingdom” (Matthew 24:13; not to be confused with the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; that time has passed) is preached, many (not the majority) Gentiles will be saved.
Romans 9:1-4a (NKJV)….
I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh (actual physical descendants), who are Israelites…
I just don’t think Paul shared your optimism, brother. I don’t think Paul would be willing to be accursed from Christ (lost eternally) just so some Jews could be saved while alive, if he thought, like you, that they would only be saved later after they died.
Again, bro, I hope I’m wrong. Really. I would love to see every Israelite from the beginning saved (personally, I would love to see the lake of fire empty). But I am just not picking up on that in the scriptures. I just lean towards “all Israel” referring to the 12 tribes, which make up “all Israel”. I see that in the book of Revelation.
Hey Phillip,
OK, so you quoted Paul in saying, “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh (actual physical descendants), who are Israelites…”
So, when it states “flesh”, which is BODY, and LIFE requires a body, I interpret that to mean “in THIS life”. But I’ve already provided scriptures that state things about MERCY, that God did not give them a heart to perceive, ears to hear…except for a few, and the rest are in a SLUMBER.
It is those who slumber that will be given mercy just like Paul was given mercy and he was given mercy because he did it IGNORANTLY IN UNBELIEF.
So, my qualification in stating what I say is simple. Two words. Ignorance in unbelief. And since God has concluded them (JEWS) in unbelief, all because God made them the CLAY like that, he will save them. Regardless if they DIE a natural death still in unbelief.
They can’t help that they are in unbelief. Think of Paul, in how he got mercy. Jews can’t come to Jesus now (except a few), until God allows them to see, for it is God that put the blinders on them. And again, I keep going back to the story of Joseph, and his brothers.
Jesus is Joseph…and the brothers of Joseph are the Jews. Do you not see a connection here?
Did Joseph TOY with his brothers? Absolutely he did. But he never revealed himself to them until they were all together.
If God isn’t going to save ALL of the ones that He, Himself blinded, then you are describing Calvin’s God, and I just can’t accept that kinda god.
Thank you for you explanation. I agree with EVERYTHING that you state, except for THIS portion of it.
Ed Chapman
The word elect/election appears 4 times in the books of Peter. While it is true that Peter is writing to believing Jews, please keep in mind that they are elect because of their lineage (Romans 11:28).
1 Peter 1:1-2 (NKJV)….
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
God did not elect them because He looked down the corridors of time and foresaw their faith. They were elect according to the foreknowledge of God, because it would be thru this nation of Israel that the whole world would be blessed (Genesis 22:18). They were part of God’s redemptive plan long ago.
Acts 2:5-11 (NKJV)….
And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”
James 1:1-1 (NKJV)….
James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes (of Israel) which are scattered abroad
Only the Jews were scattered. And they were scattered so long ago, that they had already become fully assimilated in other cultures and languages.
1 Peter 2:6 (NKJV)….
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
A clear reference to the Messiah. The Elect One. The King of the Jews.
1 Peter 2:9 (NKJV)…..
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
Almost the exact same language we find in the OT. And to whom was he speaking?
Deuteronomy 14:2 (NKJV)….
For you (the nation of Israel) are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples (Gentiles) who are on the face of the earth.
And for added clarity….
1 Peter 2:9 (ESV, CEB, NET)….
But you are a chosen RACE, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
A chosen RACE. That would be the Jewish race, or the physical descendants of Israel. No Gentiles in that group. Not a single one. And didn’t God say that if the Jews (the natural branches) did not continue in unbelief that it was easy to graft them in again to their own tree (Romans 11:24)?
1 Peter 5:13 (NKJV)….
She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son.
Babylon. A previous place of captivity of the Jews.
2 Peter 1:10 (NKJV)….
Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble
Again, what was the nation of Israel’s calling? What were they elected for?
Genesis 22:18 (NKJV)….
In your seed (physical descendants/lineage/the nation of Israel) all the nations (Gentiles) of the earth shall be blessed….
Acts 13:47 (NKJV)…..
For so the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
John 4:22 (NKJV)…
…. for salvation is of (from) the Jews.
Brothers (and sisters),
Again, the word elect/election appears 27 or 28 times throughout scripture (KJV, NKJV).
I have proven that all four (4) times in the OT, it was referring to the nation of Israel only. I have proven that all seven (7) times in the 4 gospels that when the Lord spoke of the elect He was referring to the nation of Israel only. I have proven that all five (5) times that Peter was referring to Jews only. I have proven that in 2 Timothy 2:10 that Paul was referring to the nation of Israel only.
So in the OT it was the nation of Israel. In the 4 gospels it was about the nation of Israel in regards to the end of the age. In the NT (2 Tim. 2:10) we have at least one example of the elect being the nation of Israel only. So from the beginning (Genesis, Isaiah) to the end (Revelation), we have the nation of Israel as “the elect”. That’s at least 17 times out of 28 and I could go on and on.
With all that in mind, brothers (sisters), and for the sake of time and space, is it not at least possible that the other 10 times (with exception; 1 Timothy 5:21 for example) the term is used just might be referring to the Jewish people only? Isn’t God consistent?
Now if you want to disagree with me, that’s fine. Its not salvific. But you should now at least be willing to understand where I get it. It doesn’t mean salvation is reserved for Jews only. Salvation has always been by grace thru faith. However, election was reserved only for the nation of Israel, but that election didn’t guarantee them salvation. So there will elect (Israelites) saved and lost. And there will be non-elect (Gentiles) saved and lost.
Thanks for your time and patience.
Incredibly well-said, Phillip. I am not sure Piper, et al, would agree; but I agree with you and the Bible.
Norm,
Thanks, brother. That means a lot to me, especially coming from someone like you.
If you remember, probably some 5 or 6 years ago, when you were the moderator over at SBC Today (Gee. I hope you are the same Norm), I bounced this same idea off you when I sent you my interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:10. You thought it was interesting, so you sent this idea off to one of your scholastic buddies. If I remember correctly, he sent back some off the cuff rebuttal rather quickly that neither you nor I thought too much of.
No matter how much I “googled”, it seemed everything came back with one of two options. The Calvinistic notion of Unconditional Election, or the Arminian notion of Conditional Election. But when I plugged either one into 2 Timothy 2:10, it just didn’t work.
When Paul says “I endure all things…” that’s when I went back to see for who. That’s when I found…
“For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh…”
If that wasn’t enough (and it should be), the following was.
“…because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.”
Now this isn’t some kind of “spiritual” or “true” Israel. It wasn’t the body of Christ. Paul was willing to endure all of his suffering for the physical descendants of Israel. Any other description and you’re just not be honest with the text. So right there, I knew I had at least one NT reference to the nation of Israel being God’s elect.
Speaking of Piper, in my searches, there was a youtube video of him reading from 2 Timothy 2:10, but every time he would say….
“Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect that they may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”
He would say this over and over again. Each time omitting “also” or “too”. So, I thought “which translation is he using?” So like most folks I went to biblegateway.com and checked most of the major translations. And, nope, the word “also” or “too” was in all of them. I thought “so why would Piper do this?” Well, if you’re a Calvinist, you have to, because a simple word like “too” suggests inclusion. And we know for them, salvation is reserved only for the elect (ironic. the exact same error Israel made).
So, I started doing my own word study. I thought “whoever the ‘elect’ is, we should be able to plug it in in almost every verse and it should still make sense.”
Long story short (and perhaps too late for that), I came up with all the above (in this thread).
Then, when I came across the distinctions between “us” and “you” found in the first chapter of Ephesians, it all started coming together.
So I know, based on hours upon hours of word study, that when Paul writes…
“….knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.”
Somehow, some way, he has to be speaking to Jews. Maybe at the point of this letter, the church was made up entirely of Jews. Maybe he was just speaking to the leadership who were Jews (He did tell whoever he was writing to, to take this letter and share it with the body (Thess. 5:27)). Honestly, we don’t know how many gentiles were there, if any. Yes, Thessalonica was gentile country, but the Jews had been dispersed for years. They had already assimilated fully into other cultures and languages. They were citizens. And remember, God dispersed them for a reason. So that way, where ever Paul went, it was…..
“..first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.”
God bless, brother. And, again, thanks so much for the kind words. It helps. Maybe all of this was a blessing to someone else as well.
Hi Phillip:
I don’t recall the matter you cite from SBCToday, but I am that same ‘Norm.”
Your citation of Piper’s omission is telling. There is no other word for that than dishonesty, which brings under suspicion everything Piper avers. If one must lie to expound his position, then his position is built upon sand and not the solid Rock. Shame on Piper.
Norm (all),
I found the video (very short).
Bless Piper’s heart. So passionate. So careful. So wrong.
He omits “too/also” every time he quotes 2 Timothy 2:10. I just have to wonder what the folks in his audience were thinking.
Phillip,
The folks in his audience are not thinking anything! They are swallowing every word!
Any determinist that can write a book and start a campaign called “Don’t Waste Your Life” is gonna be able to play the determinist-fatalist-Calvinist card when he needs to and STILL appeal to the “do the right thing” trigger in all of us.
Gotta face it….. it is a good, “safe” place to be in….”giving glory” to God saying He controls (literally) everything, and yet being able to turn and say…. “come on boys, try a little harder!” (which would include all the “draw near to God” “seek first His kingdom” “flee the devil” etc).
thinking?
certainly not critically.
phillip writes, “[Piper] omits “too/also” every time he quotes 2 Timothy 2:10. I just have to wonder what the folks in his audience were thinking.”
The Greek word translated as, “also,” is “και” and it has range of meaning, most commonly, “and,” but it can be translated “also,” or “likewise.” Thus we can read the verse as:
“…I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they, “like myself,” may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.”
It is possible that Piper reads it this way and rather than explain this understanding, just left it out – or perhaps, in a previous study, he had explained it and did not see the need to repeat himself here. so, we have a difference of opinion concerning Paul’s meaning in using,”και.” I don’t see the issue needing all the drama people are attaching to it.
FOH,
Sadly, I think your right. They are a “duped” bunch.
However, I would like to think that at least a few people got up and left. The chairs behind him are empty. 🙂
So according to Piper “Christians are the elect”.
So, we have “Israel, My Christians” (Isaiah 45:4).
Let that soak in for a while.
Sorry, Piper, Paul knew exactly who the elect of God were. The OT stated it quite clearly. And he was willing to be accursed from Christ for them.
Maybe our Calvinists brothers need to stop looking at the “pictures” and start reading the text.
Phillip… you may want to consider the interpretation weakness of limiting a term in Scripture to have only one identity, as you are doing with the term “elect”. If you do a simple word study of “firstborn” or “church” or “baptism” or “sons of God”, you will see that the same could not be done with those terms.
True Brian…
And the discussion that all Jews will automatically be saved is confusing also.
Judas is often associated as a “son of perdition” ….
Acts 1 tell us…
Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.”
Where did he belong? Heaven? Purgatory (gotta work a little off!)
…or perdition?
the idea of all fleshly Israel will be saved does not seem to square with Scripture.
phillip writes, “So according to Piper “Christians are the elect”. So, we have “Israel, My Christians” (Isaiah 45:4).”
Oh, phillip!!! The term, “christian.” is not applied to believers until Acts 11. Let’s not assume that Piper is a complete idiot so that he would read Isaiah as you allege..
Brian,
I fully understand your hesitation, brother. No worries.
I can’t tell you how much I appreciate you and your contributions here.
Rhutchin writes…
“Thus we can read the verse as: ‘…I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they, “like myself,” may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.’’”
Hilarious.
Then adds… “I don’t see the issue needing all the drama people are attaching to it.”
Of course he wouldn’t. Talk about a heart of stone.
Where’s Brian when you need him??
Roger, you haven’t read far enough or skipped my reply on that one! 😉 But why should you want my hermeneutic expertise to back your argument?… lol
brianwagner writes, “But why should you want my hermeneutic expertise to back your argument?”
I guess I missed it. I did see a comment where you looked at “elect.”
Regardless, I wanted your Greek language expertise to weigh in on the translation of και in 2 Timothy 2:10. I did a search through the comments on “2Ti” and “και” but did not find a reply to that issue. Any chance you could do a cut and paste of your analysis or give me a better term to search that would lead me to your comment on Paul’s use of “και” in 2 Timothy 2:10.
2Tim 2:10 – διὰ τοῦτο πάντα ὑπομένω διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ σωτηρίας τύχωσιν τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ μετὰ δόξης αἰωνίου
My literal translation – “on account of this, these [things] I am enduring on account of the elect [ones] in order that even to/for/with/by them salvation/deliverance they should obtain/experience, the [kind that is] in Jesus, with everlasting glory.”
The και – meaning “even”, has to do with Paul’s introducing another category of people, besides the Gentiles to whom he is an apostle, and whom he is wanting to see saved. This other category he also wants to see saved and is willing to keep enduring all things so that might happen.
That other category is “elect ones”, and so Phillip has context and other passages on his side pointing to “elect ones” here meaning Jews who are not yet saved, but on account of whom (their forcing Paul’s arrest and trial by Rome) he is enduring his current imprisonment.
brianwagner writes, “My literal translation – “on account of this, these [things] I am enduring on account of the elect [ones] in order that even to/for/with/by them salvation/deliverance they should obtain/experience, the [kind that is] in Jesus, with everlasting glory.”
A nice literal translation. Can we agree that the translation really does not resolve the issue of identifying the “elect”?
Then, “The και – meaning “even”, has to do with Paul’s introducing another category of people,…”
This begins Brian’s analysis, brief as it is. We find that Paul does not refer to the Jews or Israel in this second letter to Timothy nor in the first letter and the two letters provide the immediate context to which we look to discover the identity of the “elect.” That does not argue for Paul to introduce the Jews at this point.
Paul says in in 1 Timothy 2:7, “I was appointed a preacher and an apostle…as a teacher of the Gentiles…” Then in 2 Timothy 4:17, “the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me, in order that through me the proclamation might be fully accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear;” Given this, it is strange that we should understand Paul to say, “For this reason I endure all things for the sake of [the Jews], that they also may obtain the salvation…” when he makes no further reference to the Jews, Israel, or the elect ones either before or after this statement.
Now begins an analysis (exegesis) to discover what Paul implies by this statement when there is no explicit statement by Paul to guide us. Is Brian correct to conclude that this “has to do with Paul’s introducing another category of people”? We can’t tell from the what Brian has provided since he doesn’t get into the Greek to show us how και is used in other verses to provide this meaning. All we really have is an opinion by Brian that sounds reasonable but for which no support is provided in the immediate context and one basically has to assume that Paul’s mindset here, and understood by Timothy, is drawn from Romans 9-11. I do this with regard to Ephesians 3, so I am not going to bash Brian for doing it here. So far, I am not convinced of his argument.
Roger… the second use of the preposition δια – on account of, seems to be connected with “endure”. Paul is enduring “on account of” the elect… The normal idea is “because of” is retained, even if there is a positive benefit suggested “for”.
Because of this great gospel calling, Paul is enduring, and suffering imprisonment (vs 9), because of the elect, and for their benefit, so that even they will be saved.
brianwagner writes, “…Paul is enduring, and suffering imprisonment (vs 9), because of the elect,…”
I agree. The issue contested is the identity of the “elect.”
Agreed, Roger… but it would be kinda of silly to think it was really the not yet saved “remnant” elect in the elect nation of Israel that was causing Paul’s imprisonment that he was willingly enduring.
That would be like a missionary saying, “I am being imprisoned by the not yet saved elect of N. Korea so that even they can be saved, but I’m not enduring for the benefit of any of those other N. Koreans and they’re not the ones really imprisoning me… I wouldn’t want to endure anything for them, since I’m pleased, along with God, that they are eternally immutably damned.”
Brian,
Thank you so much, brother. I mean that. Thank you!
You don’t have to be an English major to read the obvious.
Romans 11:13-14 (NKJV)…..
For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh (Israelites) and save some of them.
2 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV)…..
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect (the nation of Israel), that they (the elect) also (along with the non-elect/gentiles) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Acts 28:28 (NIV)…..
For this reason I have asked to see you and talk with you. It is because of the hope of Israel (those according to the flesh) that I am bound with this chain.
Now we know why Piper omitted that one simple word. Doesn’t fit his narrative.
Again, brother. Thank you.
You’re welcome Phillip. The only difference in my view would be this – 2 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV)…..
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect (the nation of Israel), that they (the still unsaved and not yet elect in Christ, of that elect nation who are persecuting me) also (along with the other unsaved and not yet elect in Christ gentiles) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
But the Paul will tell us what he really meant when we see him! 😉
🙂 That’s a bit of a stretch, brother, and you know it.
All the scriptural evidence supports my interpretation.
Still, if you were closer, I would give you a hug!
Much blessings to you, brother.
Brian and rhutchin,
I will let you both struggle with this, but my interpretation is the only one that fits perfectly with the text. And I have other scriptural references to back it up.
Rhutchin’s use of “like myself” is laughable; while Brian’s creates two elect bodies (the nation of Israel and the body of Christ). Though Brian acknowledges my view is at least feasible.
Piper was wrong. He’s wrong on every front. Paul knew precisely who the elect were. The OT told him.
I love you both, but you just need to let the scriptures speak, even if it means having to rethink your stance. Believe me. I have had to do it more times than I care to admit. Makes my head hurt. But regarding 2 Timothy 2:10, I am 100% right.
Phillip writes:
‘I am 100% right.’
That is a fatal mistake. 🙂 The possibility of any human being understanding the things of God 100% is slim to none. (I can’t be 100% sure! 🙂 ) And the only way we will ever be open to growing in knowledge and understanding is by acknowledging that there is much we do not understand, and much we will never understand, at least in this life. This not only gives us that valuable ability to recognize error (be teachable) – it also allows us to be gracious, and agree to disagree with those who are in different places than we happen to be in their own path to understanding. Why even discuss issues with anyone who is convinced they are 100% right. What’s the point? Ideally, the goal of communication is greater understanding, by all parties. Lack of humility and teachableness makes that impossible.
Not in this case TS00. He is right 100%. In the mouth of two or three may every word be established. I concur with his analysis. And, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out, either. Nor does it take ten thousand religious scholars, Greek experts, or Hebrew experts, or an English lesson. He laid it out from the OT. And you wonder why Jews don’t fall for the story that Christians tell them? It’s because Christians have no clue as to what they are talking about. It’s in their book, that they are the elect . So who are we to tell them that they aren’t? Who do Christians think that they are to tell Jews anything? It’s their book for crying out loud.
We agree Phillip that “elect” in 2Tim 2:10 means Israel, the saved and lost in her. (I think that is your position). I won’t change my mind that “elect” in 1Thess 1:4 is identified as the church in Thessalonica which is both from Jewish and Gentile backgrounds.
You are lived in Christ by me also!
And for “official” agreement and disagreement, Brian, I agree that elect in 2 Thes is indeed THE CHURCH, but I disagree as to WHICH CHURCH it is.
Remember, all church means is ASSEMBLY, and I believe it was the JEWISH CHURCH.
So, we do agree, and disagree with the same exact word, CHURCH. You see, there are three church’s, if you will. The Jewish church, which we do know that existed in Jerusalem. We have the GENTILE church, which I conclude is the 1 and 2 Corinthians.
And there is the Gentile and Jewish Church, which everyone participated in. Have not found that church in the bible yet, but I’m still looking.
We know that the book of Hebrews was to Jews. We know that 1 and 2 Peter was to Jews. We know that James was to Jews.
But what book (s) were dedicated to BOTH? We know that Galatians was to Gentiles. There were no Jews in that church at all. At least, you should know.
It’s easy to distinguish which ASSEMBLY that the epistles are written to, based on words, circumstances, etc.
Phillip is right. I have no doubt.
Ed Chapman
How about the church in Antioch, Ed? Act 13:1 NKJV – 1 Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Jews. That’s easy. When did Peter first figure out that Gentiles are to come in the fold? Acts 10, right? When was Antioch first mentioned? Acts 6.
Acts 11:19
Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
Gentiles came LATER. And if you think for one moment that these Jews MINGLED with the Gentiles…you got another thing coming. Peter just found out about Gentiles in Acts 10. And he KNEW that other Jews would know this one:
Acts 10:28
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Antioch was a name of a city. Jews was the FIRST CHURCH.
Later we see in Acts 15…was that letter for JEWISH believers, or Gentile Believers?
First, can you tell me what Gentile was present in that meeting?
Acts 15:23-29 (READ VERY CAREFULLY AS TO WHO THIS LETTER IS TO. JEWS OR GENTILES OR BOTH?
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
——————————–
That letter was not addressed to THE CHURCH by your definition. It was addressed to GENTILES ONLY.
The CITY of Antioch is ONE CITY, but I’m quite certain that the Jews would rather hang out together in their part of the town, while the Gentiles hang out in their part of the town.
How many church’s are there in your city? One, called the TOWN CHURCH?
Ed Chapman
So, Ed, does this sound like two different churches in Antioch to you – Gal 2:11-13 NKJV – 11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
Isn’t there only one body of Christ – the church (Col 1:17) – Gal 3:26-28 NKJV – 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Brian, dude, you just proved my point with that. You didn’t prove your point. It was STILL fresh in Jews minds to not mingle with the Gentiles. Even Peter. In Acts 10, God had to tell him. In Galatians, Paul had to tell him. So for you to imply that Jews and Gentiles went to the same church is ridiculous.
Verse 12 SO STATED.
To wit:
he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
FEAR OF THE JEWS.
Final conclusion. Where does it say that Jews and Gentiles attended the same ASSEMBLY? Last I saw in that reference is in regards to EATING.
Did Peter DEPART THE CHURCH in fear of the Jews? Or just a meal?
Ed Chapman
Ed… the word “church” is never used in the NT in the plural in relation to a city.
Brian,
The word church is ecclesia, defined as ASSEMBLY. You seem to ignore that. If Jews wish to have their CHURCH in a different location than the Gentiles, what is your problem with that?
You can’t prove that the Jews and Gentiles went to the same SUNDAY MORNING GATHERING. You just cant. I can prove that they were separate.
Ed Chapman
That’s pretty sad, Ed. You really think Paul did not worship together with former Jews and Gentiles together in the churches he started. God is not pleased by the division in the body of Christ you are promoting. Division among brethren is an abomination to Him!
I’m not talking about Paul. YOU ARE. I’m talking about your average PEW SITTER. Paul would HAVE to be in those church’s. He established them. Then he would revisit them. He was the Apostle to the Gentiles…
But in order for him to go to the Gentiles, he had no choice but to FIRST go to the Jews. To the Jew first. Then the Gentile.
There is no doubt in my mind that Jews did not attend Worship services with Gentiles. Paul did, because he was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and his COMPANY accompanied him in the journey.
Bearans STUDIED SCRIPTURE DAILY TO SEE IF THOSE THINGS WERE SO. WHERE would they be able to do that?
The only scripture in those days was the Law and the Prophets (Tenakh), which was ONLY available in a synagogue. A place where only Jews were allowed. The Bereans were not Gentiles. They were Jews.
Truthseeker00,
My stance of that (100%) is only in regards to 2 Timothy 2:10. I am merely pointing out that my interpretation of that one verse fits perfectly. Nothing more.
Again, I have been wrong more times than I can count. And there is still much, much more that I struggle with and am clueless about.
If you have your own interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:10, please share it.
Blessings, brother.
Truthseeker00,
Also, I agree with what you wrote, please forgive me if it came across that way. Perhaps it would have been better to say “I am highly confident” that my interpretation is the right one.
Phillip, it was a kindly ‘rebuke’, and one I would not have made had I not thought you would take it as intended. It was not in agreement or disagreement of your ideas – actually didn’t even read them. 🙂 I was just startled to hear a statement so bold – one that I have made so often, and now repent of.
Truthseeker00,
Okay. Understood. But your overall assessment is still correct. Discussion in this kind of forum can be awkward. Sometimes intent can be misunderstood. Not all the little nuances can be properly detected. When I read your comments, then looked back at my words I thought “O geez”. I knew what I meant, but I didn’t approve of how it was stated. I should have been more careful. So, no, I goofed. And thank you, brother, for pointing that out. Its appreciated.
You guys are way too nicey nicey about what I believe you should be bold and stand your ground with, without apology. Can you imagine a debate with you and James White for example? And you giving in? Get them boxing gloves on man. LOL.
Brian,
You wrote… “We agree Phillip that ‘elect’ in 2 Tim 2:10 means Israel, the saved and lost in her. (I think that is your position).”
Thanks, brother. That’s all I ask. It’s a start. Again, I appreciate your due diligence in providing the framework for that verse. And thanks for acknowledging that I had both the context and scriptural support on my side. That meant a lot to me. So, again, thank you, brother.
So, we do have at least 1 NT reference to the nation of Israel, only, being God’s elect. Period. Saved or lost, it doesn’t matter. Paul knew who the elect were.
phillip writes, “Again, the word elect/election appears 27 or 28 times throughout scripture (KJV, NKJV).”
The Calvinist argument for election to be taken in the broader sense points to these verses:
Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifies.
Colossians 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Obstinate (defined): see above.
Romans 8:28-33 (NKJV)….
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
Now this might be a little harder to unwind, because while there is certainly application for all of us, Paul is addressing the Jews (albeit believing Jews).
Starting with verse 29 “For whom He foreknew….”
This isn’t who He foreknew who would later believe in Him, but rather who did He have a prior, intimate relationship with. That would be the nation of Israel. He was a husband to them (Jeremiah 31:32), and thru His intimate relationship, came the Christ child (Romans 9:5).
Look again at verse 29….
“For whom He foreknew (the nation of Israel), He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son (why?), that He (the Christ) might be the firstborn among many brethren.”
Romans 9:5 (NKJV)…
…of whom (the Israelites) are the fathers (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and from whom, according to the flesh (physical blood line), Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
Paul, later confirms whom God foreknew when he writes….
Romans 11:1b-2a (NKJV)….
For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people WHOM HE FOREKNEW….
So this was all about God electing the nation of Israel and thru whom He would bring the promised Messiah. This was all about His redemptive plan of salvation.
So, we have confirmation that Israel (that tiny Jewish nation) are those whom God foreknew.
It was Israel whom He predestined.
It was Israel who was called out of Egypt.
It was Israel who was justified/set apart from the other nations.
It was Israel who was (and will always be) glorified.
Romans 9:4 (NKJV)….
…who are Israelites (actual physical descendants), to whom pertain the adoption, THE GLORY, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises…
All present tense. Nothing has or will ever change.
Luke 2:32 (NKJV)….
A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, And THE GLORY of Your people Israel.
Thank you again Phillip for taking my “confrontation” so well, and your kind words, as always. When it comes to unique views about words… I have some of my own that I stand alone on! 😉 Here’s my take on the word “foreknew” in Rom 9:29. Though it is not totally unique only to me, it is a minority one. https://www.academia.edu/31030814/Romans_8_29-30_-_exegetical_dialog And the meaning I take for the prefix “προ” in προγινωσκω is probably unique to me. 😉
Brian,
I wanted to get back to you on this, because you were kind enough to provide it.
I appreciate the time and thoughtfulness it takes to put that together. I have respect for anyone who is willing to take the road less traveled and challenge the status quo. I really do. So, thank you. And bless your heart, baby-sitting rhutchin is a full time job.
With that said, I still think my stance has more scriptural support. Just too many verses that fit so perfectly together. We seem to agree that the word “foreknew” is about knowing someone personally, even intimately (relational), and not just knowing something about someone (prescience). But it is the object of His relationship where we differ. I say it is the nation of Israel.
Sometimes, I like to refer to “The Bible Knowledge Commentary by Walvoord and Zuck. Overall, there is some good stuff there, but being from Dallas Theological Seminary, they obviously have Calvinistic leanings, so I have to be cautious. They, too, tie all believers to those called and predestined. Personally, I believe they dropped the ball here and failed to see the nation of Israel taking that role.
Again, I can’t see how I am “elect”, because I freely “elected” to believe. Now sure, God sovereignly chose the means and methods of how I was added to the body, but, ultimately, no matter how you sugarcoat it, I elected to be a part of that body. I elected to be among the elect. I spiritually struggle with that.
The problem Phillip, as I see it… if you take “foreknew” to mean the nation of Israel… then you are going to have to agree with Ed… for those God foreknew … He glorified.
But if you take “foreknew” to mean starting a love relationship at the moment of new birth, then the individual becomes part of the elect at that point, whether Jew or Gentile before that.
This passage is certainly chosen for salvation, in Rom 8:29, and that is why Paul needed to help them see that difference between that elect group and it’s promises and the elect group called Israel, and its promises.
Foreknew has a context of WHO.
Romans 11:2
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.
That is discussing the Jews. There is no other people that is in the foreknew category.
Romans 11:2
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
Brian,
Two quick observations. Or three.
Romans 8:29 (NKJV)….
For whom He foreknew (the nation of Israel), He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He (the Messiah) might be the firstborn among many brethren.
I see this as lineage, and not individual salvation, as you suggest. Though it is ultimately about bringing about the One who would bring salvation.
Now if we apply your view we have….
For whom He foreknew would believe, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He (the Messiah) might be the firstborn among many brethren.
It comes across as suggesting that the coming of the Messiah was contingent on there being believers.
My stance is that God was working/shaping/molding the nation of Israel as clay, preparing them for the coming of the Messiah. This doesn’t mean that every Israelite was saved, but that the nation of Israel, as a whole, would be gloried. Again, He was referred to as “the God of Israel” 201 times in the OT and the gospels, thus singling them out from the other nations as worshipping the One True God. And part of their glorification is still yet to come.
Second, and on a slightly different topic, you know I don’t believe anyone experience the new birth prior to the cross. How could Jesus be called “the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18) if everyone prior to him had already experienced the new birth? Seems to me that He wouldn’t even rank in the top ten million. 🙂
And, finally, there’s Romans 8:33 (NKJV)…
Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect?
Now, we have already established the fact that God’s elect in 2 Timothy 2:10 was the nation of Israel. Same author. Why would Paul change it here? Why would he keep his audience guessing on who he was referring to? And wouldn’t it be the same group as in Romans 11:2? Like God, wouldn’t Paul be consistent?
Well, I think Phillip as long as you think a word in the NT can only have one identification throughout we will not get to any agreement on meaning. Ed thinks there are three “churchs” you think there is only one “elect”. I think there is only one body of Christ – the Church, made up of both Jew and Gentile, but two “elect” groups, one physical (Israel) and one spiritual (the body of Christ.
You still have a problem with foreknew in Rom 8, even if you say God foreknew and glorified the nation of Israel… all those He foreknew (if the nation) … He called… and He justified! They are all justified – saved in that group.
That’s called the REMNANT.
Your explanations are persuasive, Philip, because they are biblical — unlike Calvin’s notions.
Brian,
Well, I can’t be responsible for every post on this thread. 🙂 I see several local bodies, or churches, making up one body of Christ including both Jews and Gentiles, and one elect of God, Israel (the nation of Israel).
As far as there being two elect, distinct entities, I think you might be standing alone there, brother.
Now, as for a being “justified”, I see that as simply being made righteous, not being saved, per se.
Romans 10:10 (NKJV)….
For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Now in some form or fashion, Israel, as a nation, not individually, was justified in the sight of God (I could use you’re help there, brother). We know “all Israel is saved” because we see all 12 tribes in the book of Revelation. We definitely seem all 12 tribes represented in the New Jerusalem. It reeks of the number 12, which represents the nation as a whole.
Now, that aside. You still have a problem with those in the OT being justified yourself.
Romans 3:21 (NKJV)…
But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed…
Now, since we are made righteous by the shed blood of Christ, exactly how were those OT believers justified before the cross?
Well, Phillip, there are definitely some unique views on this site… justification that is not salvation in Romans (yours) is definitely a new one. All physical seed of Jacob eventually saved after death (Ed’s) another. I have not seen either of those views taught by the HS to anyone else. Have you?
Brian,
Are you ignoring the story of Joseph? Or do you just think that the story of Joseph and his brothers ONLY about Joseph and his brothers in your expository interpretations?
I’ll take those questions about Joseph as rhetorical and don’t think they prove your point of personal everlasting salvation for all the physical seed of Joseph to anyone but you, unless you can point me to a brother who has preached the same view as being what the HS meant.
Rhetorical? Are you kidding? This is serious. You only know REFORM talk. You have not really stepped OUTSIDE the box. Reform people are EXPOSITORY driven. They REJECT stories like the story of Joseph as being PROPHECY. They only see it as a story of Joseph.
Joseph and His Brothers are a prophetic view of Jesus and the Jews. Read the story, and put Jesus as Joseph, and his brothers as the jews.
In the end, Joseph REVEALED himself to his brothers, for they did not know who he was. HOW did he reveal himself? Junk in the trunk, circumcision.
Jesus will reveal himself by his hands and his feet.
Rhetorical? Get out of the box of Reform thinking, and move away from expository preaching. You don’t learn much that way.
Zechariah 12:10
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Yes… there will be a great turning of Israelites who are alive when Jesus returns. But the ones who followed the Antichrist will be thrown into hell with him… perhaps even 2/3 of Jews at that time.
Zechariah 13:8-9 NKJV — And it shall come to pass in all the land,”
Says the LORD,
“That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die,
But one-third shall be left in it: I will bring the one-third through the fire,
Will refine them as silver is refined,
And test them as gold is tested.
They will call on My name,
And I will answer them.
I will say, ‘This is My people’;
And each one will say, ‘The LORD is my God.’ ”
All the evidence thrown at you and you reject it all. Elect is Jews only. Jacob is Israel. God blinded them.
If God blinded them, then God will save them. How is it that you don’t believe that? I showed you that Paul got mercy BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE IN UNBELIEF.
How are the Jews any different than Paul? HOW?
Ed – “All the evidence thrown at you and you reject it all.” Thanks for the conversation… I guess you can’t share an example of where the HS confirms your view elsewhere in the body if Christ. Blessings.
What is HS? The only thing I know HS is High School.
Tell me what you think of these? I already aluded to them in my last comment, but again, you ignored them too. WHY? Frustrating to the max.
What does the following tell you, Brian?
1 Timothy 1:13 PAUL
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
Romans 11:32 JEWS
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
No difference between Paul and the Jews. None.
Ed Chapman
And Ed… Paul the former Jew worshipped with Gentiles in the churches he started… and Jews.
Dude, he established the church’s. He traveled from one to another. He didn’t hang out there from one Sunday to the next. Never became a MEMBER of a church anywhere. No covenant signature, didn’t drive the church bus. I am discussing THE PEW SITTERS, not the establishers.
Your are causing divisions contrary to the gospel of Christ, Ed. Sorry… but I’m not going to respond further unless you affirm that the body of Christ should love one another and worship and serve together.
Romans 16:17 NKJV — Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.
Ya, sure…that is so cliche’ Brian, when someone tells you that you are wrong, then comes the false accusations of causing divisions. I know how you reform people work, and you are no different than the Calvinists in that regard.
And if you are indicating that HS stands for HOLY SPIRIT, then YES…BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT tells you what scripture means.
And I am not the only one. Step outside of REFORM theology. Many in Christendom believe what I do, and why? Because WE DON’T LIMIT OURSELVES TO EXPOSITORY PREACHING.
Ready for you Ed to direct me to read one entry that teaches all physical seed of Jacob from Jacob till judgment will be saved… even Korah and his family?
Ya gotta read the book and study…it’s not in ONE VERSE. But we’ve been giving you NUMEROUS VERSES, which is MORE THAN ENOUGH verses to convince a two year old. But you reject them. Dust feet or pearls before swine, I don’t know.
No, I am not in that seed. I am a Gentile. Circumcised on the 10th day, from the Tribe of Norway, by way of Seattle.
Brian,
There will not be a text saying that all will be included….and in fact I wrote that the Word says that Judas (“son of perdition”) went “where he belongs”…. and one would be hard pressed to read from that context that it meant heaven!
If you don’t believe me, just Google the topic of Prophecy of Joseph. There is PLENTY to read. But you have to weed thru Joseph Smith of the Mormons in that quest.
Get rid of that carnal thinking. That is the real definition of the NATURAL man. The story of Joseph has to be SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED.
MOST stories in Genesis is exactly like that, too.
Including Noah’s Ark, come hell or high water!
But you guys miss that, all because of expository. You guys simply amuse me. Really.
Just one link… Ed… all physical seed of Jacob will be saved. How pure does it have to be? Are you in that seed?
You do your own research. I’m getting tired of giving you scripture that you ignore.
Ed,
I am very sorry for your regular, condescending tone.
FOH,
Don’t be sorry on my account. Ever see the movie LEAN ON ME? Consider me, JOE CLARK
https://youtu.be/TKR_Tli5hbU
Brian,
Maybe some clarification is need.
Faith….justified/made righteous…. new birth (saved).
Per your other comments. Agreed. We are a mixed bunch. United by faith.
TS00 and FOH agree with you.
Norm and Ed agree with me.
So, we’re in right field. Y’all in in left field.
Poor rhutchin. No even in the same stadium. 🙂
So are you still saying Phillip that all Israel is foreknown and justified… and therefore saved… like Ed. I thought you held some of elect Israel are lost forever. But Rom 8 does not say “some” foreknown are justified. Could you explain more clearly how your view of Israel compares with Ed?
I never said that the ARE saved. i said that they will be saved. After they die. Holocaust victims, too. I provided scripture to prove that.
Their unbelief was due to God blinding them, therefore, God saves them, just like he did Paul. But you can’t answer how Paul is any different than Holocaust victims who burned in an oven, and now you think they are burning in hell, too. Wow.
phillip writes, “Faith….justified/made righteous…. new birth (saved).”
Or the order can be: regeneration (new birth)….faith (justified)….belief….saved…sealed
It’s not tho. Faith is YOURS, not God imputing it. It’s your belief. You own it. It wasn’t a gift. Grace was the gift thru YOUR OWN faith. Belief is not imputed, and all “regeneration” comes AFTER all that, and all that means is that God is CHANGING you to conform to his image.
Calvinists concentrate way too much on REGENERATION.
Brian,
Believe me, brother, I am not even close to figuring that out. But somehow, some way, all 12 tribes will be there in the end. And I don’t think it will be limited to just the 12,000 from each tribe.
I know about the 7,000 men that didn’t bow a knee to Baal, not including all the women in children. So somehow that bunch had to include representatives of the 12 tribes. Israel is a tough nut to crack. That word alone (Israel) can cause confusion. There’s Israel the man (Jacob). There’s Israel the nation (all 12 tribes) and there’s Israel, the Northern Kingdom. Each time Paul uses “Israel” you have to stop and think.
So, to try to answer your question the best I can. I believe all Israel (the 12 tribes) as a nation, will be saved. I don’t believe every Israelite is saved. I believe the tribe of Dan is lost. I believe the 3,000 killed at Sinai are lost. So not every Israelite is saved, but as a nation, He foreknew them, called them, predestined them, justified them, and glorified them. I see a nation thru whom the whole world will be blessed. Now how He justified them, I’m not sure. But somehow, some way He did.
If we let Romans 8:28-29 mean all believers, how did God justify them? With what? There was no blood spilt at the time, and we know without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22). So what did God cover them with?
I think I have shared my view before, but I lean towards all OT believers (both Gentiles and Jews) went to Abraham’s bosom. Now were they saved? And a manner of speaking. I think it best to say that were set aside. It wasn’t until after the cross they were justified (made righteous by the blood of Christ) and granted the new birth and only then, followed Jesus into glory. I might be wrong, but that’s how I lean. In other words, I believe OT believers (up to the cross) were only “declared” righteous, but they were not “made” righteous until the works of the cross. I think that is what is meant in Romans 4:3 (NKJV)…
“For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
I think this righteousness was only temporary (or enough to set him apart), because God knew His righteousness was still to come.
I hope this helped (and didn’t make it worse).
I appreciate you, brother.
Thank you Phillip for clarifying your position as opposed to Ed’s. I do think you might need to consider Abraham being justified when God’s righteousness was imputed to him… but the word you meant was that he was not yet redeemed… which is by the blood of Christ.
Now justification is based on that death too… but God granted that benefit early through faith… passing over their sins (or covering them from His judgment, if you will). And I agree… that is why OT saints had to wait in Hades – the nice part 😉 – until redemption was complete.
But all that does not help you out of the problem your position has explaining “foreknew” in Rom 8. You would have to limit it to mean only the justified in Israel were foreknown… so “elect” would mean only specially chosen to be saved ones from each tribe. Is that your view? Justification is salvation.
That is why I think the love of “foreknew” doesn’t begin until justification takes place too.
Brian,
Well, finally something both you and I totally agree on. I agreed with everything that you said, regarding justification. Nothing that I can disagree with on that at all.
However, I still maintain my input as well, in that God blinded the Jews, which is the reason for their unbelief, and for that reason, they will be saved. No different than the salvation that Paul got, except that Paul got it during his FLESH, aka lifetime.
If the scenario was any different than that, the theology is no different than that of Calvinism. God blinded the Jews so that they may not see, which put Jesus on the cross. If they could see, they would not have done that. Therefore, God will have mercy on those he blinded.
Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. Ignorance in unbelief. God has concluded them in unbelief that he will show mercy to all Israel that he blinded.
Regarding Judas, that’s up for debate, but I believe that he was sorry for what he did, and forgiven, for even he falls under the “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Ed Chapman
Brian, I change my mind. There is the last sentence of yours that I do disagree with.
That last sentence was:
“That is why I think the love of “foreknew” doesn’t begin until justification takes place too.”
Justification takes place at salvation, but has nothing to do with “foreknew/foreknow”.
Also,
Romans 2:14 – 16…who are they? Are they not people who NEVER heard of Jesus or the gospel?
When are they judged? WHERE are they judged?
Hebrews 9:27 for it is appointed unto man once to die…THEN the judgment.
People are not judged on earth before they die. They are judged after. And since Gentiles who never had the law, obey laws that they never knew, BY NATURE, HOW are those people JUDGED?
Was Jesus judged ON the cross, or after he died?
I would conclude that he wasn’t judged until after he died. He suffered more after he died, than the brutal beating he got before he died.
So, the unbelieving Jews are judged AFTER they die, and Jesus is the judge. And Romans 2:14-16 shows that those who don’t know anything about a Jesus or Gospel are judged based on their conscience…after they die. Not before.
Why did Paul get mercy again?
I see that you have a notion that you believe that the Jews were somehow unblinded at some point in the past. If that be the case, Romans 9-11 need not be written, because Romans takes you back to Deuteronomy, showing that God never unblinded them, except for a few.
Ed Chapman
Calvinist James White writes regarding “foreknew” from Romans 8:29…
“It refers to the choice to enter into relationship with someone. In this case, in eternity past God chose to enter into personal relationship with His elect people, even before bringing them into existence. The relationship is so personal, so intimate, that it is proper to speak of it in the sense of fore-loving. God’s eternal choice was to enter into a loving, intimate relationship with the elect. This results in His predestinating them to adoption as sons, His calling them into relationship with Him in time, His justifying them by declaring them righteous, and His glorifying them in His presence for all eternity.” (Debating Calvinism, p.146)
Now, ironically, I agree with this (for the most part). Where I disagree with White is who the object of this relationship is with. And how could he miss it when the OT stated is so clearly?
Deuteronomy 7:6-7 (NKJV)…..
“For you (the nation of Israel) are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God HAS CHOSEN YOU TO BE A PEOPLE FOR HIMSELF, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. The LORD did not set His love on you (Israel) nor choose you (Israel) because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least (fewest) of all peoples…
Isaiah 45:4 (NKJV)….
For Jacob My servant’s sake, And ISRAEL MY ELECT, I have even CALLED you by your name; I have named you, though you have not known Me.
Jeremiah 31:32 (NKJV)…
“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, THOUGH I WAS A HUSBAND TO THEM, says the Lord.
Amos 3:1-2 (NKJV)…..
Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying: “YOU ONLY HAVE I KNOWN OF ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”
Romans 9:4 (NKJV)….
who are Israelites, to whom pertain THE ADOPTION, THE GLORY, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises…
Romans 11:2a (NKJV)….
God has not cast away His people (the Israelites) whom He FOREKNEW.
So, when Paul wrote…. “For whom He foreknew….” to whom was he referring?
The nation of Israel.
How could White miss this? Didn’t fit his narrative.
Phillip writes:
‘Romans 11:2a (NKJV)….
God has not cast away His people (the Israelites) whom He FOREKNEW.
So, when Paul wrote…. “For whom He foreknew….” to whom was he referring?
The nation of Israel.
How could White miss this? Didn’t fit his narrative.’
Might I humbly suggest the same could be said of those who assert an ‘it’s all about the Jews’ understanding of what Paul wrote?
Might one not suggest that the key to understanding ‘God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew’ is understanding that not all who are of Israel are Israel, or as Paul put it:
‘. . . not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.’
One might ask, how can those who insist that there is still some sort of separate plan for a so-called national Israel ‘miss this’ – the ‘this’ being Paul’s explanation about who and what ‘Israel’ signifies? Paul teaches that (spiritual) Israel never was, ultimately, ‘the whole family which [God] brought up from the land of Egypt’, but always those few within that family who genuinely trusted and followed God. There were always two ‘Israels’ – similar to what is termed the ‘visible church’ and the ‘church invisible’.
Israel was, initially ONE MAN. How is it that an entire nation became known as ‘Israel’? Even this claim, according to Paul, was a delusion, because, in reality, any individual who chose to be circumcised and follow the law could become a part of the nation of Israel; and any unwilling to obey the law could be cut off from the nation of Israel. The Judaisers were either dishonest or inconsistent.
It seems to me that Paul was teaching that, in God’s eyes, ‘Israel’ was always those – who like the one man – trusted in and obeyed God. Hence, the term ‘my Elect’, was introduced – those whom God foreknew would trust and obey Him. Eventually, ‘the elect’ would demonstrate that faith by trusting in God’s Redeemer and Son. These ‘elect’ would not be restricted to believing descendants of Abraham (and never truly were), but were all who did, do and ever will believe in and follow Him.
Surely men and women who have multiple children grasp how the unavoidable uniqueness of their relationship with their firstborn (there can be only one ‘first’) does not suggest a greater love than that which they have for all of their children? I have strong, emotional memories of many of the ‘firsts’ of my first child, but he is not more loved, significant or important than my other children. He is, and ever will remain, my beloved firstborn among many beloved children.
I find it difficult to understand how people ‘miss’ the key to understanding how ‘all Israel will be saved’ in Paul’s declaration that ‘not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel’. It requires the entire book of Romans to properly understand that fragment of a verse. And careful, proper interpretation relieves one of the necessity of insisting, contrary to all logic, that God must someday restore all of the divisions he deliberately destroyed, once again make ‘Jew’ distinct from ‘gentile’, and, once again ‘showing favor’ to one group of people over another simply due to an accident of birth. These things will, in my opinion, never be. The ‘purpose’ of, and task for, which ‘one nation’ was chosen over all others has been accomplished. It is finished.
Israel the man represents how a person, due to his decision to believe God’s promise, is elected to become a child of God when others, of similar blood and circumstances, are not. There is no boasting, because God chose Jacob, when he could just as easily have chosen Esau. Jacob’s only ‘claim to fame’ was that he ‘believed God’, thus turning him into the first ‘Israel’. When ‘Israel’ became a great number of people, it was necessary to differentiate between those who followed God, and those who just happened to be born in the right place at the right time. These were called ‘the elect’, the true, spiritual ‘Israel’ who would, indeed, all, without exception, be saved.
Paul teaches that the mystery of God’s goodness and foreknowledge, once hidden, reveals that it was always his intention that this category of ‘the elect’ would include all nations of men. This gives a proper understanding to all that Paul taught – with no lingering inconsistencies.
All who are ‘of Israel’ are not ‘Israel’, according to God, and never were. All who are ‘of Israel’ are not ‘the elect’ of God, and never were. Israel was first, and rightly, defined as one man, chosen for a special task; eventually, all of his blood descendants – chosen for that special task – came to be called ‘Israel’ as well. However, the fact is that others, not related by blood, were allowed to become a part of that physical nation called ‘Israel’, and those who refused to follow the laws of circumcision and sacrifice were banished from the nation of ‘Israel’. Such, always, was the case with that which was called the nation of ‘Israel’, demonstrated by the non-Abrahamic descendants which were in the line of David and thus, Jesus.
Those who are spiritual children of God, born of spirit and not flesh, are the ‘true’ Israel, predestined to become conformed to the image of Jesus, and always have been. This is the great ‘mystery’ which Jesus revealed, explaining how history and prophecy pointed to this great truth all along. Thus ‘all Israel will be saved’ makes perfect sense, without demanding some future ‘revival’ on the part of some nation of men. As does ‘all of the elect will be saved’. Because the meaning of ‘Israel’ and ‘the elect’ are, in God’s eyes, one and the same – all who trust in His promises and live a life that demonstrates true faith. God’s definition has never changed; he allowed ‘the ignorance’ of Israel’s belief in their ‘chosen people’ status to continue for a time, but it was never ‘true’.
No, Israel is JACOB. We are children of ABRAHAM thru Jesus. We are not Jacob. The spiritual family line is Abraham, Jesus (Promised Seed), you.
The Family Line of the ELECT is Abraham, Isaac, JACOB. Jacob is ISRAEL, for God changed his name to that, because he wrestled with God and PREVAILED.
WRESTLED WITH GOD. PREVAILED. That’s what Israel means based on a biblical passage. Jacob is Israel. NOT YOU.
Romans 9:6-13 (NKJV)….
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
Paul’s message in Romans 9 is not about God electing some for salvation, while excluding others. It has nothing to do with some “spiritual” Israel. Paul is outlining the physical lineage proving that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah. We see this in verse 5 when he writes…
“…of whom (the Israelites) are the fathers (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
Romans 9: 6…
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel…
Now we have to remember that during Paul’s ministry, Israel was still a divided nation. We had Israel, the Northern kingdom, and Judah, the Southern Kingdom. So when Paul says that they are not all Israel who descended from Israel (or Jacob), that’s true. Some of Israel (the man) was Judah (the southern kingdom). Israel (the northern kingdom) was not essential in bringing forth the promised Messiah. Ah, but Judah, the southern kingdom was. The promised Messiah is from the tribe of Judah. This was prophesied in the OT.
Isaiah 65:9 (NKJV)…
I will bring forth descendants from Jacob (Israel), And from Judah an heir of My mountains; My elect shall inherit it, And My servants shall dwell there.
Romans 9:7-8 (NKJV)…
….nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
Now what did old Abraham do when God said I will give you descendants? Knowing Sarah was barren, He went and had a child with Hagar. But God said “no…no…no.” It will be thru Isaac, not Ishmael, that your seed shall be called. When it reads “those who are the children of the flesh” it is referring to Abraham, or man’s attempt to fulfill God’s promise. This is confirmed in the following verse.
“For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”
Now verses 10-13….
And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to ELECTION might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
Now what was the problem here? Well, Esau was the firstborn, to whom the blessings usually went to. But what did God say? “Jacob I have loved”.
Remember, this is all about election. God choosing the nation of Israel to bring forth the promised Messiah.
So what do we have? Not Ishmael, but Isaac. Not Esau, but Jacob. And not Israel (the northern kingdom, but Judah (the southern kingdom). It was thru the blood line of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah that the Christ child would come.
So many Rom. 9 verses.
Not that the following is directly related to you comments, did you get a chance to read Eric Hankins paper on that chapter? The necessity of reprobation ala Calvin is utterly destroyed. Calvinism is unraveled – bankrupt!
Norm,
First, no, I haven’t read brother Hankin’s writings, though I have heard some good reviews.
Second, I greatly appreciate your earlier comment regarding “persuasive” explanations. I hope so, but I have by no means worked out all the kinks. But with the Lord’s help, I will.
Once the Lord showed me who the “elect/election” were, the floodgates started to open.
Consider….
Romans 11:7 (KJV)….
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
Some versions change “election” with “elect”, but I believe the KJV’s use of election fits perfectly (and resolves any confusion).
There are some out there that say, “See? Israel is no longer the elect of God. That title now belongs to the church.” Or some will say “See, its not about physical Israel, but spiritual Israel”.
I say this is precisely what Satan wants. Satan has always wanted to annihilate the nation of Israel and take them out of the picture ever since God made that covenant with Abraham. Why? Because without them, all of God’s promises would fail. He would have lost His sovereignty and Satan knows it.
So what does Romans 11: 7 mean?
What then? Israel (the Northern Kingdom) hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election (Judah, the Southern Kingdom) hath obtained it, and the rest (of that elect nation) were blinded.
Isaiah 65:9 (NKJV)…
I will bring forth descendants from Jacob (Israel), And from Judah an heir of My mountains; My elect shall inherit it, And My servants shall dwell there.
Now when God dispersed Israel (the Northern Kingdom) into Assyria, for the most part, they never returned. But when God dispersed Judah (the Southern Kingdom), God had to return part of that kingdom to their own land. “God had to?” O, yes. “Why?” Because the promised Messiah, from the tribe of Judah, had to be born in Bethlehem. It had been prophesied (Micah 5:2).
Now, more proof that “the election” were Jews, and not the church or some spiritual Israel.
Romans 11:28 (KJV)….
As concerning the gospel (Paul’s gospel of the death, burial and resurrection), they (the Jews) are enemies for your (the Gentiles’) sakes: but as touching the election (exact same word Paul used just moments earlier), they (the Jews) are beloved for the father’s sakes (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob).
How can anyone say that the “election” in verse 7 has to do with the church/spiritual Israel when election in verse 28 clearly refers to the Jews, even non-believing Jews?
And look, again, how the chapter begins.
Romans 11:1-5 (NKJV)…
I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant (of the nation of Israel) according to the election of grace.
Now what did God want to do with them way back in Exodus? Wipe them out! Start over! But what did Moses say? Remember your promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel/Jacob (Exodus 32:13)! So God backed off. And I love Romans 11:5. Paul writes…
“Even so then, AT THIS PRESENT TIME there is a remnant (of the nation of Israel) according to the election of grace.”
It was true then when Paul said it and its still true today. There is still a remnant of the nation of Israel with us today. Not because they’ve earned it, but because of the election of grace (Romans 11:6). And God knows who they are.
So, to summarize. The word “election” appears 5/6 times in the (NKJV/KJV) bible.
Romans 9:11 (KJV)….
For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;
I believe I proved earlier this is about the lineage of the Jews (coming from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob).
Romans 11:5 (KJV)….
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant (of the nation of Israel) according to the election of grace.
Romans 11:7 (KJV)….
What then? Israel (the Northern Kingdom) hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election (Judah/the Southern Kingdom) hath obtained it, and the rest (of that elect nation) were blinded.
Romans 11:28 (KJV)…
As concerning the gospel, they (the Jews) are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father’s sakes (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob).
2 Peter 1:10 (KJV)….
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
And who was Peter writing to? Jews. So, there are 5 times that the word “election” is referring to the Jews, and the Jews only. Four times by Paul, and one by Peter. And we have only one verse left where the word “election” appears. And this, again, from the pen of the apostle Paul.
1 Thessalonians 1:4 (KJV)…
Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
Just do the math.
God bless you, brother.
Phillip… you and I are on the same page about an elect nation. Some day we might be on the same page about elect church (1Thess 1:1, 4). But that verse is not the only one speaking about the elect church –
Colossians 3:11-12 NKJV — where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all. Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering;
Romans 8:32-33 NKJV — He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
Titus 1:1 NKJV — Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness,
Brian,
Forgive me for interjecting here, as I know you have problem with my tone and style. However,
Where do you get the idea about an Elect “CHURCH”.
Elect is a people, not a church. Elect is UNSAVED Jews, who certainly are not part of any church, as well as saved Jews…both saved and unsaved Jews. Where does the word “church” come into play?
Those who are saved…in THIS LIFE, are the “REMNANT”. The rest, that are in slumber, will see when they die. Paul wishes that they can see NOW, which is why he wishes to be accursed.
We get it, that you have said that “IN CHRIST” there is no Greek or Jew, etc. We already acknowledge that.
Philip and I are discussing a different topic, not that one.
I keep asking over and over and over again, WHY did Paul receive mercy? And you won’t answer. Paul himself tells us that he received mercy BECAUSE of ignorance in unbelief.
So, the unanswered question is, how is PAUL any different than your everyday average unbelieving Jew? Why, in your mind, will they not receive the same mercy for the same reason?
Please say something about that, because you won’t answer it…because of my contentious tone? Come on, man.
Ya, I am dividing, alright. Rightly dividing the word of God.
Ed Chapman
Brian, and rhutchin,
Churches (Plural) of the “Gentiles”, not Jews/Gentiles, but Gentiles. From the Strong’s Concordance of the KJV
Rom 16:4
Who G3748 have G5294 G0 for G5228 my G3450 life G5590 laid down G5294 their own G1438 necks: G5137 unto whom G3739 not G3756 only G3441 I G1473 give thanks, G2168 but G235 also G2532 all G3956 the churches G1577 of the Gentiles. G1484
The same Greek word (G1577 Ecclesia (Assembly, Church, Churches)) is also used of the SINGULAR Church, as well.
The plural appears 37 times in 36 verses.
The definition is “assembly”, and even that word is used with the same Greek word 3 times in Acts 19:32,39,41.
So, if there were churches of the Gentiles, there are also church’s of the Jews, too.
So, while there may be no difference between Jew/Gentile, there were churches of the Gentiles, and churches of the Jews, especially since the Jews were the first Christians.
Ed Chapman
Brian,
I had forgotten about the following comment that you asked me, so I will respond:
“Ed – You didn’t answer if you were under submission to any pastor(s) leadership as the Lord clearly commands – Heb 13:17 NKJV – 17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.
Also, what about all those Jews that Jesus spoke to, warning them of hell fire… That seems contrary to your view that all Jews end up in heaven after death. I don’t think the Holy Spirit has taught that view in His Word, nor have I ever heard any godly teacher teach it.
Mat 23:15, 33 NKJV – 15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. … 33 “Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
The rich man in Luke 16 ended up in hell. He certainly was a Jew.”
My response:
This is so easy.
Do you remember that I keep saying that God blinded the Jews?
John 9:40-41 (KJV)
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Blind=NO SIN. Claiming they can see = SIN REMAINS.
And since I do not come from the REFORM circles, we do not see the same INTERPRETATION of Hebrews 13:17 as you do.
We see it NO DIFFERENTLY than the little ditty we were taught as children, regardless of religion. RESPECT YOUR ELDERS.
Respect your elders…what does that mean?
Elders are supposed to be mentors, who have lived life, been there, done that, knows the struggle, has wisdom, but what do REFORMERS get? Authoritarians to whip us into shape, who they are to be OBEDIENT to, or else get the wrath of a phony doctrine of Church Discipline.
We non-REFORMERS obey out of respect to the elder for his WISDOM, not his AUTHORITY. And therefore, we don’t see it as a COMMANDMENT as you reformers do.
And in my experience of studying REFORMERS, the LEADERS
–Continued—
the leaders do not watch out for anyone’s soul. They rule with an iron fist. They LORD OVER, when they are clearly forbidden to do so.
Ed Chapman
Brian,
The epistles of Corinthians.
Addressed to Jews? Gentiles? Both?
Romans 16:4 (KJV)
Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
ChurchES of the WHO?
1 Corinthians 12:2
Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
Where were the Jews? No Jews in Corinth? No mention of anyone in Corinth being ELECT in either epistle, either.
1 Corinthians 1:2
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,
Uh…DAT BE GENTILES, NOT JEWS.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes to Brian, “The epistles of Corinthians.Addressed to Jews? Gentiles? Both?…Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, Uh…DAT BE GENTILES, NOT JEWS.”
“…to the church of God which is at Corinth…with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,…”
Paul writes to the church at Corinth and then includes all believers. Paul is using the problems the church in Corinth encountered as an opportunity to teach all believers who could also encounter those same problems.
rhutchin,
your usage of ellipsis makes the meaning change to what you want it to say, rather than what it states, because I showed another verse in Corinthians that you seem to have missed. That Verse: 1 Cor 12:2, which states in part: “Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these…”
Notice where MY ellipsis are?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “your usage of ellipsis makes the meaning change to what you want it to say, rather than what it states, because I showed another verse in Corinthians that you seem to have missed. That Verse: 1 Cor 12:2, which states in part: “Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these…”
I just quoted Paul’s introduction to his letter. Paul writes directly to the Corinthian believers but tells us that his letter has broad application to all believers. In 12:2, Paul speaks directly to the Corinthian believers. Other believers would do well to take note of what Paul writes.
I don’t see an issue here.
rhutchin states, “I just quoted Paul’s introduction to his letter. Paul writes directly to the Corinthian believers but tells us that his letter has broad application to all believers. In 12:2, Paul speaks directly to the Corinthian believers. Other believers would do well to take note of what Paul writes.
I don’t see an issue here.
My response:
I see an issue here. You quoted, while ASSUMING that it has BROAD applications to all believers.
Maybe it does…But the LETTER was not addressed to JEWS in Corinth. It was addressed to GENTILES in Corinth, and that verse that you have forgotten about TWICE proves that.
My point had nothing to do with BROAD APPLICATIONS TO ALL CHRISTIANS. My point is the ADDRESS of the letter.
It’s like, the COMMANDING OFFICER of a ship, writes a MEMO to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, but what the Commanding Officer states in that memo, ALSO HAS broad applications FOR the SUPPLY DEPARTMENT.
But the SUPPLY DEPARTMENT never got a memo.
Address is the only thing I was discussing, not broad applications.
Ed Chapman
phillip writes, “Or some will say ‘See, its not about physical Israel, but spiritual Israel’.”
When we take that position, then we get the following:
Romans 11:5 “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.’ This allows us to identify the “election” as the remnant.
Romans 11:7
What then? Israel (the corporate Nation) hath not obtained that which he seeks for; but the election (the remnant) has obtained it, and the rest (of Israel, the corporate nation) were blinded.
Romans 11:28 (KJV)….
As concerning the gospel (Paul’s gospel of the death, burial and resurrection), they (the corporate nation, Jews) are enemies for your (the Gentiles’) sakes: but as touching the election (the remnant), they (the remnant) are beloved for the father’s sakes (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob).
This supports your statement, ‘It was true then when Paul said it and its still true today. There is still a remnant of the nation of Israel with us today. Not because they’ve earned it, but because of the election of grace (Romans 11:5). And God knows who they are.”
Further, 2 Peter 1:10 (KJV)….
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
As Peter writes (v1)”… to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours,…” then v10 refers to the same, the believing Jews, or remnant.
Coming back to 1 Thessalonians 1:4 (KJV) “Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.” Paul writes to the “church of the Thessalonians.” The church is comprised of both believing Jews and gentiles of whom Paul now refers to as the election by virtue of his argument in Ephesians 2, “[Christ] is our peace, who has made both [the remnant of the Jews and the gentile] one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition between us;…that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:”
The election in its TOTALITY is not JUST the remnant. Those Jews saved in THIS life are the remnant, under GRACE. The elect under grace is THIS LIFE. Unsaved Jews are the Elect, too.
All of what you did, was to show who the remnant is. Good. That’s a start. But the REST that are in SLUMBER, will be saved when they die.
As I asked Brian, why did Paul receive mercy? Please tell me.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned14 asks, “As I asked Brian, why did Paul receive mercy? Please tell me.”
Paul explains:
“God says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”
Then:
“…for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.”
Paul also says, “I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.”
Thus, God shows mercy on whom he will and it is from those who act out of ignorance or unbelief that God chooses whom He will extend mercy but only to those for which it furthers His purposes.
rutchin,
Romans 11:30-32
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
The context of MOST of Romans is related to the word, RIGHTEOUSNESS.
There are TWO ways to obtain it.
ONE, the Jews were COMMANDED by God to be obedient to a list of 613 do’s and don’ts to OBTAIN RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
God commanded that they OBEY.
And what have we figured out? THEY CAN’T DO IT. Can you? NO.
They have ignorance of the righteousness of God, because God did not tell them.
Romans 10:3
3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
So, God ORDERS, aka Commands them to obey a list of Rules that God knows full and well that they will fail at. AND THAT IS WHY THEY WILL RECEIVE MERCY.
And that is the summary of Romans 9-11. Ignorance in UNBELIEF.
Before the law of Moses…
Abraham didn’t have the law of Moses at all. He didn’t even have the Ten Commandments.
The law of Moses is works. Earning a wage to obtain righteousness. And if it can be done, God OWES them their wage of eternal life.
So, take the law out of the way…ya got faith.
So, the Jews will obtain MERCY because THEY DON’T DESERVE MERCY, hence the word.
Their ignorance is what gets them mercy. Not because God will pick and choose.
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 6:7
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead
Romans 7:4
ye also are become dead to the law
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law,
Romans 7:8
For without the law sin was dead.
Galatians 2:21
if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested
Romans 4:5
faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:13
not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace
Galatians 3:12
the law is not of faith
Galatians 3:21
if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Romans 4:5-6
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Faith is NOT imputed.
There is ONLY two things that can be “IMPUTED” to us.
1. Sin
2. Righteousness
Righteousness can only be imputed in two different ways.
1. Works (DEEDS/OBEYING/OBSERVING) The Law of Moses
2. Faith
God says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”
Once again, an argument from silence. This verse does not preclude how a person may/may not respond to that mercy. Typical Calvie!
Norm,
This is the kind of verse (there are 40-50 or so) that start people (me!) down the slippery road to determinist-fatalist-Calvinism.
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” Indeed! Mercy on those who are in Christ. Those who believe. Those who have faith.
“It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”
Indeed…..you want it and ‘work for it’ as hard as you like….but if you dont do it by God’s method (faith in Christ) it will go nowhere. Romans 4 assures us that faith is not a work.
This verse is worth nothing more to a Calvinist than it is to anyone else. We all believe this!!
My hopefully obvious point is that the verse is oft’ used to prove what amounts to Calvin’s determinism, but cannot be used in that way. In fact, I know of no verse that can be used in that way, correctly, since fatalism (as sometimes unwittingly presented by Calvinists) is not part of God’s salvific pan.
Norm,
I have tried to point out many times on these pages that NONE of the 40-50 gothcha verses can be used to defend fatalist-Calvinism.
Only if one WANTS them to mean that…. meaning: come to the text with your position and insist that these 50 verses have only one meaning.
Then….. take the other thousands and thousands of verses that do not support determinism …and apply the “they dont really mean what they say” rule. ((I mean they can’t really, right, since ‘we know how God must be.'”
Life is simple for Calvinists.
Rule One: focus on 40-50 verse.
Rule Two: repeat.
There are those time that I pity Calvinists. But then I am sometimes more deeply concerned about what else thy are teaching/believing if they cannot see Calvin’s bankruptcy. Can you imagine the 3 SBC seminaries that are Calvin-friendly saying, “Well, so sorry y’all, but we are renouncing Calvin based on biblical texts”?
There are many in leadership at those seminaries who have more letters after their names than do I. So, if I can see the prima facie truth of scripture, why can’t they?
My theory is that Calvinism is what is drawing today’s young people to certain seminaries, so it is pragmatic for those seminaries more than it is theological. Sad, if not sinful, if true.
Norm writes:
‘God says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”
Once again, an argument from silence. This verse does not preclude how a person may/may not respond to that mercy. Typical Calvie!’
It is astounding how this verse, and that which Paul is quoting from Exodus 33 – ‘and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy’ – is so terribly distorted by Calvinists to mean something it certainly was not intended by God to mean.
If one looks at Exodus 33, to see what was meant, one finds Moses begging God to extend the same grace to all of the people delivered from Egypt that God was promising to Moses. Instead, God promises to go with Moses, and to also reveal to him his ‘glory’ – but refuses to promise ‘mercy’ or ‘graciousness’ to all of Israel. In other words, or so it would seem, God is gently reminding Moses that he will not be bargained with. God will show mercy and grace, just as he always has, to those he deems it is appropriate, not to ‘all Israel’ as Moses desires. What is not said, in this passage, is who God deems worthy, or upon what basis he makes his judgment; but merely asserts that God will do as God sees fit, however it seems to mere men who do not understand his wisdom and justice. In other words, God is not promising Moses that he will not destroy any and all who refuse to obey his commands. His promises were – nor are – unconditional, and will be annulled should the people refuse to uphold their part of the covenant.
This phrase cannot justly be asserted to declare that God randomly chooses whom to save, or that they were arbitrarily chosen for such ‘mercy’ in eternity past – it simply does not say such things! That is reading far too much into these verses, distorting them to fit an agenda – a skill John Calvin excelled at. It is pure invention to assert that these verses prove salvation is predetermined, when they are not even addressing salvation! It makes far more sense to read this phrase as asserting that God chose to make a covenant with certain people (Israel) – who did not ‘deserve’ such a blessed offer – and he would not surrender his right to demand that the agreed upon terms be met. In the end, even Moses was not allowed to enter the land as promised, because of his rebellion. In the end, many of the people chosen to reveal the message of the gospel to the world, rejected the message themselves; because salvation is never unconditional.
ts00 writes, “This phrase cannot justly be asserted to declare that God randomly chooses whom to save, or that they were arbitrarily chosen for such ‘mercy’ in eternity past – it simply does not say such things!”
Here is the context from Romans 9:
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy.
17 For the scripture said unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.
God chose Jacob over Esau. The Love/hate description indicates that Jacob was chosen for God’s blessing and Esau was not. As God did bless Esau with material blessings, the context here is spiritual and that brings salvation into play. Thus, the anticipated complaint, “Is there unrighteousness with God?” Because “unrighteousness” on God’s part is the complaint, the stakes are high again pointing to an eternal blessing and not a physical, worldly blessing. It is a rhetorical question whose answer is, No.
Of course, no one claims that God’s choices are either random or arbitrary because all that God does is after the counsel of His will.
rhutchin,
This is getting so frustrating every time Calvinists talk about Jacob and Esau. The ONLY thing that it means, IN CONTEXT of all of Romans 9-11 (and you guys talk about exegesis???????? Really??????) is that God CHOSE the FAMILY LINE…
Let me say that again
FAMILY LINE
Family line of JACOB to be the JEWS blinded by God, CHOSEN to obey a set of rules that he knew that they would fail, TO BE THE ONES WHO PUT JESUS ON THE CROSS,
instead of Esau.
Do you get it yet?
It has nothing to do with the PERSONs of Jacob or Esau, because as it states, NEITHER ONE DID GOOD OR BAD.
God used Jacob as CLAY to suit his purpose to put JESUS on the cross. That’s it. End of story.
There is no more.
The CLAY is the Jewish people, JUST LIKE the Pharaoh was the clay to TELL A STORY about Jesus, thru the actions of Moses, the redeemer.
That clay is NOT YOU AND ME OR ANYONE ELSE. The prophesies of Jesus is all it was used for. And there is still FUTURE PROPHECY that must be fulfilled, so God still has a use for the JEWISH CLAY.
The Calvinists interpretations, quite frankly, is out of whack with reality.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “The ONLY thing that it means, IN CONTEXT of all of Romans 9-11…is that God CHOSE the FAMILY LINE…”
It means that God chose Jacob. That choice by God did not necessarily extend to Jacob’s family line – “they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;”
So, what is reality here? Are you correct or are the Scriptures correct?
I imagine that believers who have never heard of Calvinism or do not understood its doctrines would never come to the interpretation that can only be reached by applying the Calvinist lens. The whole chapter of Romans, each passage slowly building the case, is that salvation is not partial, not limited, not the purvey of a chosen group of people at the expense of all others. The chutzpah of turning all of that into supposedly asserting, as Calvinism does, that salvation actually IS partial, limited and the purvey of a chosen group of people is nearly unthinkable! This will go down as one of the really ‘big lies’ that misled naive people into grave error. Most familiar with scripture understand that God selected Israel to be ‘His people’, to receive his law, to have his presence lead and protect them, to bring them from slavery to the possession of a land flowing with milk and honey. And he determined that he would, in spite of their stiff necks, idolatry and frequent rebellion, yet bring about what he had determined to bring – the Messiah, the Redeemer of mankind. Yet this electing ‘work’ of God to bring about a Redeemer in a particular place at a particular time cannot be conflated with the salvation it makes possible.
This bringing forth a Deliverer what was ‘determined’ and irrevocable. This, God would indeed accomplish with or without the cooperation or submission of his selected nation of undeserving rebels. Read the entire Old Testament to see how often he threatened to destroy the whole bunch and start over with a new ‘nation’.
Joshua tells us that God did not fail to fulfill any of his promises to this stubborn, uncooperative people – but this did not indicate that all Israel would be saved. One need simply read all of scripture, without the distorting lens of Calvinism, to see that God’s temporal promises to this nation did not include unconditional forgiveness of sin. Hence the ongoing sacrifices, in which these people put such trust that they preferred to cling to them even when the true Messiah, the once for all sacrifice for sin, appeared on the scene. They refused to look to him, but clung to their law and traditions. And were destroyed in A.D 70.
One can – as this blog now shows – debate all day long about if God intends to do some future, saving work on some group of individuals supposedly still recognizable as something called Israel. (Most overlook, or are ignorant of the fact that the word ‘Jew’, when it came into existence, referred to the residents of Judea after the return, not the tribe of Judah. Some have asserted that the Pharisees and their ilk were Edomites, hence Jesus’ severe rebuke and condemnation of them. Compare them to Calvinists who subtly sneak into churches unaware, and falsely assert their ‘authority’ to declare what is ‘true’ and to excommunicate those who dare dissent.)
Romans 9 has nothing to do with the political, Zionist entity known as Israel today, a group which has used and continues to use bloodshed to occupy a land that they have no legitimate claim to. They have misled much of Churchianity to believe that they are the ‘true Israel’ of scripture, reclaiming the land that God supposedly gave them unconditionally. Except that God never made such a thing as an unconditional covenant, which is by definition, absurd. A covenant, or relationship, requires the ongoing agreement of two parties to do as they have pledged. If either party fails to do as promised, the covenant is no longer binding.There is no legitimate ‘Once saved, always saved’, and no such thing as an irrevocable marriage. Should one party cease to fulfill its promises, the covenant is broken. Which is why our only hope is to be ‘in Christ’ who did not fail to keep his promises, and will teach us to become faithful and true as he is. He is not, however, handing out ‘get out of hell free’ cards, with no conditions.
This error of translation is what has led to the heinous tragedy of women being threatened that they can never ‘divorce’ even the most unfaithful and abusive of husbands, because ‘God hates divorce’. This is essentially what is behind the abusive attempt by Calvinism to reinstate biblical Patriarchy, leaving women, once again, nearly without any genuine rights. Scripture was indefensibly mistranslated as saying ‘God hates divorce’ when Jesus actually said ‘God hates (illegal) putting away’ which was the opposite of divorce.
The documented ancient practice of ‘putting away’ was breaking of the relationship, or putting away the wife, without the official papers of divorcement. The Pharisees imitated the Roman practice of casual ‘putting away’, casting off without divorce papers women not because of sexually infidelity, but for any reason whatsoever, or ‘marrying’ and ‘remarrying’ at will. This, Jesus taught, was simply adultery. God defined ‘putting away’ which involved the element of shame, in the Law of Moses as only permissible in the case of sexual unfaithfulness. A ‘put away’ woman was essentially a proven adulteress spared punishment. Under Moses, if a man chose to be merciful, he could ‘put away’ an unfaithful wife without demanding she be put to death – just as Joseph, a kind and gentle man, was going to do with Mary. (Pregnancy before marriage was ‘proof’ of fornication.) Mary would not have been eligible to marry, but she would have been spared death by stoning. Divorce, under Moses, was an official breaking of a marriage covenant with official documents (papers of divorcement), which enabled both parties to legally remarry. Anyone who really seeks to make sense of all of scriptures statements on divorce and putting away will discover the, I believe, deliberate mistranslations the Church has used to manipulate and control people.
Our problem is that we do not know our history. The Institutional Church, Catholic and Protestant alike, used the excuse of ‘defending God’ while murdering those who dared to challenge their authority to define God, i.e. those who dared doubt the ‘official’ definition of the Trinity, of whom there were and are yet many. Even the Calvies have dared to redefine it in the last couple of years, as they debate the finer details of ‘pre-existent’, ‘subservient’ and so on.
One Church declares that no ‘Priest’ may marry, another declares that none may divorce. Even though God himself is a divorcee. Because divorce is the unfortunate, but proper response to a broken covenant. The Church says ‘no divorce’, then produces decades of abusive, philandering pastors. But at least they were not ‘divorced’! Instead, they abuse ‘forgiveness of sin’ for their own infidelity, often keeping it from the congregation, while condemning countless men and women to lives of utter despair, sentenced for life to dead, hopeless marriages in which none of the covenant is being kept. Don’t get me wrong – I’m no fan of divorce, nor is God. He desires faithfulness, promise-keeping, loving relationships. So do I. But he never condemns himself, or anyone else, to an irrevocable, unbreakable covenant. That is simply abusive, which God never is.
The Church taught ‘Thou shalt not kill’, then burned people at the stake for having the wrong doctrine; not for adultery, or shameless, immoral behavior – but for believing scripture might mean something different than the ‘official’ interpretation. Why was Jesus so venomous to the Pharisees? They were hypocrites, who kept every tittle of ‘the law’ by reinterpreting it to suit their purposes. They did not want the ‘scandal’ of divorce, so they simply ‘put away’ their unwanted wives and moved to the next one, much like today’s no-fault divorce on a whim. They did not want to use their own money to support their aging mothers, so insisted that they had ‘devoted’ their wealth to the Church. They would bring for condemnation a woman ‘caught in the act’ of adultery – but where was the man with whom she was ‘caught in the act’?
Whenever any man or institution uses ‘the Word of God’ to hurt, oppress and abuse others, you can know for sure that they, like the Pharisees, do not know God. They, like the Pharisees, desire power, acclaim and wealth, and freely consume the sheep they are supposed to be leading and protecting. Yet, as long as they wear the fancy robes, use the right words and do the officially approved things – they declare themselves God’s anointed, who must not be touched. The ever increasing number of scandals involving so-called Church teachers and leaders simply proves the obvious – the institution of The Church is not the same thing as ‘the body of Christ’, just as the entity called Israel is not the same as ‘beloved children of God’.
My own eyes were finally, painfully, opened when I began to see how much the sheep were suffering at the hands of the shepherds – always ‘in the name of God’.
Well said, TS00, well said.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin states:
“That choice by God did not necessarily extend to Jacob’s family line – “they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;”
So, what is reality here? Are you correct or are the Scriptures correct?”
BOTH, because BOTH are in scripture. You are ONLY looking at ONE VERSE, instead of the WHOLE BIBLE.
The Genealogy of Jesus is IN THAT FAMILY LINE. Jesus HAD TO BE A JEW, because God chose Jacob instead of Esau.
Ed Chapman
norm writes, “Once again, an argument from silence. This verse does not preclude how a person may/may not respond to that mercy.’
For what purpose does Paul write, “It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” What is it that does not depend on man’s desire or effort? Wouldn’t man’s desire/effort be a response that has no bearing on God being merciful. God can be merciful to who He wants and it does not require a response – desire/effort – from the person.
I’m still wondering why people keep saying that the audience that Paul was talking to in Thessalonians was either Gentiles, or a mixture of Jews/Gentiles.
I never knew that Gentiles were being persecuted for becoming Christians by the Orthodox Jews. Why would the Orthodox Jews care what the Gentiles did? Orthodox Jews never saw Gentiles as a threat to their religion.
Paul, being a Jew, was a threat to Orthodox Jews. And from how I read Thessalonians, this is how the conversation ran. Gentiles were not the focus at all. Believing Jews against Orthodox Jews was the title fight.
shapmaned24 writes, “I’m still wondering why people keep saying that the audience that Paul was talking to in Thessalonians was either Gentiles, or a mixture of Jews/Gentiles. ”
because of Acts 17
17:1 …they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”
4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a great multitude of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.
My KJV shows:
Acts 17:4
4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
This does not show a MINGLING…it shows that people in EACH group believed Paul.
Greeks were NOT ALLOWED in a synagogue. No Gentile is. Gentiles were not preached to in any synagogue. Ever.
chapmaned24 writes, “Greeks were NOT ALLOWED in a synagogue. No Gentile is. Gentiles were not preached to in any synagogue. Ever.”
The issue is to identify the Thessalonians whether they were Jew, gentile or both.
v1:9 …you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God,…
2:15-16 [The Jews] are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved;…
5:27 I adjure you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren.
The language tells us that Paul is writing minimally to gentiles while intending all the brethren – both Jew and gentile.
So, are you saying that devout Jews never worshiped idols before? God’s CHOSEN were worshiping a golden calf after Moses returned from the mountain. And that was not the first time that they were accused by God of worshiping idols, either.
I knew that was going to be brought up. I was ready for it. Do I need Old Test documentation to show you?
chapmaned24 writes, “So, are you saying that devout Jews never worshiped idols before?”
It is characteristic of the gentiles. I think the Jews would have denied it.
rhutchin,
Both of Peter’s epistles are to the Jewish CHURCH.
And this is what he said about JEWISH PAST:
1 Peter 4:3
For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:
Idolatry.
Since i conclude that both Thessalonians are written to Jews, when Paul states to read it to ALL brethren, it is all Jewish brethren.
and your reference of 1 Thes 2:15-16 is FURTHER PROOF that he is talking to Jews, not Gentiles, for he mentions Gentiles as if there are not Gentiles present.
And when he uses the word Jews, he is taking about the Orthodox Jews in Judea, which is like the local Orthodox Jews. So Paul is showing that Orthodox Jews wish to hinder Paul’s work.
Brian,
I understand the confusion, brother. Believe me. But I have already proven, via the Holy Scriptures, and in context, that the word elect/election refers only to the Jews (saved or lost). So far, in this thread, I have proven the word elect/election is speaking about that Jewish nation 21 times. That’s 21 out of 28.
So let’s now look at Titus 1:1 (NKJV) which you supplied.
“Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness…”
Who were God’s elect? The OT limited to Israel. Who did Jesus limit it to in the gospels? The Jews. Who did Paul say the elect were to Timothy? The Jews. The nation of Israel.
What nation has always worshipped the One True God? Israel. Who were Jesus’ apostles? Jews. To whom wrote the scriptures? Jews. All of them (I believe even Luke was a Jew based on Romans 3:1-2, and though, like Paul, he had a roman name). Who is salvation of/from (John 4:22)? The Jews. With whom did the spoken word originate? The Jews. Who’s tree is it (Romans 11:16-24)? The Jews.
So when Paul writes… “…according to the faith of God’s elect”, he is referring to the Jewish faith. According to the faith of God’s elected/chosen people, the Jews.
Now that’s 22 out of 28.
Ed,
Please be gracious, brother.
Yep.
Norm,
Romans 9:15 (CEB)…..
He says to Moses, I’ll have mercy on whomever I choose to have mercy, and I’ll show compassion to whomever I choose to show compassion.
Remember above how I outlined Romans 9:6-13 and how those verses were providing the physical lineage of the elect nation of Israel (Sorry Calvinism). And remember how I showed from the scriptures (Romans 11:7) that Israel (the Northern Kingdom) didn’t obtain what it wanted, but that the election (the Southern Kingdom/Judah) did (the promised Messiah came from the tribe of Judah).
The objection in Romans 9:19 is regarding to God choosing Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau (thus the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), and eventually Judah (the Southern Kingdom) over Israel (the Northern Kingdom). So, when Paul quotes Moses (Romans 9:15) I wonder if Paul’s Jewish audience reflected on the following……
Hosea 1:2-9 (CEB)…
When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to him,“Go, marry a prostitute and have children of prostitution, for the people of the land commit great prostitution by deserting the LORD.” So Hosea went and took Gomer, Diblaim’s daughter, and she became pregnant and bore him a son. The LORD said to him, “Name him Jezreel; for in a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will destroy (Romans 9:22…. the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?) the kingdom of the house of Israel (the Northern Kingdom). On that day I will break the bow of Israel in the Jezreel Valley.” Gomer became pregnant again and gave birth to a daughter. Then the LORD said to Hosea, “Name her No Compassion, because I will no longer have compassion on the house of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) or forgive them. But I will have compassion on the house of Judah (the Southern Kingdom; Romans 9:22…. the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory?). I, the LORD their God, will save them; I will not save them by bow, or by sword, or by war, or by horses, or by horsemen.” When Gomer finished nursing No Compassion, she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. Then the LORD said, “Name him Not My People because you are not my people, and I am not your God.” Yet the number of the people of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) will be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered; and in the place where it was said to them (the people of Israel), “You are not my people,” it will be said to them (the people of Israel), “Children of the living God.” The people of Judah (the Southern Kingdom and the people of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) will be gathered together, and they will choose one head. They will become fruitful in the land. The day will be a wonderful one for Jezreel.
Then Paul reminds his Jewish audience of Pharaoh (Romans 9:17)…
For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”
Ironic. Was that not God’s goal for the nation of Israel (Genesis 22:18. Acts 13:47)?
Even the use of the Potter (Romans 9:21) is about God warning “the men of Judah” (Jeremiah 18:11) and using “the house of Israel” (Jeremiah 18:6) as an example.
So does Romans 9 refer to individuals elected for salvation and others passed over (reprobated)?
No! Its all about God’s promises (and election) on His terms (not man’s) and God showing Judah (the Southern Kingdom) compassion, while punishing (no compassion) Israel (the Northern Kingdom).
Brian,
Hey, brother. I know the conversion has moved on, but I just wanted to provide a little more clarification regarding the word “justified”.
Justified (defined): declared or made righteous in the sight of God.
I lean towards there being a difference between being merely “declared” righteous and actually being “made righteous”. For me, being declared righteous is simply being declared “not guilty” or acquitted of a crime. It’s the verdict. While being “made righteous” is thru faith in the finished works of Christ.
So, with that in mind, I lean towards all the OT believers (up to the cross) were only declared righteous (found “not guilty!”) and set aside by God until His righteousness was performed by the perfect life, sacrifice, and resurrection of His Son.
Romans 4:24a-25 (ESV)….
It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
If He was raised for our justification, just how were those prior to the cross justified (made righteous)?
2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV)…
For our sake he (God) made him (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him (in Christ Jesus) we might become the righteousness of God.
Now I could be completely wrong on this and maybe I am just splitting hairs here, but this is how and why I take justified to have two different meanings. Now we might still disagree, but you should at least have a better understanding of where I am coming from.
God bless, brother.
phillip cites Romans 4 and 2 Corinthians 5.
Let’s join these two verses together to harmonize them.
2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV) w/ Romans 4
For our sake he (God) made him (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin [through His death on the cross], so that in him (in Christ Jesus) we might become the righteousness of God [through His resurrection].
I think you are accurate to say, “being declared righteous is simply being declared “not guilty” or acquitted of a crime. It’s the verdict. While being “made righteous” is thru faith in the finished works of Christ.”
There were two actions that God took to save us. First, God provided an atonement for our sin and this was through Jesus’ death on the cross. Then, God dressed us in the righteousness of Christ. While the body is still corrupt and will remain corrupt until we are glorified, God has dressed us with Christ’s righteousness and thereby declares us righteous. By faith we acknowledge that we are sinners by nature and have committed sin, and we act in faith by hoping in Christ for the forgiveness of our sin and the righteousness that we now wear.
Sorry Phillip and Roger… but I’m sticking with “declared righteous” as meaning declared righteous. The OT saints were not just viewed as forgiven but in possession of a righteous standing before God based on their trust in His mercy… which was going to be provided in the sacrifice of Christ.
They had the standing… but not all the benefits, like access into heaven, until the payment was made.
I also believe the argument can be made that they also had regeneration and became partakers of actual righteousness… since it is the righteousness of God imputed to Abraham and us through faith … not the human righteousness of Christ.
brianwagner writes, “I also believe the argument can be made that they also had regeneration and became partakers of actual righteousness… since it is the righteousness of God imputed to Abraham and us through faith … not the human righteousness of Christ.”
Agreed. Many things are going on. Regeneration quickens the spirit that had been put to death when Adam sinned. The mind is being renewed and the person being transformed – in thought and action – from what he was. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the person even as the person is not completely righteous but continues in sin but that sin is declining.
WITHOUT THE LAW OF MOSES
Galatians 2:21
if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested
Romans 4:5
faith is counted for righteousness.
Abraham did NOT have THE LAW OF MOSES
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law [OF MOSES]
Romans 4:15
where no law [OF MOSES] is, there is no transgression.
YA CAN’T BREAK A LAW THAT DOES NOT EXIST.
Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:6 and James 2:23 all state the following:
For what saith the scripture? Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was COUNTED unto him for RIGHTEOUSNESS.
AND AGAIN, remember, Abraham did not have THE LAW OF MOSES, WHICH IS WHAT WORKS IS, SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS.
God’s righteousness is WITHOUT THE LAW, JUST AS THE FOLLOWING STATES:
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested
1 John 3:4
sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 3:20
the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 6:7
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead
Romans 7:4
ye also are become dead to the law
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law,
Romans 7:8
For without the law sin was dead.
Galatians 2:21
if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested
Romans 4:5
faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:13
not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace
Galatians 3:12
the law is not of faith
Galatians 3:21
if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Romans 4:5-6
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Faith is NOT imputed.
There is ONLY two things that can be “IMPUTED” to us.
1. Sin
2. Righteousness
Righteousness can only be imputed in two different ways.
1. Works (DEEDS/OBEYING/OBSERVING) The Law of Moses
2. Faith
For all have sinned (NOT OBEYED THE LAW OF MOSES). Then how are we made righteous? Faith alone without the Law of Moses. We are now under the Law of Christ, which is the Law of Faith, which is the Law of Freedom (liberty) and the COMMANDMENTS of Jesus is a singular commandment: Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. Now, some will say that we have two commandments, and I left out the Love God part. However, the way that 1 John explains it, is that we prove that we love God by loving people. For Love fulfills ALL, not just the parchment, but the stones, too, the law of Moses. The singular commandment of Love is the delight, the joy, not obeying the Law of Moses, which is a curse.
Galatians 4:21
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Romans 5:20 (NIVr)
The law was given so that sin would INCREASE (NOT TO DECREASE)
————————————————————————
So, WHAT MADE THOSE UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES RIGHTEOUS UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES?
Abraham had righteousness IMPUTED to him just because he believed God, and that is God’s Righteousness WITHOUT THE LAW as Romans 3:21 discusses.
The Law of Moses…That’s another story. And I think it is RELATED to what Phillip and I discuss regarding JEWS ONLY as being “THE” ELECT, the BLINDED, who are given mercy for their ignorance in UNBELIEF:
Sin is ONLY imputed to you once you have KNOWLEDGE of the sin. KNOWLEDGE is the KEY WORD. If you are IGNORANT of the sin, then it isn’t imputed.
But for the JEWS, they know the law, and their sins PILE UP…but those sins are IGNORED, because GOD WINKS at IGNORANCE.
Adam and Eve in the Garden…they had no idea that it was a sin to be naked, until they GOT KNOWLEDGE.
God did not want them to GET KNOWLEDGE. Satan did. God told them not to eat of the tree of KNOWLEDGE.
Ignorance of the law is the excuse.
While you guys concentrate on righteousness, and everything regarding REGENERATION, etc., Romans 3:21 states what it is…
RIGHTEOUSNESS = FAITH WITHOUT THE LAW. Just that simple.
Those under the law are NOT AFFORDED that at all. Hence, MERCY for their ignorance. THEIR, meaning JEWS UNDER THE LAW, blinded by God.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “YA CAN’T BREAK A LAW THAT DOES NOT EXIST”
So, why were people condemned before the law was given to Moses. For example, why were the Egyptians condemned when the law did not exist?
rhutchin,
That is for you to study. You see, I really didn’t use MY WORDS in the layout. I gave actual scripture verses quotes that told a story about the law vs. NO LAW.
But, what I can say, is that ABRAHAM SINNED just like everyone else does, and did, FOR ALL HAVE SINNED.
Under the law of Moses, you cannot sleep with your sister. But Moses was married to his sister.
But, sin was not imputed to him. Why? Where no law is, there is no transgression, and…ROMANS 5:13, BEFORE THE LAW, sin was in the world, but…but what?
I hoped I peaked an interest for you to study that out.
What I see from the reformed group, is that they are concentrating on the WRONG SUBJECT MATTER, regarding salvation, when they should be focusing on LAW OF MOSES vs. NO LAW OF MOSES.
NO ONE BUT THE JEWS have ever been under the Law of Moses.
Christians are NOT UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES.
But, the law must be preached so that we know what to repent from. But after that, we are under grace, NOT LAW.
Just because God killed many people in the flood, does not mean that everyone went to hell. And please, it has nothing to do with God deciding from the foundation of the earth routine.
Just because of the claus, FOR ALL HAVE SINNED, that does not mean that a person is CONDEMNED to hell, because in order for that to happen, one must first have KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Without that knowledge…
Ignorance is bliss.
If you get a guilty conscience, then you know good and evil. Until then…you are with God. You die a spiritual death. You are not born spiritually dead.
Please study in a different way…law vs. no law.
Ed Chapman
oops…in my last I said that Moses slept with his sister. I meant Abraham. Oops.
chapmaned24 writes, “[Adam and Eve] had no idea that it was a sin to be naked, until they GOT KNOWLEDGE. ”
Adam and Eve were naked before sin and before they got knowledge. Thus, it was not a sin to be naked.
rhutchin said:
“Adam and Eve were naked before sin and before they got knowledge. Thus, it was not a sin to be naked.”
Uh, NO.
Sin EXISTED before they knew what it was, hence the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE of GOOD AND EVIL. That tree was so named BEFORE they ate of it. Whatever evil was, it was SIN. So, sin existed before they ate of it. It just wasn’t MANIFESTED until they GOT GUILT.
It was a sin to be naked, which is why they tried to COVER their SHAME. They got guilt.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “It was a sin to be naked,…”
God created Adam and Eve naked and they lived together in the garden naked from their creation. Otherwise, there would have been no need for them to sew fig leaves together or for God to make them clothes after they ate the fruit. If Adam and Eve were sinning by being naked and they were naked from the beginning, then God could not have described His creation as, “Very good.” Being naked only became a sin after they ate the fruit.
rhutchin,
Read the Genesis account more closely, please. Being naked was indeed a sin, for they COVERED themselves, and it was known as SHAME.
They DIDN’T KNOW that they were naked.
But once they got knowledge, they KNEW, and they COVERED themselves with fig leaves to COVER their SHAME.
Yes, God put them there, naked. So since God put them there naked, you think that is all hunky dory?
They didn’t think so…once they got KNOWLEDGE.
You see, God didn’t want them to GET KNOWLEDGE. He told them not to GET KNOWLEDGE.
This is what they call IGNORANCE IS BLISS. Not a care in the world.
God wanted them to be FREE SPIRITED without a conscience of good and evil.
But they ate of that tree and got a conscience. If they didn’t have a conscience of good and evil, they would still be naked. And yes, that would make God happy that they were naked…NAKED BEFORE THE LORD.
That phrase, NAKED BEFORE THE LORD, has a SPIRITUAL MEANING, TOO.
But we try to COVER OUR OWN SHAME, SIN, ETC., …WITH A FIG LEAF. We try to HIDE our sins from God. With a fig leaf.
This is why I can’t stand expository preaching, because nothing spiritual is discussed, or taught. What you guys teach…is all black and white stuff, analyzing sentences, and paragraphs, and chapters, etc., but you are not reading between the lines.
Straining at a nat, swallowing a camel.
Shame is another way of spiritually saying SIN. They tried to hide their SHAME, and what did they cover…their genitals.
But God COVERED their shame with an ANIMAL…do you see yet? It’s ANOTHER prophecy of Jesus, that Brian would deny.
That animal was PROBABLY a LAMB, to signify Jesus as…THE LAMB OF GOD…the blood shed of an animal.
God killed the FIRST ANIMAL. People didn’t kill first…God did. An animal. The BLOOD atoned for their SIN, WHICH kept the relationship continuing.
And from then on out, Adam and Eve continued. Even their children did OFFERINGS.
This is why I cannot stand the theology of Calvinists. God wants a relationship with EVERY one of his creation. Not just a few.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
So true that God wants a relationship with everyone one. I can hear Calvinists in the background shouting— “no He doesn’t!” (doesnt that sound great!?)
He tell us that He created man in His own image (only to “want” to destroy 98.5% of them?).
Ironically Reformed folks still claim that man is created in God’s image… yet God “wants/desires” to destroy most of them.
They baptize their babies in the covenant saying…”Baptism is the sign and seal of God’s promises to this covenant people.” …and yet many of those baptized babies will grow up and not be believers ….because God wants to destroy them.
That’s their message….. people created in the image of God, even baptized in the covenant ….. yet ordained for eternal torture…for God’s good pleasure.
Is that the message of the Bible?
chapmaned24 writes, “God wants a relationship with EVERY one of his creation. Not just a few. ”
And that, as the Universalists argue, is why God will save everyone.
Ed writes:
“God wants a relationship with EVERY one of his creation. Not just a few. ”
Rhutchin writes:
“And that, as the Universalists argue, is why God will save everyone.”
How sad that Rhutchin throws out the Universalist belief as if it is something terrible, or some silly idea to scoff at. The grain of truth it contains, the most marvelous truth in all the world, is that which is most lacking from Rhutchin’s Calvinism:
God loves all men.
Does God desire to save all men? Absolutely. He said so himself. (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37) So, will all be saved?
The Universalist says ‘yes’, and I truly hope that they are right. I hope that, in some way I cannot imagine, all, even the vilest oppressors of men will someday be brought to repentance and forgiveness when we are raised in the last day. I can imagine no greater end to this story of humankind.
In exchange for that hopeful optimism, Calvinism asserts the most horrifying option thinkable:
God does not love all men. God loves a few, randomly selected men, and created all the rest deliberately to perish, while lying about it and saying that he wished they did not have to perish. This lie is all the more abject, because it is Calvin’s God alone who can determine whether a man lives or dies, whether they can ‘hear’ of the grace that all christians believe was provided by the Son of God. He alone makes the decision, and he decided that many should perish in their abject sin. Because he wanted them to. I can think of no greater evil and no more unthinkable lie than this corruption of God and his revelation to man presented as ‘gospel truth’ by Calvinism.
The rest of Christianity contents themselves with believing, as scripture dictates, that love allows freedom and choice. That relationships can never be compelled and unconditional, but require the willing and committed participation of two parties. Which means that a loving God, who desires, and is fully able to give life and blessing to all men offers it unflinchingly, but without compulsion, to all men. And, as in every relationship, they make the choice to receive or refuse his love.
Like the grandest King one can imagine, this gracious God comes to us on bended knee, with open arms and freely declares his endless passion for us and implores us to love him back and spend eternity sharing his love and his endless wealth of blessings. He woos us, telling us that we were made for him alone and that he has sought us out with all of his wisdom and might. He tells us of his vast wealth, which he longs to lavish upon us. But he comes with no army. He carries no sword. He is all charm, grace and chivalry, offering all that he has to us, but allowing us to make the choice.
Freely, we can return the love and receive the gifts of this greatest of Kings, and freely we can refuse. This is love. This is freedom. This is honoring the true nature given to man that is shared with his Creator – the right and ability to think, reason and make choices.
Yes, Calvinism has concocted a story that asserts this ‘nature’ was lost, cursed by another man’s choices; but this is false. Man has never lost his ability to think, to know right from wrong and to choose for himself how he will use his God-given gifts. He can, and must, choose to pursue fleshly desires, or to engage in the beautiful, reciprocal relationship for which he was uniquely designed.
The concept of Total Depravity, a ‘sin nature’, or an inability to know good from evil is a man-made concept that contradicts the entire story of scripture, of a God who woos and pursues mankind, even to making the ultimate sacrifice, offering his own Son for their redemption. He wants no shotgun wedding, no weeping unwilling bride, nor one drugged and made compliant. Although he has all of the might in the world, he humbly offers us incomparable gifts, begging us to receive them and return his passionate love.
I pity the Calvinist, who knows nothing of love, but worships tyranny, terror and brute force. This world of ours reflects the brutal Calvinist worldview, but will be changed in an instant when love triumphs over hate, mercy defeats oppression and grace replaces violence. I truly pity any Calvinist who believes that God loves only some; even more, I pity any naive believers who succumb to this lie and the picture of God they end up with.
Dear TS00:
Amen and amen. What a treatise on behalf of biblical soteriology and the hellish thoughts of Calvin, whose god is a monster. Calvin’s god is not my God.
Superb, TS00.
norm writes, “Calvin’s god is not my God.”
Then, you have to be an Universalist because Calvin’s God does not save everyone when He has the power to do so. If your god allows only one person to spend eternity in hell, then your god is no different than Calvini’s God.
rutchin:
If your god ALLOWS only one person to spend eternity in hell, then your god is no different than Calvin’s God.
br.d
It would be more logically consistent with Calvinism this statement would say:
“If your god decrees/determines/fates only one person to spend eternity in hell, then your god is no different than Calvin’s God.”
And even more logically consistent to say:
“If your god decrees/determines/fates THE MANY to spend eternity in hell, then your god is no different than Calvin’s God.”
br.d writes, “It would be more logically consistent with Calvinism this statement would say:”
But Norm is not a Calvinist, so it would not be proper to do what you say. When speaking of Norm’s god, it is accurate to say, “allow,” as that is what Norm would say.
I’ll grant that. :-]
Nope. Not true. That’s all you got, the Universalist Card? Weak, Hutch, very weak.
You have nothing else to rebut what has been stated and re-stated over and over and over again with scripture as the bases. So tired of the same weak rebuttals from you and your ilk.
Perhaps soon the rest of these guys will realize they are wasting their time on you. I have no more time for you.
Norm writes, “Nope. Not true. That’s all you got, the Universalist Card? Weak, Hutch, very weak.”
OK. Then what is the truth? Do you believe that God saves everyone as the Universalist says or that God saves some but not all as the Calvinist says? You did say, “Calvin’s god is not my God.” If you don’t believe the Universalist, then you must believe the Calvinist on this point.
Be willing to open your eyes to seeing the fallacy of a false dichotomy you keep professing… either some eternally determined to be saved or all eternally determined to be saved. The falsehood lies in the term “eternally determined”.
brianwagner writes, “…the fallacy of a false dichotomy…either some eternally determined to be saved or all eternally determined to be saved. The falsehood lies in the term “eternally determined”.”
False dichotomy would seem to point to the some saved or all saved choices as leaving something out. Did you have some other outcome in mind. in mind. That eternally determined would be a falsehood is impossible if God has infinite understanding.
The false dichotomy seems fairly clear. You present as the only two options that God deterministically chooses either some or all to be saved. Obviously, the option you deliberately omit is the one most common to believers: God offers salvation to all, conditioned upon their faith in him and his promises.
Whichever belief system one chooses, or even if one rejects them all, it is dishonest to deny that these are well known and well defended options.
ts00 writes, “The false dichotomy seems fairly clear. You present as the only two options that God deterministically chooses either some or all to be saved. Obviously, the option you deliberately omit is the one most common to believers: God offers salvation to all, conditioned upon their faith in him and his promises.”
All you do is condition God’s choice of whom to save on an expression of faith – “….conditioned upon their faith.” That does not add a different option to what I said – God either saves all people or some but not all people. There is no false dichotomy because there is no third option.
If the issue where to explain how God chooses whom to save, then we get the option you present.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“God either saves all people or some but not all people. There is no false dichotomy because there is no third option.”
Wow…this argument is the NEVER ENDING presentation of all time. Gettin kinda old for me.
The bible does not say EITHER argument, rhutchin.
God DIED in ORDER to save EVERYONE.
But here is the KICK. YOU SAVE YOURSELF. I know, I know, you will say that is a WORK.
Time and time again, I show what the bible states is a work, and FAITH is NOT A WORK.
It’s UP TO YOU to have faith. It’s NOT imputed at all, which is where you are stuck at.
God does NOT choose WHOM he’s gonna save. That’s NOT what Ephesians OR Thessalonians states.
This topic, to me, is like a FACE PALM, saying, MOVE ON.
When are you going to acknowledge that faith is not a work? You concentrate on TWO OR THREE or even a couple more verses…and those verses DO NOT say what you say that they say, all because English is NOT being properly rendered in the sentence.
Does anyone in the Calvinist camp KNOW how sentences are structured? Doesn’t seem like they do.
When you read the WHOLE BOOK like a novel, instead of straining at a nat, you won’t swallow a camel, and you will see that faith is not a work. Funny how people can read a Harry Potter book in a week, but doesn’t think that reading the Bible in the same manner is wise counsel. Start in the middle, huh? Cherry pick?
Come on guys…REALLY? This argument is getting old. You guys really frustrate me.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “God DIED in ORDER to save EVERYONE.”
Yet, God does not save everyone. Seems like a little double talk on your part. Perhaps you meant, “God DIED in ORDER to make it possible for EVERYONE to be saved.”
Then, “When are you going to acknowledge that faith is not a work?”
I acknowledge that faith is a work of God in the heart of a person.
rutchin,
You had said: “God does not save everyone”.
Let me clarify that. God does not save ANYONE.
God does not save anyone. Never has, never will.
God made a way for salvation to happen, and it is UP TO YOU to be saved. It isn’t up to God.
Next, you say,
“I acknowledge that faith is a work of God in the heart of a person.”
That’s what my atheist roommate states when asked about those who have had near death experiences, in that he believes that the person believes. That’s not really an answer to my question, man.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “God made a way for salvation to happen, and it is UP TO YOU to be saved. It isn’t up to God.”
That’s the storyline promoted by the Pelagians. I guess we disagree which is obvious given that I lean Calvinist.
Then chapmaned24 asked, ““When are you going to acknowledge that faith is not a work?”
I responded, “I acknowledge that faith is a work of God in the heart of a person.”
chapmaned24 responded, “That’s not really an answer to my question, man.”
OK. I acknowledge that faith is a work of God in the heart of a person and not a work of a person..
Even if you try to work with eternally determined… the dichotomy is still false… because some could still become saved who weren’t eternally determined to be , even if some were eternally detetmined to be saved.
But your premise that infinite understanding requires eternal determination is also a non-sequitor. Only immutable understanding would require that as a necessity.
brianwagner writes, “the dichotomy is still false… because some could still become saved who weren’t eternally determined to be , even if some were eternally detetmined to be saved.”
Same problem as I pointed out to ts00. How, or when, one is saved is not the issue. You introduced “eternally determined;” I did not. My response to Norm was only Universlist vs Calvinist – God saves all or not all.
Then, “your premise that infinite understanding requires eternal determination is also a non-sequitor. Only immutable understanding would require that as a necessity.”
Infinite understanding requires perfect knowledge. If knowledge does not change, understanding cannot change – for God. My claim is that infinite understanding encompasses perfect knowledge and each is immutable. You raise one issue – when did God’s understanding become infinite and when had He have perfect knowledge. My response is that there was never a point when God had less than infinite understanding and less than perfect knowledge. So, I claim that infinite understanding is immutable understanding. This is obviously so, since any increase to understanding would mean that understanding was not infinite in the first place.
Given that God’s understanding is infinite and that He has perfect knowledge, when did God determine anything? If God determined X, then X is part of God’s knowledge and affects His understanding. As with understanding and knowledge there is no point where God did not determine all things because there is no point where God increased either understanding or knowledge.
Great example Roger showing how to believe in determinism means you can’t believe God actually determines anything… pretty funny! 😂😂😂 And yet people would rather believe that fantasy about God than to believe what the truth of Scripture clearly says about His making determinations. Very sad.
And what makes God’s knowledge and infinity understanding so perfect is that it can and does change. He’s not locked into and limited to knowing one set future forever… Being so locked in and limitedin His knowledge certainly doesn’t sound too perfect to me! And it disagrees with Scripture.
brianwagner writes, “showing how to believe in determinism means you can’t believe God actually determines anything… ”
OK, you lost me. Any chance of you going into teacher mode and explaining what you mean?
Then, “what makes God’s knowledge and infinity understanding so perfect is that it can and does change.”
If it can and does change, was it perfect in the first place? If knowledge or understanding is changing (presumably increasing), those changes might contribute to an eventual perfection of knowledge or understanding. However, changes to what is perfect would necessarily result in something imperfect – otherwise wouldn’t more perfect be redundant and a meaningless term.
Roger you confirmed no determination moment for anything… because you want to believe all is eternally immutably set in God’s mind… so never determined. Determination is a mental choice… going from something known as undetermined or unchosen that way in one’s mind to chosen or determined that way. You reject such changes take place.
You hint at being willing to consider that changes are possible in God’s perfect knowledge and infinite understanding as long as there is no “increase”. Ok. You’re one the right track of you do start believing in changes as possible in “perfect” knowledge. 😉
brianwagner writes, “you confirmed no determination moment for anything… because you want to believe all is eternally immutably set in God’s mind… so never determined. Determination is a mental choice… going from something known as undetermined or unchosen that way in one’s mind to chosen or determined that way. You reject such changes take place.”
I said that we humans cannot identify a point where God made His decisions. That does not mean that God did not make decisions – i.e., did not determine anything – only that God has not told us the process He follows to make decisions. When God says that He works all things according to the counsel of His will, we can know that God determines all things but not the point where God makes those determinations. If God isn’t talking, there’s not much we can do about it.
Then, “You’re one the right track of you do start believing in changes as possible in “perfect” knowledge.”
Now, all you have to do is figure out how to make perfect really perfect.
Roger… I’ve already given you verses where God clearly says He made some determinations after creation… But you’ve chosen not to believe God when He said He made them after creation.
Don’t feign that God didn’t say anything about His decision making just because you don’t want to face how it contradicts determinism. You’re free to believe He didn’t mean what He said… But you shouldn’t keep claiming He didn’t say anything about when He made some decisions.
brianwagner writes, “I’ve already given you verses where God clearly says He made some determinations after creation… But you’ve chosen not to believe God when He said He made them after creation.”
The distinction here being that I believe the Scriptures also affirm that God has infinite understanding therefore perfect knowledge (God is omniscient particularly with regard to the future). consequently, when the Scriptures have God telling Israel something to the effect that He has not chosen X, I understand God to mean that He has not told Israel what He will do and not that God does not know what He will do. I understand Scripture through the lens of God’s omniscience and you do not.
Once again Roger you show you are willing to hold onto false philosophical defintions of “perfect” and “omniscience” that lead you to making God look duplicitous.
You said – “when the Scriptures have God telling Israel something to the effect that He has not chosen X, I understand God to mean that He has not told Israel what He will do and not that God does not know what He will do.” Really… You are going to try again to make it sound like what “He will do” is also something that He already has done! An honest person doesn’t make a choice, then tell someone they will make the choice later. When the person finds out later the choice had already been made, are they supposed to think – “Oh, that choice was already made… He just told me He will make it later because I was so stupid to think I could understand that He made it before, if He had told me the truth.” Really!
Not my God! He speaks clearly in His Word. And the twisting of God’s words and meaning to make it fit philosophical determinism is just down right harmful and humanistically full of pride!
brianwagner writes, “Really… You are going to try again to make it sound like what “He will do” is also something that He already has done! An honest person doesn’t make a choice, then tell someone they will make the choice later.”
We have statements about God, “…“And it will come about that the rod of the man whom I choose will sprout….” and “…when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place which He will choose,…”
The main point that the Scriptures make by these statements is that it is God who chooses and not man. It is God, and God alone, who chooses particular people or particular places for His purposes.
The issue now is the timing of God’s decision of the person or site God “will choose.” The translations as, “will choose,” can suggest that God makes His choice at the last minute, but certainly God can be allowed to consider a variety of sites and know His preferred site as a man might do and have that site in mind before announcing His decision. I see the sense of the word being that God will choose – or designate – that person or site that He wants to use for His purpose. I would not read such verses to mean that God is saying that He has a number of people or sites that could work for Him and He will make His final choice at some future time – as opposed to revealing His choice that could have been made in the past.
Of course, Roger, you won’t choose to believe what it says… that God’s choice is still to be made in the future… you’d rather twist that clear meaning… change it to “designate” publicly based on a previously (eternally immutably) already made choice… all because of your loyalty to manmade premise of determinism. I’m going to keep with the untwisted meaning of Scripture.
Brian,
Now wait just a minute! Both of you are choosing to believe something!? And one of you is wrong?
That is a lot of choosing and refusing going on there!
FOH… now why would God have chosen for you eternally immutably to make that comment about our eternally immutably made comments about His choices … and to eternally immutably to have chosen for me to respond to you telling you in wondering about all this supposedly eternally immutably chosen stuff that seems to contradict the Scripture’s description of the reality of freely made choices…. hmmmm 😂😂😂
Exactly Brian!
In another comment section “A Child of God” (ACG) is lamenting that Leighton is “attacking” JD Greer’s character and does not want him as the head of the SBC because “God has all that under control.”
It is incredibly puzzling that Calvinists will refer to and defer to the idea that God is controlling all things (and has already decided everything we will do)… except when it comes to us “refusing” to see things their way ((that we have a choice over!)).
Remember young YRR Troy who told us “You Sirs are just refusing to see that this doctrine is true!”?
They are believing two directly opposing ideas! But we have come to expect that.
Right on FOH!
Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking
Calvin’s god determines/controls everything that comes to pass *AS-IF* he doesn’t.
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god determines/controls everything that comes to pass *AS-IF* he doesn’t.”
Not exactly. Calvin’s god determines/controls everything that comes to pass *AS-IF* He controls/determines everything that could come to pass.
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god determines/controls everything that comes to pass *AS-IF* he doesn’t.”
rhutchin
Not exactly. Calvin’s god determines/controls everything that comes to pass *AS-IF* He controls/determines everything that could come to pass.
br.d
“Not exactly” in this case is meaningless.
If Calvin’s god determines/controls everything that CAN come to pass, then obviously he controls/determines everything that COULD come to pass.
And Calvinist’s in order to retain a sense of psychological normalcy and to also distance Calvin’s god from evil, end up using language designed to be interpreted both ways – He does *AS-IF* he doesn’t
br.d writes, “Calvinist’s in order to retain a sense of psychological normalcy and to also distance Calvin’s god from evil, end up using language designed to be interpreted both ways – He does *AS-IF* he doesn’t”
Calvinism is straightforward in saying that God ordains all things and that “…God works all things after the counsel of His will…”
brianwagner writes, “now why would God…”
Just shows that God is a lot smarter than you; so much so that you cannot begin to comprehend just how smart God is.
He is Roger… He even understood the sarcasm in my joke and probably smiled! 😉
brianwagner writes, “He even understood the sarcasm in my joke and probably smiled! ”
But, did God understand it before it even entered your mind to write it??
Of course… Roger… His understanding is infinite.
rhutchin to Brian,
“I understand Scripture through the lens of God’s omniscience and you do not.”
br.d
This statement wittingly or not, doe not represent full disclosure.
It should say: “I interpret scripture through the lens of Calvinism’s doctrine of divine omniscience and you do not”
A consistent Calvinist tactic is to always assume the CHIEF SEAT in the synagogues.
“rhutchin to Brian,
“I understand Scripture through the lens of God’s omniscience and you do not.”
br.d responds, “This statement wittingly or not, doe not represent full disclosure.”
It is, nonetheless, a key distinction even if Brian and I disagree in other ways. I would venture that is is, by far, the major difference in our views.
“rhutchin to Brian,
“I understand Scripture through the lens of God’s omniscience and you do not.”
br.d responds, “This statement wittingly or not, doe not represent full disclosure.”
It should say: “I interpret scripture through the lens of Calvinism’s doctrine of divine omniscience and you do not”
rhutchin
It is, nonetheless, a key distinction even if Brian and I disagree in other ways. I would venture that is is, by far, the major difference in our views.
br.d
You seem to miss the point – I was observing what Jesus calls sitting in the chief seat – not any distinctions or differences.
br.d writes, “You seem to miss the point – I was observing what Jesus calls sitting in the chief seat – not any distinctions or differences.”
Guess I still miss the point.
brianwagner writes,
“I’ve already given you verses where God clearly says He made some determinations after creation… But you’ve chosen not to believe God when He said He made them after creation.”
Rhutchin writes:
“The distinction here being that I believe the Scriptures also affirm that God has infinite understanding therefore perfect knowledge (God is omniscient particularly with regard to the future). consequently, when the Scriptures have God telling Israel something to the effect that He has not chosen X, I understand God to mean that He has not told Israel what He will do and not that God does not know what He will do. I understand Scripture through the lens of God’s omniscience and you do not.”
Wow. Perfect example of how one’s presuppositions leads one to deliberately twist scripture to uphold one’s preferred belief system. To paraphrase:
“Because my conception of him does not allow God to say such a thing, I prefer to think that God simply misspoke, and does not at all mean what he here – and in many other places in scripture – undoubtedly says. Thus, without a twinge, I will ignore what is written, and recompose it to mean something more acceptable to my philosophy.”
Don’t get me wrong, I am fully aware that none of scripture escapes the need for careful thought and interpretation; but it is pretty astounding how unblushingly Rhutchin admits to coming to scripture with strong presuppositions that allow him to insert whatever meaning he desires.
The earnest and humble reader might say, ‘This seems so contrary to my understanding of what omniscience means, but perhaps I need to keep an open mind. Indeed, many have repeatedly assured me that there is an entirely different interpretation of the concept that does no harm to the rest of scripture. Perhaps I should listen more thoughtfully to what they have to say, and examine the totality of scripture to see where the weight of evidence falls.’
ts00 writes, “Perfect example of how one’s presuppositions leads one to deliberately twist scripture to uphold one’s preferred belief system.”
We all have presuppositions. I start with God being omniscient; you start with a god who is not omniscient. That’s why we gravitate to different theological systems.
rhutchin
We all have presuppositions. I start with God being omniscient; you start with a god who is not omniscient.
br.d
Great Calvinist example – A combination strategy: (1) lack of full disclosure (2) a straw man argument. :-]
Excellent post TruthSeeker
On your last statement, have you seen this youtube video by William Lane Craig – who I believe addresses the Calvinist interpretation of omniscience.
youtube.com/watch?v=mXUMhSmeivE
Thanks, that was a well-constructed explanation. When cornered with this logical truth, the dishonest Calvinist will jump over to the claim that by ‘ordaining whatsoever comes to pass’ they simply mean God ‘allows’ events to occur, which is absolutely NOT what consistent Calvinism asserts. (And, as you rightly point out, they only aver to this explanation when it comes to evil or bad things.)
Whenever a Calvinist claims that ‘to ordain’ is the same as ‘to allow’, do not walk, but run from the auditorium in which you are being lied to. Non-Calvinists affirm that God is omniscient, in its true meaning: foreknowing but not deterministically causing all things. In other words, they affirm that God foreknows and ‘allows’ whatsoever comes to pass in his creation, which includes every freely made choice of every individual not yet born. This is NOT the same as ordaining or causing by any first, second, primary, secondary or pink and white polka dot means. Either God ‘foreknows’ or ‘foreordains’ all things – they are NOT the same thing, and anyone who falsely asserts that they are is deceived or a deceiver.
When my former Calvie pastor trotted this one out with a straight face, I nearly went apoplectic in my seat. My spouse held me down.
TS00,
I have pointed out numerous times how Piper —-even in his on-line messages trying to prove that God ordains all things—- lets the word “allows” in there more often than “determines”.
Now, on determinist friends on these pages say “He allows sinful man to sin since that what man wants.”
But (1) we know that is not all that sinful man wants —to sin all day long, and (2) Piper even says that God “allows” bad things into our lives (not talking about sinful man, but believers). Of course God allows bad things in!!!!
But that’s not the determinist position. They insist that he causes/ determines all things. There is no wiggle room there…. yet Piper wiggles all the time.
FOH is absolutely correct
The Calvinist rode his horse to the liquor store – and in so doing he “permitted” his horse to go to the liquor store.
This is the HIDDEN meaning behind the Calvinist use of permission language.
FOH writes, “But that’s not the determinist position. They insist that he causes/ determines all things.”
By “cause/determine” the theological determinist (like Piper) does not mean that God forces people to act in certain ways but that He is sovereign and nothing happens without His ordaining such to happen. For example, Satan cannot harass Job without God’s giving him freedom to do so (as we see in Job 1). Satan cannot enter into Judas to betray Christ without God’s giving him freedom to do so. God is said to cause both events because they cannot happen outside His sovereign control of all things. Thus, Paul writes, “…God works (or causes or determines) all things after the counsel of His will…”
FOH writes, “But that’s not the determinist position. They insist that he causes/ determines all things.”
rhutchin
By “cause/determine” the theological determinist (like Piper) does not mean that God forces people to act in certain ways but that He is sovereign ….etc
br.d
Here is how it works.
Calvin’s god drops a baby into the fire of Moloch.
He didn’t force the baby or coerce the baby into the fire.
He chose not to restrain nature from dropping the baby into the fire.
And since he didn’t directly force/coerce it and didn’t restrain it – then according to Calvinists ethics he is not culpable.
ts00 writes, “Whenever a Calvinist claims that ‘to ordain’ is the same as ‘to allow’,…”
The basic Calvinist definition of “ordain” is Ephesians 1, “…God works all things after the counsel of His will…” God ordains in two ways:
(1) by direct intervention in the affairs of people (e.g., the impregnation of Mary)
(2) by not intervening to restrict the actions of people (e.g., the crucifixion of Christ; stoning of Stephan). Such events God is said to “allow.”
No Calvinist should say that “ordain” is the same as “allow” but that “allow” is one means for God to ordain.
Then, “Either God ‘foreknows’ or ‘foreordains’ all things – they are NOT the same thing, and anyone who falsely asserts that they are is deceived or a deceiver.”
God both ordains all things per Ephesians 1 and know (or foreknows ) that which He has ordained – but you are correct to say that they are not the same even though both cover the same territory. The important point here is that God knew (or foreknew) the future perfectly before He created the universe – including knowing the identities of those who would be saved (the elect) and those who would not (the reprobate)..
By creating the universe, God determined the future He foreknew and the issue is how much God had to be involved directly in bringing about that future – by direct action or “allowing.”.
Don’t be taken in by Calvinisms convoluted language when it comes ALLOW / PERMIT.
The Calvinist drove his horse to the liquor store – and thereby ALLOWED / PERMITTED his horse go to the liquor store.
And did not ALLOW PERMIT his horse do otherwise.
Its no more difficult to understand than that. :-]
br.d writes, “The Calvinist drove his horse to the liquor store – and thereby ALLOWED / PERMITTED his horse go to the liquor store.
And did not ALLOW PERMIT his horse do otherwise.”
Silly br.d. The Calvinist hitched his horse to the buggy and by not holding the reins, gave the horse freedom to take the path he wanted.
br.d explains Calvinism’s logic concerning ALLOW / PERMIT
“The Calvinist drove his horse to the liquor store – and thereby ALLOWED / PERMITTED his horse go to the liquor store.
And did not ALLOW PERMIT his horse do otherwise.”
rhutchin
Silly br.d. The Calvinist hitched his horse to the buggy and by not holding the reins, gave the horse freedom to take the path he wanted.
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god ever lets go of the reins!
And you call my explanation silly – too funny!
Thanks rhutchin – very revealing! :-]
br.d writes, “*AS-IF* Calvin’s god ever lets go of the reins!”
Of course He does. That is how the Jews were able to stone Stephan – God let go of the reins and let them do what they wanted. That is how Satan harassed Job.
br.d comments on Calvinisn’s *AS-IF* thinking
“*AS-IF* Calvin’s god ever lets go of the reins!”
rhutchin
Of course He does. That is how the Jews were able to stone Stephan – God let go of the reins and let them do what they wanted. That is how Satan harassed Job.
br.d
Calvinist Paul Helm:
“Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD”. (The Providence of God).
John Calvin:
” they are not only bound by His fetters but are even FORCED to do Him service.( Institutes).
“Men can deliberately do nothing unless He INSPIRE IT.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God)
So lets see how this works with Calvin’s god “so called” letting go of the reins and the Jews stoning Stephen.
1) Every twist and turn of the Jews thoughts and desires were under the direct control of Calvin’s God
2) Calvin’s god FORCED them to stone Stephen for his service
3) Their thoughts and desires to stone Stephen were INSPIRED by Calvin’s god.
And the Calvinist wants to call that “letting them do what they wanted”.
God must have given Calvinism to mankind as a form of entertainment. :-]
br.d
You have developed the as-if thing to the point that we see the illogical Paul Helm position for what it is. You have carefully quoted Calvin to show that all malefactors are simply having their strings pulled by God.
The other side of the as-if coin is just that…… they do all things as-if they had a choice.
Outside of the fact that they make God look like a sin-creating, sin-loving, tyrant, the determinist position makes little difference. In fact it makes no difference in the way they act. They decide on their breakfast and their shirt color….who to marry….whether to help their child with their homework (for the betterment of the child!) ….who to marry…..when to have kids, and how many (now how unsovereign do they treat God if they dont even trust Him to give them the kids He wants, and they use man-made contraceptives!?)….what job to take….what church to go to….when and where to witness to friends and family.
They all live just like us!!
That’s the beauty (and hypocrisy) of this. Piper teaches determinism then writes a book titled “Dont Waste Your Life!” (as if the choice is yours right?!
Yup – your exactly right FOH.
No one can really live moment to moment perceiving one’s thoughts as all determined in advance.
A person would go crazy trying to live reality out that way.
That’s why Calvin teaches them to live *AS-IF* nothing is predetermined in any part.
It really boils down to double-think.
But they must assume the authors of scripture write double-speak.
And the god of scripture speaks double-speak.
That’s why Piper’s language flips back and forth between determinism and indeterminism.
FOH writes, “You have carefully quoted Calvin to show that all malefactors are simply having their strings pulled by God.”
Such silliness. Not pulled; even br.d understands that “control” is the correct descriptor.
rhutchin
FOH writes, “You have carefully quoted Calvin to show that all malefactors are simply having their strings pulled by God.”
Such silliness. Not pulled; even br.d understands that “control” is the correct descriptor.
br.d
The correct loop hole – according to Calvinist ethics!
br.d writes, “So lets see how this works with Calvin’s god “so called” letting go of the reins and the Jews stoning Stephen.
1) Every twist and turn of the Jews thoughts and desires were under the direct control of Calvin’s God”
Correct.
Then, “2) Calvin’s god FORCED them to stone Stephen for his service”
Silly br.d, God did not have to force them; He just let them do what they desired (He let go of the reins allowing them to roam free.).
Then, “3) Their thoughts and desires to stone Stephen were INSPIRED by Calvin’s god.”
More silly br.d, Of course not. Their thoughts and desires come from their corrupt nature with, perhaps, a little prodding from Satan.
Your running in your own circle at this point.
Time again for me to stand back and watch the fun. :-]
rhutchin
This logically follows because God is omniscient. If you don’t allow God to be omniscient, you can get a different result.
br.d
A straw man is often created when an argument is strategically focused on a misleading term.
In this case, the misleading term is omniscience.
The real crux of the issue on this point is not on Calvinism’s doctrine of omniscience but Calvinism’s doctrine of foreknowledge.
Calvin’s god’s foreknowledge is limited to only foreknowing what he decrees.
He cannot foreknow something as CERTAIN unless he decrees it.
There is no compromise in rejecting the Calvinist’s doctrine of limited foreknowledge.
Wow, the Calvinist grants his horse more freedom than his brethren!
Are we supposed to believe that the horse will ‘choose’ to go to the liquor store rather than the neighbor’s meadow? I suppose God juiced him up with the ‘desire’ to go the liquor store via invisible secondary means. No horsin’ around.
In reality, despite Rhutchin’s little games, Calvinism demands that God hold tightly to the reins of every single created molecule – because he has such an intricately laid plan that one little misstep and all of eternity would be messed up! Imagine if the horse actually had a free will and said ‘To heck with the liquor store, dude, I’m tasting those daisies!’ It would be the end of the world as God designed it! Oh no, he isn’t going to let that happen.
But don’t worry; despite Rhutchin’s pretenses that men make ‘free choices’ according to their ‘greatest desire’, Calvinism assures us that every single breath, move and action is carefully, incontrovertibly scripted for every single human being, animal and plant on the planet. You might think that weed just randomly popped up in your flower bed thanks to a passing bird’s droppings, but you would be wrong! It was all part of God’s meticulous plan, because he would be petrified to see what might happen should he lose control of any molecule for even a second.
Calvinism’s God is not capable of dealing with the free choices of millions of independent and unpredictable beings; that’s too complex for him. He must move them all upon his earth like little chess pieces, coordinating every thought word and deed to accomplish his preordained ends. We all are just little sock puppets, given the cruel illusion that we can actually think, reason and choose our own way, when, in reality, our every step is preordained. Sure makes you want to get up in the morning, doesn’t it, because your life is so significant?
ts00 writes, “Are we supposed to believe that the horse will ‘choose’ to go to the liquor store rather than the neighbor’s meadow?”
It was br.d’s illustration. You work with what you got.
Then, “But don’t worry; despite Rhutchin’s pretenses that men make ‘free choices’ according to their ‘greatest desire’, Calvinism assures us that every single breath, move and action is carefully, incontrovertibly scripted for every single human being, animal and plant on the planet.”
This logically follows because God is omniscient. If you don’t allow God to be omniscient, you can get a different result.
Wow TS00, you nailed it again!
Yes, this is the King on bent knee offering a relationship based on love and freedom (what a “personal relationship” is about). That is what the Scripture says.
Yet Calvinists will wipe away what you say here (“I truly pity any Calvinist who believes that God loves only some”) by saying “Just be glad He even loves and saves ANY since He doesnt have to cuz ‘we all deserve’ death and torture.”
Now, for a determinist-fatalist-Calvinist this is outrageous on many levels. Here are two:
1. We dont “deserve” anything in their system since God decreed/ ordained/ willed all actions from the beginning. We are sock puppets.
2. Why would we be glad He saves “the few” if He has purposely chosen to NOT save the rest? Really? People really want to spend eternity with a deity that purposely created-to-torture 98% of His creation (including close friends and family of ours)? Will He erase that idea from our minds when we are spending time with Him?
Calvinists have absolutely no idea who Calvin’s god loves – or what his intentions are for anyone.
The only way they find out – is when they either end up in heaven or in a lake of fire.
For all they know they may wind up in the lake of fire right next to John Calvin – whom his god took pleasure in sending there.
Since it is the case that Calvin’s god’s intentions are arbitrary – what is there to trust about him?
How can a person trust what is not possible to know?
Accordingly, they can trust that if his good pleasure is to throw them in the lake of fire – that’s a good thing.
And if his good pleasure is to save them for eternal life – that’s a good thing.
This is why Calvinism is a good-evil dualistic system, with a good-evil deity.
Those dualistic aspects are probably derivatives of Gnosticism synchronized into Christian doctrine.
ts00 writes, “How sad that Rhutchin throws out the Universalist belief as if it is something terrible, or some silly idea to scoff at.”
I like the Universalist argument. they own the “God is love” argument and its derivatives (like the God wants a relationship with everyone). The only problem is that the Scriptures provide some explicit statements to the effect that God will not save everyone. I have a problem with people who use the Universalist arguments against Calvinism when they are not Universalists.
Then, “Calvinism asserts the most horrifying option thinkable:”
That God will not save everyone. The Universalists counters, “God loves all people,” and “God desires to save all people.” The natural conclusion is that God will save all people.
The argument that God cannot love all people if He does not save all people is also an Universalist argument. If God does allow even one person to spend eternity in hell, then we misunderstand what it means to say, “God loves everyone.”
If you can harmonize God’s love for all people with God allowing even one person to spend eternity in hell, please do so.
Yep… God makes the spirit alive in relationship with God after faith in His mercy is expressed. Amen.
brianwagner writes, “God makes the spirit alive in relationship with God after faith in His mercy is expressed”
So, still being dead in trespasses and sins, the sinner must express faith in God’s mercy thereby believing thereby demonstrating that God would be right to quicken his dead spirit.
Brian,
Dear Brother, going forward, please don’t lump together Roger and myself into one rebuttal.
First, it just doesn’t look good and makes me want to reconsider my stance.
Second, I would never do that to you. 😉
Will do Phillip. Thanks for letting me know. No intention to link you two theologically… just to answer both of you with same answer. Blessings wished for you both.
Brian,
Consider the following…
Romans 8:10 (Amplified)…..
But if Christ lives in you, [then although] your [natural] body is dead by reason of sin and guilt, the spirit is alive because of [the] righteousness [that He imputes to you].
Same verse, different translation.
Romans 8:10 (NLT)…
And Christ lives within you, so even though your body will die because of sin, the Spirit gives you life (via regeneration) because you have been made right with God.
John 7:39 (ESV)….
Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
And that is why I maintain, brother, that the OT believers (up to and including the thief on the cross) were not only regenerated (born again), but had not even been justified (made righteous). They had only been declared righteous, or found “not guilty”.
Phillip… I understand that view and have grown up in circles that hold it also… but I think individual regeneration and indwelling was in the OT, including the everlasting presence of Christ and His righteousness. If I find out later you are right and I am wrong, I won’t mind. 😉
The indwelling that I think happened at Pentecost was the forming of the body of Christ, the church into one spiritual body of believers with the Spirit indwelling it as a temple. That corporate indwelling did not exist in the OT, for it required the baptizing work of the Spirit to place members into that body.
Here is a verse to consider for OT Spirit indwelling – 1Pe 1:11 KJV – Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1 Peter 1:10-11 (CEB)….
The prophets, who long ago foretold the grace that you’ve received, searched and explored, inquiring carefully about this salvation. They wondered what the Spirit of Christ within them was saying when he bore witness beforehand about the suffering that would happen to Christ and the glory that would follow. They wondered what sort of person or what sort of time they were speaking about.
Brian,
I take this to mean that the scriptures were Spirit inspired. Even if the Spirit of Christ was literally within them, this would only be a temporary dwelling, and not Him taking up permanent residence which is what NT believers experience.
At least that’s my take (and I could very well be wrong).
ONCE UPON A TIME – A FELLOW AND A CALVINIST
There once was a fellow, who whenever he sat down to a meal, someone else would cut his food for him on his plate. This situation induced a certain degree of psychological stress in his mind, because he wanted to perceive himself as man enough to cut his own food. However, it was comforting to never have to worry about the right or wrong of cutting his food, since someone else bore that responsibility for him. Unless, of course, the one who cut his food intended to use it as a means to bring evil upon him.
There once was a Theological Determinist (aka Calvinist), who whenever he was faced with judging between A vs. B, a Theos had already determined the judgment his mind would make. This situation induced a certain degree of psychological stress in his mind, because he wanted to perceive himself as “self-determining” enough, and deliberative enough to be able to judge the actual merits of A vs. B. However, it was comforting to never have to worry about the right or wrong of making choices, since someone else bore that responsibility for him. Unless, of course, the Theos intended to use it as a means to bring evil upon him.
The false dichotomies, logical fallacies, circular reasoning, and strawmen of Calvinists like Hutch are never ending as Ed has noted.
Why?
Because such mental gyrations and heremeutical gymnastics are needed for Calvin’s soteriology to seemingly make sense.
The Bible commands that we avoid contentious people and vain arguments. I can think of nothing more empty than Calvin’s bankrupt soteriology, or more argumentative than those who attempt to defend the indefensible. I have no time for such people, and neither should you.
Norm,
Was it you who asked me what were the 40-50 verses we (former) Calvinists camped on?
If you go over to the “humility” discussion in this blog you will see Joey trotting them out.
Acts 4:28 (God decreed it but man is responsible)
Phil 1;29 (faith is “given”)
1 Cor 2:14 (“truth is folly to dead men”)
Acts 16:14 (Lydia)
Phil 2:13 (God works in you)
Eph 1:11 (counsel of God)
John 15:6 (“I chose you”)
1 Cor 1:30 (God chose what is weak)
etc.
He has not mentioned yet:
Rom 3:11 ( no one seeks God)
Rom 9 (the gold standard —only seen their way)
John 6:44 (cant come unless God draws us)
There are a few more…..but dont expect anything beyond those. They can all be found on monergism.com and in fact Joey just linked us directly to that site for explanation in his first responses. Newly-minted, young, YRR Calvinists eagerly point people to these few verses in a “you must not have noticed these verses yet!” sort of way. Kind of a “if you only read these, and listen to me for a minute, you will get it.”
These are always the same cherry-picked verses that are used to scaffold together the Calvinist idea. All the rest of the Bible must be filtered through these verse (and the Calvinist interpretation of them).
If they dare to go outside of these texts (i.e. exegete other passages of the Bible) they will sound as Arminian as the next guy—- as we have shown countless times on these pages They exegete in traditional, or Arminian fashion all the rest of the Bible— but they get a pass from other colleagues cuz they are known to be Calvinists..
Now when they come to the plethora of “all” “the world” “whosoever will” “I persuade men” I do all things to win some” “don’t shipwreck your faith” (and the hundreds and hundreds of “change His mind” “I the Lord did not want you to do that…”) —– they just start with “we know these passages dont mean that because….” (this is where you apply the Calvinist verse filter).
Don’t expect anything new. You will just see the same verses trotted out.
In my case, I would have NEVER stumbled on these verses and assembled a position as this. You really have to be taught reformed theology and it is all the rage (YRR) these days.
Great post FOH!
A nice list.
It reminds me, when I read/hear someone say “I came to Calvinism by simply reading the bible”
As soon as I hear this – I already know – somebody bought a bridge in Florida. :-]
Yes, I asked for that list of verses. Thanks.
Like you, I never would have thought to cherry pick verses to construct a system like Calvinism and then deem it biblical soteriology. Having been exposed to Calvinism as a teen who had already read the entire Bible and was avidly studying it, my impression of Calvinism was that it’s god was not the God I read about and discovered in the Bible.
All these decades later I am convinced Calvinism is not only bankrupt, but it diminishes God’s glory by attributing to Him activities and decisions not supported by the Word He breathed-out.
This observation has led me to deem that Calvinism is not only bankrupt, but is blasphemous as well, for it presents a god not of the Bible.
What kind of God, who takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, whose will is for none to perish, and who commands all men everywhere to repent, would have already predestined souls to hell before they were born?
I would not want to try to explain to Jesus at the Bema Seat judgment why I misrepresented every member of the Trinity by embracing and promoting such a spurious teaching.
Norm writes:
“This observation has led me to deem that Calvinism is not only bankrupt, but is blasphemous as well, for it presents a god not of the Bible.
What kind of God, who takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, whose will is for none to perish, and who commands all men everywhere to repent, would have already predestined souls to hell before they were born?”
I would agree. And, frankly, with a ‘love’ like that as a model how can Calvinism hope to end up with anything better than a group of arrogant, legalistic Pharisees, brainwashing trusting sheep into similarly loveless legalists? One literally has to get out of the church and go to non-church charities to see how to really love others, how to meet them at their point of need and show them that they matter to God. I’ll let you decide which looks more like Jesus.
Sadly, most of these Calvinists started out with the true gospel and a desire to seek the lost, but got hijacked onto the ‘election’ train going nowhere.
Great post norm!
Calvinism turns scripture into a “wink-wink” language.
Choose ye this day (wink-wink) whom you will serve.
Thou shalt not eat of it (wink-wink) for on that day you shall die.
norm asks, “What kind of God, who takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, whose will is for none to perish, and who commands all men everywhere to repent, would have already predestined souls to hell before they were born?”
A god who is omniscient, thus God.
norm writes, “The false dichotomies, logical fallacies, circular reasoning, and strawmen of Calvinists like Hutch are never ending as Ed has noted.”
How come no one can ever provide examples of these so-called false dichotomies, logical fallacies, circular reasoning, and strawmen???
Here’s one.
“…I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they, ‘like myself’, may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.”
Piper is completely wrong. And so are you.
Phillip:
Not sure who you were answering with your “here’s one” but it was to rhutchin, don’t bother.
No matter how many times someone answers or explains a verse (See Brian’s 5 explanations of John 6:44!) he will always say no one ever answers him. If an answer disagrees with him….. it never existed.
Here is a similar verse to yours.
To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. (1 Cor 9:22, even in the ESV).
That sounds very “man-centered” to me!
That, and hundreds more like it, make it sound like man has some part to play!
Here is that verse how it should appear in the Calvinist Bible:
“I didnt have to be weak—- the chosen weak ones would come. I didn’t become anything to anyone (cuz I dont have anything to do with it), and by no means did I save any (Christ did)…..and there aint no “might” about it….since it was all decided before time began….. so silly me!”
FOH,
I was thinking about the verse “Let him who has an ear, hear what the Spirit says to the church”.
If John really believed that Calvin’s god determines every neurological impulse – he should have written:
“Everyone who is fated to hear what the Spirit says to the church will hear what the Spirit says to the church.”
Why would the Holy Spirit inspire John to infer those who are fated to hear can choose to NOT to hear, when John believes the opposite?
Here is an honest challenge to our Calvinist friends.
1. Read through any book of the Bible.
2. Stop at the end of each verse.
3. Ask if that verse can really mean what it sounds like if Determinist-Calvinism is true.
If you are like I was and many of my Calvinist friends are, you will spend a LOT of time saying…. “that verse does not really mean what it says…”
FOH writes:
“If you are like I was and many of my Calvinist friends are, you will spend a LOT of time saying…. “that verse does not really mean what it says…”
Exactly. When I determined to objectively just look at scripture and rate the Calvinist vs non-Calvinist scriptures, I was utterly blown away. I had no agenda, no ‘need’ to prove one or the other true. But the ratio has to be at least a thousand to one. The narratives, passages and verses that clearly contradict Calvinism are such an overwhelming majority that no honest person who has actually done a legitimate survey could possibly deny it. I could no longer claim ‘Who am I to say I know better than these revered, learned teachers?’ The evidence is just too overwhelming, and I am too honest to remain blindly loyal in the face of such an overwhelming ratio.
When I first opted to consider Calvinism some 20 years ago, I earnestly prayed that God would help me to be honest, objective and willing to look at things from every angle. Eventually, Calvinism proved to be simply too foreign to the vast majority of the teaching of scripture. The attempts to make scripture support Calvinist dogma are just too great of a stretch, particularly if one goes past often weak English translations. My eternal thanks go to the recently converted Calvinist pastor who spoke at my former church, and pointed out the very weak translation of many, many verses in the revered King James translation, encouraging me to pursue deeper language study.
TS00,
I am more and more convinced that if a person comes to the text with T as a given….all of Calvinism will then follow.
That is why Calvinists hammer on “how dead” we are.
There are many assumptions made. Dead men dont make choices (good news!). the Gospel is folly (good news!).
Christ paid for .0015% of humanity (good news!)
oh…sorry…. got distracted by all the good news…
Where was I? Oh yeah …. Total Depravity. Gotta make that a given then build on that.
FOH. I used to think T was the key… It certainly is for the belief in the so called reprobate… We just can’t have any of them sneaking in by faith and joining the elect. 😉
But I’m now convinced that U is the key doctrine… a loyalty to determinism – the predestination of all things, including individual election to salvation and individual damnation immutably guaranteed is the real reason for the T, L, I, and P being necessary.
They try to convince themselves that this is true sovereignty and “amazing” that God would give everlasting salvation to any… but they willfully disregard that their U / determinism teaches a God decreeing everlasting torment to individuals before sin ever comes into existence. Not my God!
Calvinist language is all about putting a spit-polish on evil to make it look good
nrianwagner writes, “I used to think T was the key… But I’m now convinced that U is the key doctrine…”
The key Doctrine is the Doctrine of God (the omnis) – specifically, in your case, the Omniscience of God. After that comes Original Sin. TULIP follows as a consequence of Original Sin that gives us T. The escape from T begins with God’s election – U. Christ dies to enable God to save His saved – L. God then draws His elect to salvation – I. Finally, God preserves His elect – P.
Then, “They try to convince themselves that this is true sovereignty and “amazing” that God would give everlasting salvation to any… but they willfully disregard that their U / determinism teaches a God decreeing everlasting torment to individuals before sin ever comes into existence. Not my God!”
As noted earlier, this reflects your conviction that God is not omniscient.
Rhutchin writes:
As noted earlier, this reflects your conviction that God is not omniscient.”
I would assert that this reflects Brian’s conviction that God is not evil or unloving.
No use wasting time defining the alternative, and non-contradictory, meanings of ‘omniscient’ as that has been done literally hundreds of times on these threads.
TS00,
This is a classic Calvinist tool:
“You dont believe God is sovereign.”
“You dont believe God is omniscient.”
“You dont believe God is Just.”
“You have a ‘man-centered’ theology.”
“oh….you believe in a works-based [faith] salvation.”
“you must believe that some men were better than others to have chosen to believe..”
These accusations are just so childish.
FOH writes:
“These accusations are just so childish.”
Worse, they do not allow for honest, productive conversation. I am honestly not into debating these things – well, maybe online 😉 – but with people I know and love, I simply want them to understand what I think and why. Instead, nearly without fail, I get all of the responses you mentioned and more, all suggesting that I simply do not ‘understand’, am unwilling to ‘bow to scripture’ or that I want to ‘disobey God’.
Seriously, if these gentle persons were able to understand that what we are both explaining is simply our own (or adopted) interpretations of scripture, it would remove the great tension/passion that arises from believing you are defending ‘the Word of God’. I am not a rebel or anarchist; I love God and his Word, study that Word daily, am open to correction and growing in understanding. It is simply unkind and arrogant to denounce me as a heretic, those who are deliberately, and with a great deal of effort, seeking to learn better how to love God and others as scripture commands. To me, the one and only ‘unforgivable’ interpretation of scripture is one that, like Calvinism, withholds the very gift of life from many that it was intended to bring. Anything else – we can agree to disagree on.
ts00 writes, “No use wasting time defining the alternative, and non-contradictory, meanings of ‘omniscient’ as that has been done literally hundreds of times on these threads.”
There is only one definition of “omniscience” that is adhered to by Calvinists, Arminians, Traditionalists, Southern Baptists, etc. That definition says that God has complete knowledge of the future. You could easily have affirmed this if my assessment of your position was wrong – you did not. Instead, you confirm what I said by responding, “I would assert that this reflects Brian’s conviction that God is not evil or unloving,” and Brian denies omniscience (as understood by everyone else). Why are you so reluctant to come out and say what you believe?
rhutchin
There is only one definition of “omniscience” that is adhered to by Calvinists, Arminians, Traditionalists, Southern Baptists, etc.
br.d
This has already been to be a false statement.
The orthodox doctrine of omniscience specifically holds it as an ESSENTIAL property of God.
-quote:
Essentially omniscient, that is, being omniscient and not possibly lacking omniscience. Essential omniscience entails infallibility.
(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omniscience/)
Your version of omniscience holds that “logically” prior to the creative decrees – Calvin’s god does not know what he is going to decree and therefore does have infallible knowledge of the future.
Like I said before, any deity who does not know what he is going to will before he wills it – lacks intelligence.
br.d writes, “Your version of omniscience holds that “logically” prior to the creative decrees – Calvin’s god does not know what he is going to decree and therefore does have infallible knowledge of the future. ”
Not exactly. Let’s go back before creation. God is and all that is, is God. There is nothing but God. With God, there is no past or future as God is immutable. So, the question becomes, given that God decrees to create the Universe, does that decree precede God’s knowledge of the decree. god’s knowledge and God’s decrees are simultaneous to us humans as we cannot discern one coming before the other. Consequently, we speculate about the logical order between God’s decrees and God’s knowledge.
Here is your opinion on this, “Like I said before, any deity who does not know what he is going to will before he wills it – lacks intelligence” Maybe you, or someone else, will someday provide a proof of you conjecture.
br. d
I hope you dont keep engaging with this endless circular reasoning!
He brings this presupposition to the table…
“With God, there is no past or future as God is immutable.” (which is extra-biblical conjecture).
Then dares to conclude…
“Maybe you, or someone else, will someday provide a proof of you conjecture.”
So…..please dont allow/encourage all the back and forth when we have dealt with all these ideas numerous times. Sometimes I feel like it is a deliberated attempt to keep filling up the pages with silliness so that the “meat” of the push back material (good explanations to the 40 verses Calvinists have) will not be found in all the back-and-forth clutter.
So much cluttering up with repetitious nonsense so the good explanations can’t be found when needed.
Thanks FOH – I realize that.
But you do know rhutchin’s strategy is to saturate the environment with Calvinism’s dishonest talking points.
Are you sure just letting that happen is a good strategy?
FOH writes, ““With God, there is no past or future as God is immutable.” (which is extra-biblical conjecture).”
OK. Then, let’s make it a presupposition of the Calvinist system. You can conjecture that God is mutable. Now we have a distinct difference between the two systems – both built on presuppositional conjecture.
br.d writes, “Your version of omniscience holds that “logically” prior to the creative decrees – Calvin’s god does not know what he is going to decree and therefore does have infallible knowledge of the future. ”
rhutchin:
Not exactly. ….with God, there is no past or future…..we cannot discern one coming before the other…..we speculate about the logical order between God’s decrees and God’s knowledge.
br.d
That’s basically it – speculation. In this case that Calvin’s god doesn’t know what the future will be until after he decrees it.
If that’s what you need in order to make “omniscience” work in Calvnism then that’s the way it is.
But it is a deviant position from the orthodox doctrine of ESSENTIAL omniscience which asserts God is never without full knowledge.
Logically or otherwise.
“Like I said before, any deity who does not know what he is going to will before he wills it – lacks intelligence”
rhutchin
Here is your opinion on this, Maybe you, or someone else, will someday provide a proof of you conjecture.
br.d
Not necessary to prove something most people can recognize.
br.d writes, “If that’s what you need in order to make “omniscience” work in Calvnism then that’s the way it is.”
Calvinism is a theology that deals with God’s creation. By omniscience, God knew all that would happen in the future of His creation at Genesis 1. I don’t see this deviating from the orthodox doctrine of ESSENTIAL omniscience.
br.d
“If that’s what you need in order to make “omniscience” work in Calvinism then that’s the way it is.”
rhutcnin
Calvinism is a theology that deals with God’s creation. By omniscience, God knew all that would happen in the future of His creation at Genesis 1. I don’t see this deviating from the orthodox doctrine of ESSENTIAL omniscience.
br.d
Except (as you say – he didn’t know what would happen in the future logically prior to his decrees).
If that’s what you need to have for a definition of ESSENTIAL then that’s the way it is.
br.d writes, “Except (as you say – he didn’t know what would happen in the future logically prior to his decrees).
If that’s what you need to have for a definition of ESSENTIAL then that’s the way it is.”
God’s decrees are necessarily part of His omniscience. Thus, God cannot be omniscient and not know His decrees. So, logically, omniscience cannot precede God’s decrees. If omniscience is essential, then so are the decrees.
br.d writes, “Except (as you say – he didn’t know what would happen in the future logically prior to his decrees).
If that’s what you need to have for a definition of ESSENTIAL then that’s the way it is.”
rhutchin
God’s decrees are necessarily part of His omniscience. Thus, God cannot be omniscient and not know His decrees. So, logically, omniscience cannot precede God’s decrees. If omniscience is essential, then so are the decrees.
br.d
Calvin’s god’s omniscience cannot precede decrees – Calvin’s god cannot be omniscient and not know his decrees.
I’ll let you chase that circle by yourself. :-]
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god’s omniscience cannot precede decrees – Calvin’s god cannot be omniscient and not know his decrees.
I’ll let you chase that circle by yourself.”
No circle here. Two statements that say the same thing.
rhutchin:
Calvin’s god’s omniscience cannot precede decrees – Calvin’s god cannot be omniscient and not know his decrees.
br.d
I’ll let you chase that circle by yourself. :-]
rhutchin
No circle here. Two statements that say the same thing.
br.d
What ever works for ya! :-]
Forgive my ignorance, but can someone point me to scripture’s delineation of all these ‘decrees’ Calvinists love to pontificate upon? I must have nodded off while reading them.
TS00…. very funny… it’s like looking for the verse that uses the word “sovereignty” the way Calvinists understand that word. I have heard them try to see and try to squeeze their view of an all encompassing decree in Psalm 2:7 NKJV — “I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.”
But there are good Scriptural arguments for “Today” as pointing to the day of the incarnation or the day of the resurrection. There is no indication that this was an eternal immutable set decree. And the word “decree” itself assumes a moment when there was no decree and then it is made.
That stated decree just happens to cast doubt upon Christianity’s historical, orthodox conception of the Trinity, in my humble opinion. But that’s okay, because we are not bound to the historical, orthodox beliefs of mere men. 🙂 Try as they might, hacking and burning, ‘rulers’ cannot compel men to believe or disbelieve anything. Nor does God seek to overrule the freedom of conscience with which he endowed us. We can ‘exchange he truth for a lie’ all we want, however to our own detriment it is.
brianwagner writes, “…it’s like looking for the verse that uses the word “sovereignty” the way Calvinists understand that word. I have heard them try to see and try to squeeze their view of an all encompassing decree…”
An often used verse is that declaration of a pagan king, “…I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom endures from generation to generation. And all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ‘What hast Thou done?’” (Daniel 4) Then, there is “God works all things after the counsel of His will…” (Ephesians 1)
Roger… we have been through those passages… neither of which explain His sovereignty as locked into and limited to one set future forever from before creation. Nor do they show that His sovereignty doesn’t include delegating some free choices to creatures like us in determining things from various possible outcomes. He freely decides to permit us to make these determinations, giving Him the experience of relationship and love that would not exist in a fully predestined universe.
Brian,
The idea of a personal relationship is where Calvinism falls apart.
I dont know if all the commentators on here are married and have kids but that really puts into perspective the “Father” aspect and the personal relationship aspect.
Not much of anything if the whole thing is programmed.
brianwagner writes, “neither of which explain His sovereignty as locked into and limited to one set future forever from before creation.”
Not the issue here. Only a definition was intended.
Then, “Nor do they show that His sovereignty doesn’t include delegating some free choices to creatures like us…”
That deals with the way God executes His sovereignty. As God is sovereign, He can give people freedom to do as they desire (even if within limits).
Then, “He freely decides to permit us to make these determinations,…”
So say the Calvinists, also.
Then, “…giving Him the experience of relationship and love that would not exist in a fully predestined universe.”
Yes, you are always inventing ways for God to learn something new.
God certainly experiences new things… unless you are a pantheist! For God was not eternally immutably incarnate. So there is a divine “learning” that does not add to His infinite understanding but alters the content of it.
TS00,
Remember the word “scaffolding.”
You take a piece from here and another from there (sometimes only a half a verse).
Remember how silly Hillary Clinton tried to set the “reset button” with Russia? That can’t happen cuz there is too much history, intrigue, bad blood, and too many wars, treaties, alliances in the past.
Same with theology.
1. Greek philosophy influenced the setting.
2. Early fathers got to set “the rules”
3. Councils laid down the framework/ parameters (most still exist).
4. Reformers broke away (often for military/political reasons, establishing boundaries, alliances, etc)… establishing other lines that cant be crossed (remember what happened when people crossed Calvin’s rules!?).
So, too much history for a “reset” for most people.
Then….
Along comes the Pentecostal Movement, Azusa Street early 1900’s but really making it big in the 70’s-80’s. Many pastors (MacArthur) hedge away from that and gravitate toward “the solid foundation”. Then…the faith movement, prosperity gospel, the emerging church, open theism, Hillsong come along and ………. every “generic” Bible church in American is confronted with choices.
They can (a) move toward the new ideas (mentioned above) that people are bringing, (b) join the YRR wave and “return to historic reformed (council) theology,” (c) or develop some good, solid, kind answers (push back) for the cage phase YRRs in the pews.
In my opinion most are opting for (b).
There are just too many young, (usually) male, educated, (usually) Caucasian, internet-savvy (lots of reformed stuff on line… just cut-n-paste!) guys in the pews to resist. The wave washes in and people feel SAFE (not gonna get into that “heretical” stuff!).
Before you know it, (non-Catholic, non-Dutch) people start using terms like: catechism (Piper published a “Baptist catechism” in the late 80’s), confession, council, Canons of Dordt, Heidelberg Catechism, etc. Notice a return to hymnals and trashing of “all things new” in worship? We see that in our adopted country of mission. A return to songs that no one knows just to avoid anything written in the 80’s, 90’s for 2000’s.
Notice the trashing of the words “seeker friendly”? Why make it friendly? And there certainly are not any seekers!!!
Safety. “I’m not one of those weird Christians. Count me among the ……uh …..reformers! Yeah, let’s get back to the reformation. Hey, we need another reformation” (not meaning keep reforming, but return to the reformation).
Open theism was labeled heresy immediately (that is the way to operate—- Remember hero Calvin’s model “name it and flame it”).
Even though some ideas in Open Theism help us understand huge portions of the Bible…. it cannot be good because (a) we “know” how God is, (b) far too “new” of an idea, and (c) heresy!
Okay gotta go…we are hosting a refugee family at our house.
FOH… that was an excellent synopsis of why we in the US are where we are in the resurgence of reformed theology!
More needs to be promoted of the non-sacramental, non-magisterial Christian history where Christ was mainly building His church through the centuries.
Broadbent’s The Pilgrim Church and Verduin’s Reformers and their Stepchildren are two good books to promote in that regard.
I agree with the synopsis. I am also willing to entertain the possibility (because I’m not afraid of being called a heretic or a conspiracy theorist) that is and always was more or less engineered. (Satan for sure holds the Body of Christ as enemy number one. How he persuades his minions to do his work is probably complex and, without doubt, grounded in deception and tempting fleshly lures.) Whenever the body of Christ seeks to escape some of the greater error, and sets off in a more ‘healthy’ and biblical direction, lo and behold, they will be infiltrated by some sort of extremism. This is how people have always been corralled into the desired belief and control system. I believe it is pretty much the same tactics used in Church and State. In horror of the extremism, they are led to embrace what is fashioned as ‘historical’, ‘traditional’, or whatever convinces the masses that they can be ‘safe’ and ‘great again’.
TS00
Interesting you should mention Satan….
For other research just yesterday I fell upon a message from Piper on Satan. You can see it here it you want.
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-fall-of-satan-and-the-victory-of-christ
He spends a lot of time saying how bad Satan is and that he the main adversary, then he just basically says, but God is directing him and all that evil serves a purpose. A very convoluted, circular, no-real-meaning message.
Good observation FOH!
I think its totally ironic and humorous that Piper and MacArthur are as popular as they are – because they are experts at wearing the “reformed” label – while consistently hiding behind a camouflage of non-Calvinist language!
This is probably why the hard-core Calvinists consider Piper and MacArthur compromised.
However, if draws in recruits – its tolerated – at least temporarily.
As Dr. Jerry Walls says:
If it weren’t for the Calvinist’s expertise and strategic use of misleading language Calvinism would loose all credibility in two years.
TS00,
I just posted that link to the message on Satan by Piper.
I thought maybe I could give you some tidbits.
“It appears then that once there was a host of holy angels. And some of them, including Satan, “sinned,” or as Jude 1:6 says, “did not stay within their own position of authority.” In other words, the sin was a kind of insurrection. A desire for more power and more authority than they were appointed by God and under God. So Satan originates as a created angel who, with other angels, rebel against God, reject him as their all-satisfying king and joy, and set out on a course of self-exaltation and presumed self-determination. They do not want to be subordinate. They do not want to be sent by God to serve others (Hebrews 1:14). They want to have authority over themselves and exalt themselves above God.”
But Piper cannot have anyone doing anything freely so he adds
“This idea that God was helpless to prevent this rebellion, and that it is owing to the innate self-determining wills of sinless angels, is not a solution to the problem.” Why not? Uh, cuz Piper says so! Then….
1. Satan is “ruler of the world” but actually God is.
2. Unclean spirits are out there, but Christ commands them.
3. Satan is a roaring lion causing suffering….but actually “these jaws of the prowling lion, are opened and closed only according to God’s will.”
4. Satan is a murderer, but really the Lord gives and takes away, so it is Him.
5. Satan is a destroyer… and God give him permission to attack, but tells him “you will not go beyond the bounds that I set.”
6. Satan is the great tempter. Here Piper waffles back and forth saying Satan is “allowed” several more times. Never is there an explanation of the difference between “being allowed” to do evil, roar, murder, destroy, tempt…. and being “sovereignly ruled by God in all his actions.” Does Satan have “a will” that he is only “allowed” to exercise or not???
7. Then Piper says….. “Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:4 that ‘the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers.’ But is this power to blind people an ultimate power? Can God overcome it and resist and nullify it? Yes, he can.”
Well now look at that! God has to overcome the power Satan is using to blind unbelievers! (1) blinded (by Satan) or they would easily see the truth right? (2) I thought they were “dead” and that is why they could not see, (3) wait….”dead” because of Adam or blind because of Satan?? (4) God has to overcome Satan —- so again, Satan has a separate will from God?
Oh…. It all becomes clear with Piper’s next statement.
“God Governs Satan’s Every Move.”
But! One paragraph later he says.
“He has the right and power to restrain them [demons] any time he pleases.”
Wait….just wait….God controls Satan’s every move or only restrains him?
Next phrase…. “I conclude, therefore, that God permitted Satan’s fall, not because he was helpless to stop it, but because he had a purpose for it.”
Permitted or caused? Aargh!!! When can we just get Piper to quit using the “allows” “restrains” words and start using the “causes” “determines” “decrees” words?
Piper says…
“How the sin arises in Satan’s heart, we do not know…. What we do know is that God is sovereign over Satan, and therefore Satan’s will does not move without God’s permission. And therefore every move of Satan is part of God’s overall purpose and plan.”
How can that be a mystery? Is it just too hard to say this John….. “Sin arises in Satan’s heart because God wills it!!!!!”
Yep…too hard for him to say. Gotta use the softer “allows” word.
What do we do with evil, he then asks.
“Eight Things to Do with Evil
Expect evil.
Endure evil.
Give thanks for the refining effect of evil that comes against you.
Hate evil.
Pray for escape from evil.
Expose evil.
Overcome evil with good.
Resist evil.”
And yet….all this evil is from God! What to do!!??
“Four Things Never to Do with Evil
Never despair that this evil world is out of God’s control. “He works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11).
Never give in to the sense that because of random evil life is absurd and meaningless. [What? There is “random evil”?]
Never yield to the thought that God sins or is ever unjust or unrighteous in the way he governs the universe.
Never doubt that God is totally for you in Christ. If you trust him with your life, you are in Christ. Never doubt that all the evil that befalls you — even if it takes your life — is God’s loving, purifying, saving, fatherly discipline.”
So….the evil is His discipline??? But we are to hate it and pray to escape it???
This mixed-up message about Satan and evil just shows that you can grab a verse from here and there and say just about anything you want.
Why anyone reads this stuff I just dont know!!!?
Excellent review by you FOH! Would you consider posting it on the SOT101 FB site?
Brian,
You may transfer my thoughts to another page if you like. I just visited that FB page to check it out and it’s possible that my post was a bit too snarky to meet the standard.
I tend to get snarky when I lose patience at guys like Piper who have influence…. and then basically waste it by taking a whole message to say, well, nothing.
Satan’s bad … but God controls his every action.
Resist evil….but it was sent for your good.
Satan is tempting you….but really God is doing it.
If you sin… well that was God’s doing too!
It just never stops….. this endless, circular nonsense.
FOH
ps. If you are a Calvinist, do not complain that I said Piper talks nonsense, since I was programmed to say it.
I will post it anonymously… it’s a great review.
brianwagner writes, “I will post it anonymously… ”
Seems a little late for that. Perhaps, as br.d often writes, “I will post it AS-IF anonymously… “
Piper:
“This idea that God was helpless to prevent this rebellion, and that it is owing to the innate self-determining wills of sinless angels, is not a solution to the problem.” Why not? Uh, cuz Piper says so! Then…
br.d
Piper actually uses the term “self-determining”.
*AS-IF* in Calvinism determinations of created beings aren’t meticulously determined by the Theos.
And then using the language “helpless to prevent”
Come-on! Anyone who knows anything about that doctrine knows that is totally misleading language.
If he were honest – what he would say is:
“Evil doers cannot do anything unless he inspire it” (John Calvin)
or
“EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, ….every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD”. (The Providence of God – Paul Helm)
“EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, ….every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD”. (The Providence of God – Paul Helm)
If this were not true, God would not be sovereign.
Calvinist Paul Helm:
“EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, ….every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD”. (The Providence of God – Paul Helm)
rhutchin
If this were not true, God would not be sovereign.
br.d
That depends upon one’s image of God.
br.d
One only has to read that quote “EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, ….every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD”. (The Providence of God – Paul Helm)…..
to then ask….what is the point of anything? We are robots and Job’s wife is right —curse God and die. Oh, sorry, that wont work unless God programmed me to curse Him and die. Even all our musings about this are programmed by Him.
I bet rhutchin pipes in with ….. “this is what sovereign means” —well, yeah, if you start with that interpretation of sovereign. Of course that is bringing to the table —-man’s definition of a word. And then saying what the Bible must mean compared to that.
FOH writes, “I bet rhutchin pipes in with ….. “this is what sovereign means” —well, yeah, if you start with that interpretation of sovereign.”
Then, conjure up a different definition if you can.
FOH
I bet rhutchin pipes in with ….. “this is what sovereign means” —well, yeah, if you start with that interpretation of sovereign. Of course that is bringing to the table —-man’s definition of a word. And then saying what the Bible must mean compared to that.
br.d
You were actually right FOH – anticipating his response.
For a Calvinist, reciting one of the talking points sometimes appears like their doing a magical spell to themselves.
Just recite one – and PUFF! the problem disappears. :-]
FOH writes, “Wait….just wait….God controls Satan’s every move or only restrains him? ”
God controls Satan’s every move because He is sovereign, but God, in the exercise of His sovereign control may restrain or loose Satan. An example is Job. God restrains Satan so that he cannot tough Job; then God loosens that restraint with the result that Satan is free to wreck havoc in Job’s life.
So amazing. When my eyes began to open, one of my first realizations was that Calvinism really did not have a logical explanation for Satan and what scripture says of him. Yet, in trying to engage other brainwashed Calvinists in an exercise of logical thinking about what Satan can actually do under Calvinism, they simply refused to think. They stuck with the Piperesque doublespeak that is inconsistent and, really, just nonsense.
It was only one step further to realize that the exact same thing is true of nearly every scriptural concept under Calvinism. They simply cannot hold up under honest, logical scrutiny, so people must be brainwashed and controlled to ‘think’ what they are supposed to think. Which really means, don’t think at all, simply memorize the approved answers and bow to the authority of those who are ‘wiser’.
For me, who always considered myself a thinking person, it was shocking to realize how much I had allowed my thinking process to be turned off by the tricks of the manipulator’s trade. Once I cast off the chains upon my mind, it was like a tsunami of free thought! Scripture became, once again, personal, meaningful and beneficial.
Every single time I read scripture, even today, it is mind-boggling to see how Calvinism twists, distorts and inconsistently applies random verses out of context – and yet, I mostly just accepted what I was told. Okay, I asked more questions than most, but not as many as I should have, and I was too afraid to offend to push things further. Even now, when I look at the questions I did ask, I realize how unwelcome they were by the leadership, and how warmly embraced by others in the congregation. Many would come to me with questions, as I guess I came across as ‘bold’ enough to dissent from the pastor’s viewpoint.
I will never forget the elderly lady who came to me, so upset, because the pastor had described heaven as a never ending ceremony in which we will cast our crowns before the throne and fall on our faces – literally. I somewhat guiltily admitted that I totally disagreed, and considered that poetic language. I believed that heaven would be like whatever we now think is most marvelous – multiplied a thousandfold! This woman was so relieved, and admitted that she had felt guilty all week to be not much looking forward to the heaven our pastor described. I cautioned her not to tell him what I had said. I did not realize then how much this revealed the mind control I was under to never disagree with anything the pastor said – a really, really scary thought!
TruthSeeker
Once I cast off the chains upon my mind, it was like a tsunami of free thought! Scripture became, once again, personal, meaningful and beneficial. Every single time I read scripture, even today, it is mind-boggling to see how Calvinism twists
br.d
Wonderful testimony!!
God is gooooood!!! :-]
The evolution of the decrees can be easily explained.
Take a bunch of imaginations – embrace them as cannon – then open up your bible.
PRESTO! – auto-magically affirmed. :-]
ts00 writes, “can someone point me to scripture’s delineation of all these ‘decrees’ Calvinists love to pontificate upon?”
God’s decrees are everywhere in Scripture. Examples”
God said, “Let there be light”;
God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters,
God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”;
God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them,…”
God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me;…I am about to destroy them with the earth.”
God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years.”
God said to David, ‘You shall not build a house for My name because you are a man of war and have shed blood.’”
Then, there is what Jesus decreed. Examples”
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
“I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
“…seek first God’s kingdom and His righteousness;…”
“…no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
Then, God speaks His decrees through His prophets. Examples:
“…be imitators of God, as beloved children;…”
“…walk in love, just as Christ also loved you,…”
“…do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints;”
“…there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.”
“…no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.”
Rhutchin writes:
“Why are you so reluctant to come out and say what you believe?”
Already answered:
“No use wasting time defining the alternative, and non-contradictory, meanings of ‘omniscient’ as that has been done literally hundreds of times on these threads.”
Above mentioned comments include my own. One can go over the same ground endlessly, and still be accused of never explaining oneself. 🙂
…not the false unbiblical omniscience that is locked in and limited to one set future forever tied to a desire to create many to torment for rejecting something they were decreed to reject before they were even created. Not my God… or the God of Scripture!
Amen, my friend – not my God either!
God decided to make man in his image.
John Calvin decided to return the favor! :-]
I wish Calvin would have left well enough – no, perfection – alone!
I think – looking at his behavior patterns – we can chalk that up to in inflated ego.
brianwagner writes, “…create many to torment for rejecting something they were decreed to reject before they were even created. Not my God… or the God of Scripture!”
Unless you have gone universalist on us, even you agree that God will reject many whom God could save because He can save everybody, Your complaint is that the Calvinists say God already knew those He would reject when He created the world and you say that God hadn’t really made those decisions but rejects a person here or there as time goes by. The outcome is the same in either case. So, why is it so important to you that God wait before rejecting a person as if that makes a difference to the person who ends up in hell?
The outcome is not the same… take the blinders off, Roger. Please. God waits until a free will decision which God knows might happen… not will happen.
Brian,
Anyone can see that the “outcome is NOT the same”.
Calvinists say that “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” means God is saying “I have capriciously decided that 0.15% of creatures will be saved, and I have created the rest —who were created in my image— for destruction and torture. I do it all.”
Others say that “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” means God is saying “I will have mercy on those who call on Christ—not Buddha, not good works, not the spirit being, etc. All may call on Christ ….that is the Good News.”
Does it make a difference for “the person who ends up in hell”? We dont know if anyone will be able to process this when in hell.
We dont even know if we will process this stuff when in heaven…so the “will it make a difference later” question is moot.
But how about now? What a (Calvinist) message! “Good News! It is very likely that Christ did not die for you and that you are part of the 99.85% of humanity created for destruction!”
Here is Good News.
“Christ died for you and can make your life worth living and give you eternal life. Repent.”
FOH writes, “Calvinists say that “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” means God is saying “I have capriciously decided that 0.15% of creatures will be saved, and I have created the rest —who were created in my image— for destruction and torture. I do it all.””
This is wrong. Calvinists say that “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” means God is saying that He saves whom He will.
Calvinists say that omniscience means God is saying “I have capriciously decided that 0.15% of creatures will be saved, and I have created the rest —who were created in my image— for destruction and torture.
“I do it all” – “…God works all things after the counsel of His will…”
brianwagner writes, “God waits until a free will decision which God knows might happen… not will happen.”
As God has infinite understanding, He will not learn new information when a “might happen” becomes reality. God already knows how He will react to a “might happen” and if the outcome is one that He didn’t want, He would have already decreed to close it off. That which ultimately occurs is that which God decrees can happen. God has set His decrees in place and the “might happens” that you are enamored with can only come about within the context of His decrees.
His decrees include various undecided possible good reactions of how He might respond. He’s not as limited to or locked into one reaction like you want Him to be. Sorry Roger.
brianwagner writes, “His decrees include various undecided possible good reactions of how He might respond.”
That is your speculation. You have to presume such to get your system to work. That’s fine; presuppositions are key to any system.
Regrettably, I have not been sold on Universalism, because I actually reject the proposition that God CAN save everyone, without destroying the made-in-the-image-of-Godness with which he created them. Yes, indeed, God is limited by his own character and nature, thus we can know that if there is evil in the world – and sadly there is – that it was not by God’s desire or design, for evil is utterly contrary to his nature.
I would further assert that if God did not grant men freedom of choice, then sin and evil, along with whatsoever else comes to pass, must be lain at the feet of God. He who cannot force men to obey (because he has chosen to grant them an irrevocable God-like nature) cannot force them to repent of their freely chosen sin and accept the atonement and forgiveness which is freely offered. As many have wisely explained, God’s only limits are self made – that which he is unwilling to do, as it is contrary to his nature.
It really is as simple as acknowledging that there are indeed limits upon what God CAN do – not because of lack of wisdom, ability or power, but because God CANNOT negate his own will. It is mere distraction to plead ‘God can do anything’, which nearly all grant. God ‘could’ be evil, if he chose. But since there is no evil desires in him, he will not, we can even say he ‘cannot’ choose to do evil. God ‘could’ be unloving, unjust, cruel and tyrannical – if he so chose, and yet God effectively ‘cannot’ be unloving, unjust, cruel and tyrannical because his nature has no such desires. Play all the semantic games you like with the concept, but God ‘cannot’ do many things, without negating what he is.
br.d writes, ‘Why would the Holy Spirit inspire John to infer those who are fated to hear can choose to NOT to hear, when John believes the opposite?”
You misread John. He records Jesus speaking to the churches saying, “Let him who has an ear, hear what the Spirit says to the church.” This denotes that Jesus is not speaking to all people within the church but only to those who have an ear to hear. It does not tell us how some have an ear to hear and others do not.
br.d writes, ‘Why would the Holy Spirit inspire John to infer those who are fated to hear can choose to NOT to hear, when John believes the opposite?”
rhutchin
You misread John. He records Jesus speaking to the churches saying, “Let him who has an ear, hear what the Spirit says to the church.” This denotes that Jesus is not speaking to all people within the church but only to those who have an ear to hear. It does not tell us how some have an ear to hear and others do not.
br.d
Thanks rhutchin – you defeated your own argument and confirmed mine. :-]
phillip writes, “Here’s one.
“…I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they, ‘like myself’, may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.”
For context, the two verses preceding this statement by Paul.
8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel,
9 for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned.
Do you identify the chosen here as Israel?
Strawman (defined): a person regarded as having no substance or integrity
Roger, dear brother, you are on the verge of taking on the form of a “strawman”.
Now I am fully aware that many here were “enlightened” by my exegesis of 2 Timothy 2:10 (some thought it was all about determinism, when the point of providing the video was Piper’s omission of the word “too/also”). And while I have no doubt that most here considered “the elect” to be referring to believers, your pathetic attempt of exegesis regarding that single verse showed the depths of depravity you are willing to go to all for the sake of your sad devotion to Calvinism.
As I stated earlier, no one has to be an English major (or so I thought) to understand the simplicity of that text.
2 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV)…
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also (too) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
With Paul’s previous writings, we have…..
Romans 10:1 (NKJV)….
Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God FOR ISRAEL is that they may be saved.
Romans 9:3-4a (NKJV)….
For I could wish that I myself were ACCURSED FROM CHRIST FOR MY BRETHREN, my countrymen according to the flesh, WHO ARE ISRAELITES…
Romans 11:13-14 (NKJV)….
For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy THOSE WHO ARE MY FLESH and save some of them.
Acts 28:20 (NKJV)….
For this reason therefore I have called for you, to see you and speak with you, because FOR THE HOPE OF ISRAEL I am bound with this chain.
My exegesis is based on letting scripture interpret scripture. Not to mention just being able to read/understand plain English.
2 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV)…
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect (the nation of Israel), that they (the elect) also (along with the non-elect/Gentiles) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Piper is completely wrong about “election”. Piper is completely wrong that Paul had “no clue” who they were. Piper is completely wrong that “Christians are the elect from before the foundations of the world”. There wasn’t one ounce of truth in that 3:46 minute video. I can appreciate Piper’s passion, but his understanding of scripture (and English) was on full display in that video.
Any Berean in that audience should have gotten up and left.
phillip writes, “My exegesis is based on letting scripture interpret scripture. Not to mention just being able to read/understand plain English.
2 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV)…
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect (the nation of Israel), that they (the elect) also (along with the non-elect/Gentiles) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”
In 1 Timothy 1, Paul says “for this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”
Then, 1 Tim 3, “In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.”
Then we come to 2 Timothy 2
1. “You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
2 And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also…
10 For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.
14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers.
Context tells us that Paul thinks of himself as an apostle to the gentiles and that Timothy is dealing with the church in Ephesus filled with gentiles. There is no reason to depart from context and make the “chosen” to be Israel and not the gentiles to whom he has been preaching and over whom Timothy has been placed to continue Paul’s work.
FOH writes….
No matter how many times someone answers or explains a verse he (rhutchin) will always say no one ever answers him. If an answer disagrees with him….. it never existed.
Prophecy fulfilled!
Rhutchin,
Again, please refer to Brian’s Greek analysis of that verse (already supplied and for which you asked). He admitted I had context and scriptural support on my side.
Or you can simply keep that heart of stone.
Brian/FOH,
From a reformed website…..
“Calvinism isn’t a produce stand from which we can pick and choose which doctrines we wish to keep and pass over the rest in a sort of hermeneutical reprobation. Calvinism is an interwoven system of theology which must be accepted or rejected as a whole. From the acceptance of one point, one is compelled by simple logic to the acceptance of all the rest. You can’t deny one without denying them all.”
Now that pretty much sums it up. And that’s precisely why you will have those, like rhutchin, cling to every little concept within that system, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. They know that if one petal of the Tulip were to wither and die, the rest of the flower isn’t far behind.
When I first started to study Calvinism, I remember reading that because all men are born spiritually dead like a corpse (total depravity), that they can’t respond to God. That they are dead to the things of God. I heard/read more than once that a dead man can’t believe anything. And yet Paul writes regarding the lost….
2 Thessalonians 2:11 (NKJV)…
And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie
I didn’t have to go but thru the 3 book of Genesis to find the error of total depravity/total inability…
Genesis 3:10 (NKJV)….
So he (Adam) said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”
Not only could Adam hear God, but he felt shame and guilt. He was aware of his condition. Strange behavior for someone spiritually dead like a corpse. So I guess when the Lord said that “man had become like one of us” (Genesis 3:22) what He meant to say was that “man has become like one of us, totally depraved and incapable of understanding any spiritual truth”.
Its odd when God was telling both Adam and Eve the consequences of their actions, but failed to leave that out.
And, Brian, regarding the U. I find it unfortunate when a Calvinist cries that “God didn’t have to save anyone”. Of course they wouldn’t have a problem with that view (U) since they hit the divine lotto. Why fight/question a view that benefited you?
From a reformed website…..
“Calvinism isn’t a produce stand from……etc
I’ll bet the JWs have a similar advertisement template.
The fact that Calvinism (as a product) has to have such an advertisement strategy is a red-flag that some aspect of the product must be obfuscated in order to get consumers to buy it.
Ironically, the very language strategies Calvinists craft calculating the advantage it produces, reveals the indicators of those things they work to hide. All one need do is understand how false advertising language works.
Phillip,
You are right of course that they are all tied together. 5-pointers scoff (literally deride) others who try to call themselves 4-pointers. That will not do!!! You must shame that guy into the 5th point!
In 30 years I have seen this hold-out point be Limited Atonement. It is the “last to fall” for many people since they just cannot bring themselves to stop saying Christ died for all…. or re-brand “God so loved the world.” (Repeat the following…repeat the following….the “world” means 0.15%….repeat…..) (Repeat the following…repeat the following….if the “world” means everyone….then “Christ failed”…. repeat.) (Repeat the following…repeat the following….if the “world” means everyone….and we know that Christ always gets what He wants….then ghastly universalism is true). (Repeat the following…repeat the following….Christ did not fail….and I am not an ugly universalist (how terrible that would be!!!), so Christ’s death only every intended to cover 0.15%…. repeat).
And they think they dont use logic!
They accuse non-calvinists of “using logic” but none of their points are mentioned in the Bible….. they ALL have to be deduced by stacking “logical ideas” on one another.
Though not exactly germane to your point, FOH, I want to note that when a Traditionalist grows weary of the bob-and-weave of a Calvinist, and finally identifies for the Calvinist his/her logical fallacies, circular reasoning, and straw men, and thus disengages from a Calvinist, then the Calvinist often assumes he/she has won the argument. Apparently, such Calvinists are just as incapable of identifying human disgust as they are human free will.
Phillip,
Very good about Chapter 3 of Genesis that Adam does not sound dead if he feels shame and hides. Go a bit further and see in chapter 4 that God Himself tells Cain that he should and could dominate over the sin that is crouching at his door. Does not sound like He is talking to a dead man!
Phillip…..
Well I declare! I missed this! That reformed quote you gave even admitted that they use “human logic” to stack this altogether:
“From the acceptance of one point, one is compelled by simple logic to the acceptance of all the rest. You can’t deny one without denying them all.”
———–which I guess goes to our original point—— just get people to agree with one point!!! Then you can reel them in with logic.
ps. I still suggest you dont start with “Limited Atonement” since that focuses on how “limited” or “faulty” was the atonement. Stick with how “bad” man is (we can accept that) then go from there.
FOH,
That quote was in regards to the atonement of Christ, thus denying there is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist.
At one time, I visited a small reformed church. They were 4 point Calvinists. They believe that God grants faith to His elect. Now they never preached “Calvinism” out loud, but I knew what they believed. They never really wanted to discuss it with me (perhaps thinking it would be divisive). So while they believed Christ died for all, God denied most the access (via faith) to the cross.
The question I always wanted to ask them (but never did. I moved on) was “if man is totally depraved and by nature a ‘God hater’, what good would it do to grant them faith?” Just because you give someone an elliptical, don’t they still have to have the desire to get on it? How does granting faith deal with issue of total depravity? How does granting someone with an ability ensure they will use it?
Regarding “desire” I found this…
Acts 13:7 (KJV)….
Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and “desired” to hear the word of God.
Desired to hear the word of God? An unregenerate sinner? I even had an Arminian (who also holds to TD/TI) go to great lengths to explain that verse away.
Phillip,
And there’s more!
Calvinists get a lot of mileage out of the idea of God “opening the heart” of Lydia…. but they never mention that she already was in a place of prayer…. and was “a worshiper of God.”
When did their pre-justification, pre-faith “regeneration” take place —- when He opened her heart? Or when she was a “worshiper of God”? She was regenerated enough to be a “worshiper of God” (not a God-hater!!!) ….. then she was regenerated some more— when He opened her heart….. then she exercised her (irresistibly-given) faith and believe.
Remember also that for every 1 of their 40-50 gotcha verses….. there are hundreds of contradicting verses. But all these contradicting verses must take a back seat, or be filtered/ interpreted BY the reformed-looking verses.
Coming to the text with the reformed view (or being taught it) then filtering all things through 40 verses interpreted their way…. that is the method.
In regard to Calvinists wanting to explain verses away.
I remember Dr. Gordon Fee talking about the years he taught in Seminary – say that within each new crop of students coming to him in their first semester, there would invariable be a few coming from Calvinist churches who would bring with them a list of verses.
And they (assuming he was reformed) would ask him “How do we get around these verses”.
And he would say “I’m sorry I can’t help you with that”. :-]
FOH,
Regarding Lydia…
Acts 16:13-14 (NKJV)….
And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
Odd to find a “God hater” at a place of prayer. And, yes, Lydia was found already worshipping God.
Yes, our Calvinist brothers make the “opening of Lydia’s heart” as a reference to regeneration. But notice it says God opened her heart, not that God bestowed spiritual life.
I see this “opening of Lydia’s heart” referring to the planting of the seed, or the word of God (Luke 8:11-16). Just as a farmer must “open” the soil before planting, so must God with His word.
And though James is writing to the Jews, we can still see application for us.
James 1:21 (NIV)….
Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
Phillip,
Calvin’s god uses a special form of witchcraft in heaven – as the divine “Means” of casting the spell of “irresistable” on people.
This TOP SECRET “irresistible” spell changes a person from being a “God Hater” to a “God Fearer”.
That’s what happened to Lydia. :-]
FOH,
The list is endless, but just one more.
John 8:2-9 (NKJV)….
Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last.
These unregenerate sinners “heard” Him. They were “convicted” by their own conscience. They knew they were guilty (understood spiritual truth), which is why they walked off one by one, starting with the oldest. Strange response for a bunch of spiritually dead corpses.
However, this confirms Hebrews 4:12 (NKJV)….
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Another nail in Calvin’s coffin, Phillip.
“Calvinism isn’t a produce stand from which we can pick and choose … You can’t deny one without denying them all.”
This is why staunch 5-pointers are in a club all their own. 4-pointers need not apply.
Further, is it not the height of sophistry to demand that one swallow it all — or none? What an exclusive club that is. Such snobbery. (I would call it theological snobbery, but that would be only half right.)
The above quote from the Calvie website is damning to Calvinism, and is such by this phrase: “Calvinism is an interwoven system of theology…” Does such a conviction come from the Bible or the Institutes? Who did the weaving but men with fallen hearts and brains?
And you are right, FOH. Calvinists act as though no one has answered their conundrums, ever. Hutch, e.g., was the same way at SBCToday. As the (then) moderator, I, as well as others, wondered if his commitment was to Calvinism or contention. I decided the latter and banned him. The only aspect of that act I regret is feeling “too good” about it. Today, those who are blinded by their commitment to Calvin ultimately end up on my list of pity. Seriously.
Norm,
I understand the “feeling too good” remark. We all have to contend with the flesh, brother. At least you didn’t do it out of vengeance.
It is my hope and prayer that rhutchin will look closely at 2 Timothy 2:10 and let the scriptures speak. He needs to do his own exegesis, and if it differs from mine, then please supply it. Until he can do that (since this thread has to do with those who are chosen/elected), then he should remain silent. My view of that verse has been laid out for all to see (with scriptural support). Brother Brian provided the Greek (which rhutchin requested) stating I had context and scriptural evidence on my side. Piper was wrong. Dead wrong. On every point. A 3:46 minute video showing Piper’s lack of scriptural understanding (not to mention his lack of understanding of English).
Blessings, brother.
Yes, the Bereans did their own “exegesis.” And I have done mine. Ronnie Rogers did his own as well. Leighton did his. And so on it goes.
It is not enough to accept what some write about Scripture. One must let the Holy Spirit teach, too, as the definitive authority. And that comes from individual study and prayer, and not necessarily from commentaries.
Most Calvinists just have too much invested in Calvin to reject him. When will they realize that the Emperor has no clothes, and by extension, they also are naked?
Norm writes:
“It is not enough to accept what some write about Scripture. One must let the Holy Spirit teach, too, as the definitive authority. And that comes from individual study and prayer, and not necessarily from commentaries.
Most Calvinists just have too much invested in Calvin to reject him. When will they realize that the Emperor has no clothes, and by extension, they also are naked?”
The problem is that the conservative, fundamentalist Institutional Church – just like the Catholicism from which it sprang – (particularly the Calvinist wing) all but forbids the individual from seeking out the leading and teaching of the Holy Spirit. Oh, they give it lip service, but they rush to misapply 1 Peter to say that ‘no scripture is of private interpretation’. When read in context, Peter, who speaks of particular ‘prophecies’ – not all scripture – seeks to assure his readers that the prophecies surrounding Jesus, and concerning our promised entrance into God’s eternal kingdom are not merely something the apostles made up or interpreted as they wished, but sent by the mouths of multiple prophets and verified by God’s own Son.
It is a huge distortion, and a grave disservice to to take this fragment of assurance and attempt to suggest that it forbids men from independently seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit and grappling with the meaning of scripture. Particularly since Paul commended those Bereans who did just that. He praised, not condemned them, for refusing to take his ‘authoritive’ word for it and diligently searching the scriptures with their own minds. He did not play the ‘When I speak from the pulpit, I speak for God’ card, despite being far more authoritative than Calvin or any future teacher. Yet the authoritarian Institutional Church frequently condemns those who would be a Berean, and commands them to trust, without question, the ‘orthodox’ interpretation of self-claimed religious leaders and councils. It’s one of the first phrases that will be thrown at you when you begin to challenge institutionalized doctrine. I am memorizing it properly, in hopes of gently correcting a friend who frequently quotes it to me inaccurately and out of context.
Indeed, I have heard the well worn answers so often I can pretty accurately predict which one of the key prooftexts will be thrown at me and when. Here’s the thing: these Calvinists spout these answers so smugly, as if they think you have never heard them or have no reply. They look at you as if they have just pronounced the final word, and all you can do is bow humbly at their feet. It is nearly impossible to get them to see that all they are doing is reciting one of many interpretations of scripture, and usually a fragment yanked out of context at that. No matter how respectfully I try to explain, such loyalists simply cannot accept that others have different interpretations, and it is both arrogant and unfair to condemn others as ignorant, heretical or God-hating simply because they have a different viewpoint on what a particular scripture means.
This is, in my opinion, the greatest weakness of the conservative fundamentalist – a title I have deserved for most of my 50+ years. How many times did patient friends and relatives put up with my ignorance and arrogance, as I thoughtlessly dismissed their opinions as ‘not what the bible says’? I had been duly brainwashed into believing that my opinion – given to me by self-claimed ‘authorities’ – was the ‘right’ opinion.
An earnest acquaintance, discussing concerns for her 22 year old daughter at graduation, cited the well-worn, ‘There is only one Truth’, as if she just happened to be the one in full possession of it. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. I knew better than to continue the discussion, though I dearly wanted to suggest that we simply have to respect the right of our grown children to have their own opinions and chart their own paths with God, rather than obediently mimic ours. I regret the almost inevitable heartache as she seeks to rigidly control her daughter’s future in every minute detail.
Well meaning as they might be, such people simply do not see how arrogantly and inappropriately certain they are in their own opinions. When you are fully convinced that you have the ‘right’ answers, anyone who disagrees just doesn’t understand ‘the Truth’. You cannot reason with someone who is that simplistic, nor will they ever understand why their children are forced to push them away in order to assert their God-given right to make their own choices. In fact, such parents often forfeit the very assistance they might otherwise be able to give by not letting go as they should.
I agree with you, Norm: I stand utterly naked before God, with no wisdom of my own. I must allow him to patiently and wisely lead me down the right paths, and be wary of the many, many false teachers who insist that I must follow them. His promise is to give me the understanding that I need, not what my spouse, child, friend or parishioner needs. We must stand aside and allow others to walk their own individual walk; something the legalistic fundamentalist is unwilling to do in his demand for cookie cutter conformity to ‘his’ truth.
Norm writes… “…that comes from individual study and prayer, and not necessarily from commentaries.”
Exactly, brother. No one taught me 2 Timothy 2:10. That came from doing my own due diligence and prayer (the Lord took me to that verse). I’ve said this before, but much of the material out there is either Calvinism or Arminianism. I knew there had to be another alternative. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are wrong regarding election. I had never seen C. S. Lewis’ quote that you had provided….
“The chosen were chosen for the sake of the unchosen.”
That brother nailed it. I could just as easily say….
“Israel was chosen for the sake of the Gentiles”.
And I don’t become “chosen” just because I chose to believe.
FOH,
“Calvinism isn’t a produce stand from which we can pick and choose which doctrines we wish to keep and pass over the rest in a sort of hermeneutical reprobation. Calvinism is an interwoven system of theology which must be accepted or rejected as a whole. From the acceptance of one point, one is compelled by simple logic to the acceptance of all the rest. You can’t deny one without denying them all.”
This is why I maintain that brother Ronnie Rogers is still a Calvinist (or Arminian if you prefer). He admits he was a 4 point Calvinist (rejecting limited atonement), but still adheres to TD/TI and a form of irresistible grace (I). Now I love the guy, but there is still a residue of Calvinism in him. He just jettisoned 2 points and kept the rest. To me, using reformed logic, if you reject one point you should, eventually, reject them all.
I think my brothers at SBC Today would be better advised to state that brother Rogers is a former 4 point Calvinist. I mean, if brother Rogers is a former Calvinist, what does that make Leighton (who rejects and preaches against all 5 points)? Brothers Ronnie and Leighton can’t both be right.
In “the Traditional Statement, Article 2: The Sinfulness of Man” it reads…
“We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.”
But brother Rogers doesn’t believe in a “free” response, but rather a “freed” response. That’s the classical Arminian response. And that “freed” response is the result of a form of irresistible grace. If brother Rogers’ view is in line with the rest of the contributors of the Statement (and he claims they are) then the statement is misleading at best. Apparently we need to read the fine print. It broke my heart when my SBCT brothers and sisters didn’t notice this (though at least a couple did that I know of).
I am not a Calvinist nor an Arminian. Rather, I am a Baptist.
Agreed, there is much about Arminianism that I believe is biblical — except that part about the insecurity of the believer. And there may be other aspects as well.
I am trying not to have my theology defined by anyone else’s name or “interwoven system of ‘theology.'” That’s why I would say that if Arminius and I agree on certain portions of the Bible, that does not make me an Arminian. It makes Arminius a biblicist like me.
Still pondering your observations about Ronnie Rogers.
Disagree, or I don’t understand this: “And that ‘freed’ response is the result of a form of irresistible grace.”
Just because God taps the lost sinner on the spiritual shoulder and says, “We’ve got a problem,” does not mean the response must be positive, although the Calvinist would say it would be, irresistibly. Plus, I believe there is a substantive diff between total depravity and total inability. I would say that there is no part of us that sin has not tainted, but I also believe there is nothing biblical to support total inability. I think we must say that God moves first, and then man chooses to respond either positively or negatively. And the only way anyone comes to that choice is by some action of God, but that action does not make grace irresistible. Just my opinion.
Am I wrong?
Norm,
Thanks for the response.
I agree wholeheartedly with Article 2 of the Traditional Statement (as it appears). And I agree with you that while man is corrupt from head to toe, he never lost the ability to respond to God (favorably or otherwise). Period.
Does God take the initiative? Yes. Does this initiative overcome man’s depravity and restore him to a pre-fall condition? No. That’s Calvinism/Arminianism. The difference is subtle, but its there nonetheless.
The difference between Calvinism’s irresistible grace and Arminianism’s irresistible grace is the “goal”. For the Calvinist, irresistible grace overcomes man’s depravity, thus guaranteeing a positive response to the gospel. For the Arminian, irresistible grace overcomes the effects of the fall, restoring man to a pre-fall condition, thus putting him in a position where he can now choose (which he lacked the ability to do so before). But both goals are 100% successful, thus irresistible. Otherwise, you would have to explain why one fallen sinner willingly cooperated with this grace and not the other.
Now, does God tap us on the shoulder and say “We have a problem.” Of course. But that tapping on the shoulder does not overcome, much less reduce, man’s depravity.
Again, if you adhere to TD/TI, then you have to adhere to some form of irresistible grace. Arminianism is just Calvinism lite.
Hope this helps.
Phillip,
Which is why a new wave of folks are saying that the standard position of foreknowledge/ omniscience is just Calvinism lite.
God preordains all deeds, sins. (Calvinism).
Or God only “knows” what will happen. (most others)
Of you course you have to ask if He knows it a thousand years before it will happen, then His knowledge of it “locks it in.” You cannot possibly do differently than He knew you would do—therefore His knowing of it has trumped your actions…. and spiraling back to determinist-Calvinism you go….
Of you course you have to ask if He knows it a thousand years before it will happen, then His knowledge of it “locks it in.” You cannot possibly do differently than He knew you would do—therefore His knowing of it has trumped your actions…. and spiraling back to determinist-Calvinism you go….
In regard to this point – Dr. Alvin Plantinga, in his debates with Atheists who argued that God cannot exist if evil exists, published his internationally known work called “The Free Will Defense”, which relies upon Libertarian Free will as a way of showing that evil and an all loving God can both exist.
Plantinga explains, one does not have to actually prove that Libertarian Free will exists to defeat the Atheist argument.
One is only obligated to prove it is logically valid that it exists. And having done done that, the Atheist’s argument loses much of its power.
Similarly on the Calvinists argument that you detailed, Christian Philosophers have “The Ockham/Molina” solution.
Adherents of this solution include Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig as well as others.
Again, one does not have to prove this solution is the only answer.
One is only obligated to prove that it is fully viable and logically sound.
It also enjoys being free of the ethical problems that come with Theological Determinism which Calvinists work so hard to obfuscate.
Norm,
Perhaps this will add some clarification (taken from SBCT with brother Ronnie and Rick Patrick).
Brother Ronnie (Rogers) writes in response to me….
“It appears to me, that you believe upon hearing the gospel man today has unfettered freedom to choose to seek and follow God; consequently, his choosing is on par with Adam’s in that no other works of God are necessary to overcome (call it enable, overcome, place man in a position of true understanding and freedom to choose to follow or not etc.,) the effects of the fall so that sinful man may be freed to decide as Adam did…… Yes, he can respond to God because the Holy Spirit’s initiative, drawing, and gospel are all grace-enablements.”
From brother Rick responding to me….
“He (fallen man) has not lost the ability freely to respond to the gospel.”
Again, brother Ronnie…
“…the effects of the fall so that sinful man may be FREED to decide…. he can respond to God because the Holy Spirit’s initiative, drawing, and gospel are all grace-enablements”
So, according to Rick, fallen man is “free” to respond TO God’s initiative.
According to Ronnie, fallen man must first be “freed” BY God’s initiative.
The first (Rick’s) is traditionalism.
The latter (Ronnie’s) is Arminianism.
And I couldn’t get them to see the difference. But there were at least a couple on-lookers who did (Andy and Mary).
Now I love both brothers. But is the gospel of the cross (the word of God) sufficient to save? Is the cross enough? Or is additional grace needed (that is, a grace that overcomes man’s fallen nature)? I think God’s holy writ shows that many times the spoken word is suffice.
Those are interesting distinctions. Could they both be true? If we go back to the Incarnation, is that not God making the initial move in salvation? Of course, that was the whole purpose of the Incarnation, right? In salvation, God is the first mover. That of course does nothing re: total inability, so-called irresistible grace, or the freedom of a man to respond to the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation.
If you relegate salvation to the spoken word only, what room does that leave for repentance and faith? I don’t think you meant to imply that, but that is what your sentence seems to say; “I think God’s holy writ shows that many times the spoken word is suffice (sufficient).”
What is that spoken word? The Gospel is, of course, and we know who originated the Gospel.
So, even though I agree with Rick in that we are free to choose, would not Ronnie’s point also be true in that it is God’s grace that initiates that “tap on the shoulder”?
I see the distinctions you are making, but I don’t see them as mutually exclusive. I see them as partners as much as grace and faith are necessary partners as noted in Eph. 2.8.
I think no one ever wakes up one morning and says, “I will become a Christian today,” and then truly accomplishes that without God first moving in some way in their lives — which is grace. the Spirit’s quickening and wooing are expressions of grace. But none of it is irresistible.
is this not more of a symantical matter?
Norm,
Not really.
Either man lost the ability to freely respond to the word of God or he didn’t (TS). So the question is, does this “tap on the shoulder” overcome man’s fallen nature? Put simply, was Adam restored to a pre-fall condition immediately/shortly after the fall? If so, when? According to brother Ronnie, he had to be before he could show signs of faith and repentance.
I don’t see any scriptural evidence that we are restored to a pre-fall condition prior to faith and repentance. Where in scripture does it say the effects of the fall are overcome so we can believe/repent?
Also, the Spirit breathed scriptures (the word of God) enables both faith in repentance. Sorry if I implied differently. Those, too, will come by the written word (Hebrews 4:12). And by “enable” I mean provide the evidence necessary. Not overcome our depraved nature.
Now, you are correct that no one says “I will become a Christian today” without the word of God first planted in his heart. But, again, this planting of the word of God does not overcome our fallen nature and restore us to a pre-fallen condition.
What was our pre-Fall condition?
Good. Very good (Genesis 1:31). And unmarred by sin.
Norm,
Brother, as a part time preacher (or full time for that matter), have you ever taught from the pulpit that we must be restored to a pre-fallen state if we are to have any chance of faith and repentance?
No. You are the first to mention that to me. And why would I? Adam had a choice in the Garden. What logic says he lost that ability?
What was Adam’s pre-Fallen state?
Norm,
“What logic says he lost that ability?”
Augustinian logic.
“What was Adam’s pre-Fallen state?”
Same as stated previously. Good. Very Good. Unmarred by sin.
Again, brother Rogers in response to me…
“It appears to me, that you believe upon hearing the gospel man today has unfettered freedom to choose to seek and follow God; consequently, his choosing is on par with Adam’s in that no other works of God are necessary to overcome (call it enable, overcome, place man in a position of true understanding and freedom to choose to follow or not etc.,) the effects of the fall so that sinful man may be freed to decide as Adam did…… Yes, he can respond to God because the Holy Spirit’s initiative, drawing, and gospel are all grace-enablements.”
Overcome the effects of the fall? Freed to decide as Adam did? Now where is that taught in scripture? What verses? Or could it just possibly be a hangover from those 4 pointer days?
Classical Arminian Roger Olson writes….
“My most basic, fundamental reason for being Arminian rather than Calvinist (and those are the two main theological options among evangelical Christians—even where they do not call them by those names) is the character of God. I am not a humanist lover of free will; the only reason I believe in free will (or ‘FREED WILL’—made free by God’s ‘prevenient grace’) is because I see it everywhere assumed in the Bible and without it God would be monstrous rather than loving (unless he saves everyone).”
“However, with a very strong view of original sin and inherited depravity (based on Romans 1 and 3) I struggle with whether general revelation does anyone any good spiritually–unless and until their eyes are opened and their wills FREED by prevenient grace.”
“Without God’s prevenient grace, we would not be free, so we don’t believe in Free Will, we believe in the FREED WILL.”
Now compare that with brother Ronnie…
“….other works of God are necessary to overcome the effects of the fall so that sinful man may be FREED to decide as Adam did…”
Norm,
Again, the TS clearly reads…
“We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will…”
Brother Ronnie’s stance, no matter how you slice it, is in clear contradiction of the view.
Thank you for this post Phillip!
I just noticed something in Olson’s statement. He calls it “FREED” will.
This is completely the opposite of Calvinism’s “DIVINELY HOG-TIED” will.
Br.D,
But just as irresistible as Calvinism’s. Again, if you are going to embrace the Augustinian notion of Total Depravity/Total Inability, you are going to have to embrace some form of irresistible grace as well. That is why I refer to Arminianism as Calvinism Lite.
Hi Phillip,
I think what you might be referring to is the need for what Arminians call “prevenient grace”.
And one might make the case that Arminianism, at least to some degree, is a spin-off of Calvinism, since Arminius himself started out that way and rejected it later.
But I’m curious about how things work.
Lets say we have the situation where Jesus is commanding the lame man to stand and walk.
Is any supernatural force at work – in this process of his healing?
I’ve had some time to rethink this.
Perhaps what you are referring to, is Luther’s “bondage of the will” doctrine.
In this doctrine, what is specifically depraved is the human will.
And accordingly this person needs some kind of electric-shock or divine-spell applied to it, in order to change the will.
And this then is a necessary condition, required for the will to proceed towards believing faith.
If that’s what they mean by “prevenient” grace, then yes I agree with you – there is similarity.
Where it would be different, it seems to me, is that “prevenient” grace is not said to be irresistible.
Would you agree?
phillip writes, “if you are going to embrace the Augustinian notion of Total Depravity/Total Inability, you are going to have to embrace some form of irresistible grace as well. That is why I refer to Arminianism as Calvinism Lite.”
Arminianism’s irresistible grace is prevenient grace. It is applied to each and all and removes TD from each and all. The Arminian is then left with Pelagianism – with the person unencumbered by a sin nature and able to make free will choices. The Calvinists do the same thing and call it saving grace but apply it only to the elect.
From an Arminian website….
“Resistible prevenient grace is a doctrine concerning a type of grace that offsets the noetic effects of the Fall, restores man’s free will, and thus enables every person to choose to come to Christ or not.”
In a desperate attempt to distance itself from Calvinism, Arminianism calls it “resistible” prevenient grace. But that’s not true. Exactly what is the sinner resisting? The grace that offsets the noetic effects of the Fall? Or just, in this case, the offer of the gospel of Christ? Again, the “goal” of prevenient grace is to offset the noetic effects of the Fall and restore man’s free will, not to accept or reject the good news. If everyone’s free will is restored, without the sinner’s consent, just how is that not irresistible?
Br.D,
Excellent question.
So does that not imply that man must experience a partial healing before he can believe? That’s certainly the implication.
And yet the Lord told the young girl…
Matthew 9:22 (NKJV)….
“….your faith has healed you.”
So must we be partially healed so we can exercise faith and then receive a complete healing? Where is that taught in scripture?
Matthew 9:22 (NKJV)….
“….your faith has healed you.”
So must we be partially healed so we can exercise faith and then receive a complete healing? Where is that taught in scripture?
br.d
What are your thoughts on the father of the demonized boy who said “I believe – please help me with my lack of belief”
For me, at least what I can understand currently, God always reaches out to us and provides only that degree of intervention we might need. Using the metaphor of a drowning person, one person may be able to reach the rope thrown to him, while another person may be unconscious. Yet God is able to save both of them.
Wouldn’t it be reasonable to say that God provides whatever provision is necessary for either person based upon their ability?
For one person, who is an intellectual, perhaps just listening to Ravi Zacharias and his logical arguments might work.
No supernatural intervention of any kind necessary.
While a person ensnared in demonism might have different entanglements he needs to be freed from.
Does that make sense?
Br.D,
First….
“What are your thoughts on the father of the demonized boy who said ‘I believe – please help me with my lack of belief’”
He was asking for proof or evidence.
Second…
“Wouldn’t it be reasonable to say that God provides whatever provision is necessary for either person based upon their ability?”
I don’t know about their “ability”, but rather their “willingness”. If you go to the gospel of John you will find some people required little evidence at all; while others needed much more convincing. For some, it took only the Samaritan woman’s witness (John 4:39), while other had to hear for themselves (John 4:32). For some it took Jesus turning the water into wine (John 2:9-11), while for others it took the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:45).
Each in every time someone believed in Jesus, it was either because of something he said (divine word) or did (divine miracle). There was never any mention of the noetic effects of the fall being offset or people’s free will restored. In fact, just the opposite….
John 8:31-32….
Then Jesus said to those Jews WHO BELIEVED HIM, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.”
Yes – I have very similar thoughts as yours.
I was thinking about the lame man actually in terms you describe – and perhaps his certainty developing in phases.
Perhaps he thought getting up on his elbows would be normal in his condition so he could at least do that.
And in doing that perhaps he discovered new sensations in his legs he had not felt before.
And that raised his level of certainty – and with that he perhaps attempted to sit up further.
And having done that he then felt more strength come into his body …. etc.
It occurs to me that there is a model which Jesus’ healings tend to follow.
That of giving a command and expecting the person to obey it.
And the healing occurs during the person’s exercise of faith.
I see this model also in the OT with the miracles with Moses, Joshua, Elisha etc.
I think I agree with you on not seeing any instances in scripture where someone doesn’t have sufficient free will and God must supernaturally affect that person’s will. It appears to me that God approaches people with the degree of free will they already have.
phillip writes, “…In fact, just the opposite….
John 8:31-32….
Then Jesus said to those Jews WHO BELIEVED HIM, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.”
Then, we conclude that the word is not the basis for one to believe – only after one believes and then begins to abide in His word does he come to truth.
Br.D,
“I think I agree with you on not seeing any instances in scripture where someone doesn’t have sufficient free will and God must supernaturally affect that person’s will. It appears to me that God approaches people with the degree of free will they already have.”
Precisely. No total inability. Just another death blow to Calvinism/Arminianism. And, yet, Olson says… “those are the two main theological options among evangelical Christians—even where they do not call them by those names.”
Sure (insert sarcasm).
Oh, I think on that comment by Olsen, he’s more than likely referring to the preponderance of the protestant denominations and the degree which they are based one Libertarian free will vs Determinism. From what I’ve seen of statistics, the vast majority assume Libertarian free will. That’s why you see them represented in the major Christian films like “God’s not dead” etc. Most of the church members in these groups have never heard the word Arminian. Pentecostals fall into that camp as well and they are the fastest growing group. I suspect Dr. Olsen lumps Christians who assume Libertarian free will into the Arminan camp, since that is his persuasion.
But if you ask them who Arminius is, they wouldn’t have a clue.
Roger Olson writes…..
“It doesn’t matter what ‘most Baptists’ believe or what is the ‘traditional Southern Baptist understanding’. For a long time I’ve been stating that most American Christians, including most Baptists, are semi-Pelagian, not Arminian and not merely non-Calvinist.”
Br.D,
I think Olson was alluding to that Calvinism/Arminianism are the two main theological options. Period. All others are on the verge of heresy..
phillip writes, ” Where in scripture does it say the effects of the fall are overcome so we can believe/repent?”
Calvinists point to John 3 and the necessity of the new birth before one can see/ enter the kingdom (believe/repent to be saved).
I sent one of your comments to Ronnie Rogers and a link to this page. But he was unable to get to the link from his church office. So, he answered via email. And that email is below. It is long. So I hope the moderator will allow it.
All of Ronnie’s answer being with [Ronnie Rogers], and there is significant spacing to identify your question or statements and his response to each.
I did not think that Ronnie was all that you said he was (is), and I was right, But, Phillip, please know I did not do this for a petty game of one-upsmanship. Not at all. I believe that you and most of the others here are very sincere (and mostly right, HA!) in your pursuit of soteriological truth. And I wanted to give Ronnie a chance to clarify what seemed to me to be valid points that you raised.
Here goes …..
This is why I maintain that brother Ronnie Rogers is still a Calvinist (or Arminian if you prefer). He admits he was a 4 point Calvinist (rejecting limited atonement), but still adheres to TD/TI and a form of irresistible grace (I).
[Ronnie W. Rogers]
First, I reject the TULIP in its entirety (including all Calvinist’ assumptions i.e. the sepals and soil in which the TULIP is planted); I have written an article on SBC Today entitled, “The Tulip Petals in Full Bloom” sent 5-6-13. See the mutually exclusive perspectives that may use similar language; there is a reason no knowledgeable Calvinist calls me a Calvinist. I am not an Arminian, and I did not know we were joining the Calvinists in fighting against them.
Second, I believe in TD, but that does not make me a Calvinist because the other option to TD is partial depravity, which I do reject. I think the fall deleteriously affected every component and property of man, including his emotions, cognition, spiritual being, volition, etc.; I mean man is so affected by the fall that he is — apart from the grace of God, who provided everything necessary for the salvation of every human being in his coextensive creation/redemption plan — unable to adequately understand the depth of his spiritual depravity, to make a spiritually restorative move toward God, or be restored to God on his own. That is, the grace given Adam in creation was sufficient for man to relate to God prior to the fall, but it is insufficient subsequent to the fall to be restored to God; hence, God’s redemptive plan provides the necessary grace enablements so that anyone and everyone can believe. The effects of the fall have been overcome, not by God’s creative grace as Adam had, but by his redemptive grace for Adam and all mankind; outside of the person of God, this seems to be the dominant theme of Scripture after the fall.
Third, Man did not lose his libertarian freewill in the fall, but he did lose the ability to be right with God if God had not, by grace, provided everything necessary in his redemptive plan. When I say salvation is by grace, I do mean every component of it and everything in it; to wit, everything and anything that is a part of moving from lostness to righteousness is by grace. Without trying to read into his position, it seems to me if post-fall man can choose to believe by his own ability apart from God’s grace, it is an ability that was present at the fall but remained unsullied by the fall; therefore, man is not totally affected by the fall TD (extensively speaking i.e. every property), but only partially affected, i.e. partial depravity. Further, it seems to me, that makes it an act of fallen man, which has its origin and power from outside the redemptive grace of God needed for the redemption of man; I am unwilling to concede that, but that does not make me a Calvinist; rather one who believes every aspect of salvation is by grace i.e. neither a Calvinist nor a Pelagian.
Fourth, the inability in Calvinism is inextricably tied to compatibilism, which I utterly reject; it sets up an entirely different reason for sin and need and process of salvation. By TD, I include the idea that Adam could not resolve the problem of his sin. Neither Adam nor anyone else can come to God, if he had not, through his redemptive love, overcome the effects of the fall so that fallen man, still in his fallen state, can choose to believe unto salvation or reject his offer. I believe every aspect of God’s redemptive work is necessary. His grace-enablements are necessary; to wit, he initiates everything all by grace, and he seeks and enables us to return. Some of the things God does to accomplish this are, enlightenment of the Son, Conviction of the Holy Spirit, drawing of the Son and Father, calling of the Father, power of the gospel. I do reject that Adam was, after the fall, still sufficiently able to relate to God in the manner he had prior to the fall. The commenter seems to very much misunderstand what Calvinists actually believe and what I believe. In light of my writings, no consistent knowledgeable Calvinists would call me a Calvinist. The commenter needs to understand similar does not equal sameness when there are essential dissimilarities, which there are between my position and Calvinism.
Fifth, I reject any and every form of irresistible grace. I believe God graciously grants every human a chance to believe or reject him with full knowledge and understanding of what they are rejecting or accepting.
Now I love the guy, but there is still a residue of Calvinism in him. He just jettisoned 2 points and kept the rest.
[Ronnie W. Rogers]
This is simply inaccurate. I argue against determinism including IR, regularly.
To me, using reformed logic, if you reject one point you should, eventually, reject them all
[Ronnie W. Rogers]
I agree. I do not accept any of the five points as defined by Calvinists, but that is just scratching the surface regarding what I reject in Calvinism; there is much more I do not accept as defined by Calvinists—foreknowledge, love, their understanding of the gospel and gospel encounter, the nature of the call of the gospel, compatibilism, ad infinitum.
I think my brothers at SBC Today would be better advised to state that brother Rogers is a former 4 point Calvinist. I mean, if brother Rogers is a former Calvinist, what does that make Leighton (who rejects and preaches against all 5 points)?
[Ronnie W. Rogers]
I do not want to comment on Leighton’s thought but only to say, I appreciate him and just because we may use different terms, etc., does not mean one of us, I guess that would be me, is a closet Calvinist.
Brothers Ronnie and Leighton can’t both be right. In “the Traditional Statement, Article 2: The Sinfulness of Man” it reads…
“We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.
[Ronnie W. Rogers]
First, I would encourage the commenter to read Dr. Harwood’s explanation of this article in the book, “Anyone Can Be Saved.” Here are a few quotes by him. He says, “The TS affirms both man’s lost condition and God’s gracious provision of salvation by grace through faith in Christ (Eph 2:8–9) as the only way by which people may be saved from their hopeless and helpless condition.”(p37) He notes, “After providing two qualifications, Article 2 affirms that people can resist God’s saving grace. First, Article 2 affirms that ‘no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort.’ Second, it denies ‘that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the gospel’”(p38) He further notes, “Article 2 denies the Calvinistic view that sinners are unable to repent and confess faith in Christ until they are first regenerated by God. Instead, the TS affirms that people who are saved by grace alone are called and enabled to exert their will by placing their faith or trust in Christ alone.” (p38) This is precisely what I have argued and believe. It might do the commenter well to read this book, paying particular attention to the nuanced language of the contributors. I might suggest he read my writings over the last five years with the same attentiveness to what I say rather than what he assumes I say and mean. Sometimes non-Calvinists wording is different. There is even some latitude for differences in some salvific processes, but there are no Calvinists nor Pelagians in the camp that I know of.
Second, I do not think we are guilty because of Adam’s sin, although, we are dead in sin and have a sin nature, etc. It seems inarguable that we do not have the same range of choices as Adam (the range of options changes within libertarian free beings regularly, but that does not equal a loss of libertarian freedom); thus, it seems man in his-post fall state has a diminished capacity in his libertarian freedom—as is true with the rest of his properties as well. For example, prior to the fall Adam, based upon the way he was created, could choose to walk in fellowship with God, apparently forever. He could have chosen not to die. He could have chosen to stay in the garden forever; therefore, since none of these existed after the fall, he had less capacity, if you will, to choose than he did prior to the fall. Redemptive grace overcomes this.
My understanding of the less capacity in this statement relates more to answering the positon of Calvinism rather than maintaining Adam’s spiritual ability to walk with God, range of options including staying in the garden, were unscathed by the fall (see above quotes). There seem to be other changes as well. For example, we see by his actions, he did not understand the profoundness of his own sin, nor what it would actually take to remedy his plight (since he tried to remedy it by using something within creation); he did not choose to go to God; he did not seek God but God sought him. It seems he desired to stay in the garden, but he could not. So I believe man still had libertarian freedom, but his range of options changed; further, as I understand the Scripture, if God had not done such things as send Christ to die, Holy Spirit to convict, Father and Son to draw and pursue lost man (as we see with Adam), overcome the blinding of Satan, man could not rectify his situation. Man’s lostness is total; it affected everything. As I see it, we are dealing with whether man is TD or partially depraved and whether every aspect of God’s salvation plan is of grace or there is something man can do, apart from redemptive grace, to be saved.
While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.”
[Ronnie W. Rogers]
I agree
But brother Rogers doesn’t believe in a “free” response, but rather a “freed” response. That’s the classical Arminian response.”
[Ronnie W. Rogers] I make no apologies if my response happens to coincide with Arminianism, Molinism or even Calvinism at places (I agree with Calvinists man is lost, God is sovereign, but do adamantly disagree on definitions of such). The goal is not to only say what someone else does not say, but rather, to articulate what the Scripture says and means by what it says. I agree with all orthodox views that I am aware of that, apart from God’s initiation, which is by grace, no one could or would be saved. This is a part of God’s grace-enablement, which both Dr. Harwood and I speak. It is an enablement not because of our merit but his grace. Fallen man does not come looking for God. As stated, I do believe the fall affected man spiritually to the point that God’s grace-enablements are necessary for man to be able to fully understand his plight and freely believe unto salvation or reject God’s grace salvation; these enablements are provided to everyone regardless if they believe unto salvation or reject what they could have accepted; no consistent and knowledgeable Calvinists would accept my answer.
And that “freed” response is the result of a form of irresistible grace.
[Ronnie W. Rogers]
Irresistible grace does not follow logically nor biblically from a belief in a freed will. I have, to the point of bothersome redundancy, argued against irresistible grace.
If brother Rogers’ view is in line with the rest of the contributors of the Statement (and he claims they are) then the statement is misleading at best. Apparently we need to read the fine print. It broke my heart when my SBCT brothers and sisters didn’t notice this (though at least a couple did that I know of).”
[Ronnie W. Rogers]
I am sorry he feels that way. My most recent article, Can Human Acts Like Prayers and Childrearing Really Affect Someone’s Salvation? would not be accepted by any knowledgeable and consistent Calvinists.
Norm,
Thanks, brother, for taking the time to reach out to Ronnie and please thank him for graciously taking the time to respond. Its appreciated.
Since Ronnie only received a portion of the discussion, I can understand some of his confusion. I am aware of the subtle (and some not so subtle) differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, so I won’t go into detail here.
Ronnie writes….. “I do not accept any of the five points as defined by Calvinists.”
I never said he did. But it seems he does accept a couple of those points as defined by Arminians. The focus here is solely on TD/TI and IG.
Let’s just take some of the comments that Ronnie provided here.
Ronnie writes…. “The effects of the fall have been overcome, not by God’s creative grace as Adam had, but by his redemptive grace for Adam and all mankind.”
Is this not what I have been stating all along? Most over at SBCT believe in TD, but reject TI. If fallen man still possesses the ability to believe (which most SBCers do), then exactly what is being overcomed? And why? This, in my opinion (and perhaps I am wrong) suggests that fallen man is restored to a pre-fallen state which grants him the ability to believe, which he didn’t have before. We are not talking about just giving fallen man another option, but rather the ability he lacked before. But Ronnie’s comments add further confusion. Once this prevenient grace is provided, does that mean fallen man is now partially depraved (where he was totally before)? And, if this ability comes from God’s redemptive grace, does that mean that fallen man is now partially redeemed?
Interesting.
Now Ronnie writes…. “I reject any and every form of irresistible grace. I believe God graciously grants every human a chance to believe or reject him with full knowledge and understanding of what they are rejecting or accepting.”
Bless his heart, but he just contradicted himself.
He rejects any and every form of irresistible grace, but then states that God grants every human with a chance to believe or not. And just how is this chance provided? Again, brother Ronnie believes in FREED will (“I make no apologies if my response happens to coincide with Arminianism”). Can a lost sinner reject this freedom? No. Is this freedom given without the lost sinner’s consent? Yes (unless you want to say that some fallen sinners agree to being set free, while other fallen sinners reject it). Again, the goal of Arminians’ prevenient grace is to put every man in a position where he can choose. Now fallen man (partially depraved and partially redeemed I guess) might choose to accept Christ or reject Him, and that is his choice. But that is not the goal of prevenient grace. Put another way. The goal of Calvinism’s irresistible grace is to bring the batter all the way home. The goal of Arminianism’s irresistible grace is merely to get the batter to first base (or second or third). And the batter did nothing to get there. He couldn’t. The goal of Arminianism’s irresistible grace is to give every sinner a chance, which he didn’t have before (due to total inability).
Now, the below is from Got Questions?, a Calvinist website, so I do not know if this is entirely accurate, but for the sake of this discussion it will suffice…
“The last position on the doctrine of prevenient grace is that of the Wesleyans (also known as Wesleyan-Arminians). In this position, because of the first coming and atoning work of Christ, God has dispensed a universal prevenient grace that fully negates the depravity of man. Thus, man is now in a neutral state. Those who adhere to this position assert that because of Christ’s promises that speak of ‘all men’ being drawn (John 12:32) and the ‘world’ being convicted (John 16:8) after His sacrifice, it means that the prevenient grace we experience today was something purchased by Christ’s work on the cross.”
Now I am not suggesting Ronnie believes the noetic effects of the fall are fully negated or that man is now in a “neutral state”, but there are some similarities, because it is redemptive grace that overcomes our fallen nature and restores our newly freed will.
Arminians believe in FREED will. So does Ronnie. Arminians believe in a grace that overcomes the noetic effects of the fall. So does Ronnie. That was my point. And that’s why I refer to Arminianism as Calvinism Lite.
Perhaps I have misunderstood my beloved brother in Christ again.
I cannot speak further to your points. In fact, I hardly have time to read all of Ronnie’s, but I did.
I take exception to your claim that you never said Ronnie was a Calvinist. Scroll up to the top of my lengthy post and read your first paragraph. Hard to interpret that any other way. You also said the Brethren at SBC today should call Ronnie a Calvinist.
I also think Ronnie had enough context from your comment to answer more than satisfactorily the concerns you raised. And I particularly agree with his pre- and post-fall condition of Adam.
Ronnie’s thinking is invaluable to understanding a biblical soteriology that cannot be defined as Calvinistic. If there are nuances he espouses that seem Calvinistic, then it is because those nuances are biblical. But that doesn’t make Ronnie a Calvinist. As he said, he agrees with Calvinists that man is sinful. That touchpoint is biblical, and it so happens that Ronnie and Calvinists agree that such a view of man is biblical (and does not have its origins in the Institutes).
All in all, I wanted Ronnie to speak for himself, as I knew it would be enlightening for us all.
Somewhere in an above post I wrote ‘immoral’ instead of ‘immortal’ God. Hope everyone knew what I meant – sticky ‘t’ key just doesn’t work anymore!
Arminius was schooled in, and adopted, Calvin’s faulty doctrine of Total Depravity. Thus, in order to avoid Calvin’s necessary divine determinism, Arminius invented a new doctrine of his own, that being prevenient grace.
It is my opinion that both of these unsciptural doctrines rest on a misinterpretation of what ‘sin’ or more correctly, what the ‘sin nature’ is. I believe that it is not only wrong but a strike upon the very character of God to assert that he would curse his creation, mankind, with an inability to do that which was not only good and right, but essential to their well-being and eternal existence. Total Depravity vs. prevenient grace is simply a debate over ‘how God overcame’ a curse he never cast.
What we can know for sure is that with Adam’s first act of disobedience, disobedience was introduced into the creation. To jump from the little that we actually know to all sorts of claims about total inability, total depravity and God’s curse that prevents men from hearing and responding to the commands that bring life is a very big assumptive jump.
If we actually desire to understand what happens to turn a man into a totally depraved sinner, I would suggest we listen to the inspired words of Paul, rather than the uninspired and uninspiring words of Calvin. Thus, if one begins at the beginning of Romans, rather than pretending as if it starts at chapter 9, one finds a very clearly set forth explanation of how a man goes from hearing God’s voice to no longer having the ability to discern it.
Rather than ‘a curse’ caused by our father Adam’s sin, Paul tells us that sin is the result of the individual choices of men who ‘by their wickedness suppress the truth’. The Calvinist might attempt to argue that it is their unchosen, curse-driven inability that suppresses the truth, as they are no longer able to hear, understand or obey God.
Ah, Paul appears to have predicted this charge, and denies it, stating: “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.’ And just in case, once again, the Calvinist attempts a clever stab at suggesting that ‘what can be known about God’ is ‘nothing’ in the case of now cursed, Totally Depraved sinners, Paul is very specific: “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity (what some might term ‘omnipotence’ and ‘omniscience’) has been CLEARLY PERCEIVED in the things that have been made.”
We can know that those ‘things that have been made’ do not refer to stars or trees as Paul, once again, is very explicit about who he is speaking; his continuing description can only apply to mankind: “So they are without excuse; for although they KNEW God, they did not HONOR him as God or give thanks to him, BUT THEY BECAME FUTILE IN THEIR THINKING AND THEIR SENSELESS MINDS WERE DARKENED.”
‘Aha’ the Calvinist may say. Their ‘senseless’ mind refers to the curse, and proves that men are totally unable to sensibly know the things of God. But this, once again, renders what was just said about them knowing God and refusing to honor and give thanks to him false, as well as what Paul goes on to describe. Whatever ‘senseless’ does mean, it cannot indicate a Total Inability, as what is being described is a really, really bad choice being made; not an inability to know good from evil, but a deliberate, intentional ‘exchange’ of good for evil: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools (Note the word ‘became’, which suggests a process, not a bolt of lightning curse.) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.” In other words, turning from the true, known creator God, they made up their own, carving or having carved images of created things and declaring them their new ‘gods’ in place of the God they fully knew created them.
How do we know this? Paul, once again, almost as if inspired, tells us God’s response to this crime against him: “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of heir hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they EXCHANGED the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason”. What reason? Men were making a deliberate choice to exchange the truth for a lie, to exchange the immoral God for created beings as false gods. “For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions . . . And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.”
Whenever anyone glibly tells you about Total Depravity, and the curse from Adam’s sin, I suggest you simply walk them through Romans 1, asking them to explain it, verse by verse. They cannot but see their error.
Norm,
I consider Arminians to be 2 point Calvinists (with subtle nuances). That’s all I meant, brother. I am deeply sorry if I offended you in any way. I have always appreciated your comments and insight.
God bless
TS00,
Agreed. Romans 1 describes the fall of man quite well. The depravity of man is something that occurred over time. They were not born that way, but became that way.
Also, there is something else man took with him when he was evicted from the garden. And that was the knowledge of good and evil. He (man) did become more like God (Genesis 3:22). That knowledge was also passed down to his descendants.
Most people don’t understand that God’s eviction of man from the garden was out of love, not punishment (the consequences of disobedience were outlined by God and Adam understood them). God said that if man were to eat of the tree of life he would live forever (Genesis 3:22). This means that man, now fallen, would have been eternally separated from God. So, the eating of the tree of good and evil was twofold. One, as an act of disobedience. And two, to prepare him for life outside of the garden (though fallen, man was smarter). And man would need that knowledge living in a fallen world. Think of it this way. How could the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin, if we had no knowledge of good and evil (or right and wrong)?
There seems to be two ways of obtaining God’s righteousness. Either by the Law of works. Or by the Law of faith.
If man lost the ability to believe (due to the fall), then it seems to me that God replaced the impossible (the law of works) with the equally impossible (the law of faith).
And if fallen man cannot believe, then Christ truly died in vain (Galatians 2:21).
phillip writes, “And if fallen man cannot believe, then Christ truly died in vain (Galatians 2:21).”
“I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:21) A little different slant than your comment.
However, John 6 has Jesus saying that No one can come to him (believe in Him) except by a work of God. So, fallen man cannot believe.
TS00
I can appreciate your lengthy remarks. My short answer is “Legalism kills!” As a PK, I watched my dad move from legalism to grace. That taught me to jettison legalism and rear my kids under the precepts of grace.
But I have a different answer to this statement of yours: “The problem is that the conservative, fundamentalist Institutional Church – just like the Catholicism from which it sprang – (particularly the Calvinist wing) all but forbids the individual from seeking out the leading and teaching of the Holy Spirit.”
I don’t doubt what you say is true, esp. re: Catholicism. it was not until the 70s that the RCC allowed parishoners to read the Bible for themselves. But that has never been true in Conservative or fundamentalist churches of which I am aware. But the fundies are legalists.
I consider myself a theological conservative who embraces the fundamentals of the faith. I reject how some apply or teach the fundamentals, however, in a manner as you noted.
As a former pastor and now a very part-time preacher, I have always encouraged believers under my teaching and preaching to be like the Bereans. My commitment was always to be as accurate as possible. But I also know that I am fallible.
CALVINISM: LOGICAL INFANCY OR ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY?
A true Calvinist is a theist, who holds that all things, which come to pass, are caused by divine immutable decrees. A true Naturalist is an Atheist, who holds that all things, which come to pass, are caused by natural states of affairs.
The Naturalist remains true to his belief system, when asked to what cause does he attribute a good event, vs. an evil event. He attributes both events to natural states of affairs.
Curiously, the Calvinist does not appear to display the same consistency. When asked to what cause does he attribute a good event – true to Calvinism, he attributes these to divine immutable decrees. Yet, when asked, to what cause does he attribute evil events, he insists on the Naturalist’s answer, attributing these to natural states of affairs. Suddenly the immutable decree magically disappears and is replaced with divine knowledge. Worse yet, the Calvinist’s language strategically infers passive observation on the Theos’ part.
To what should we attribute this systemic behavior on Calvinism’s part – to logical infancy – or more likely altruistic dishonesty?
If the later, then Calvinism appears to be plagued with a systemic ethical problem which Christ himself would not approve.
br.d
This is the kind of post that gives great information. Young people need this to be able to stand the YRR wave crashing against them.
br.d writes, “A true Calvinist is a theist, who holds that all things, which come to pass, are caused by divine immutable decrees.”
Given your previous efforts, this should be, “…are determined by divine immutable decrees.
Then, “When asked to what cause does he attribute a good event – true to Calvinism, he attributes these to divine immutable decrees.”
All events can be attributed to primary or secondary causes. Decrees don’t cause anything. The execution of decrees uses primary or secondary causes.
rhutchin
All events can be attributed to PRIMARY OR SECONDARY causes. Decrees don’t cause anything. The execution of decrees uses primary or secondary causes.
br.d
Two points:
1) You confirm my article by appealing to PRIMARY OR SECONDARY causes – which are by logical implication NATURAL causes.
If this is true then salvation events are not CAUSED by a decree but by NATURAL causes.
2)
Nice try but in universal divine CAUSAL determinism – every event is the consequence of (i.e. causes by) an antecedent event. Your statement simply denies universal divine CAUSAL determinism is CAUSAL. But of course – only for evil events :-]
Therefore my article is affirmed.
br.d writes, “1) You confirm my article by appealing to PRIMARY OR SECONDARY causes – which are by logical implication NATURAL causes.”
The primary cause would be God. Secondary causes would be natural causes and include human agents as natural causes.
Then, “in universal divine CAUSAL determinism – every event is the consequence of (i.e. causes by) an antecedent event. Your statement simply denies universal divine CAUSAL determinism is CAUSAL. But of course – only for evil events.”
I don’t see it. All events result from a primary cause (God) or secondary causes (natural – including human – causes). What’s the issue?
br.d writes, “1)
You confirm my article by appealing to PRIMARY OR SECONDARY causes – which are by logical implication NATURAL causes.”
rhutcin
The primary cause would be God. Secondary causes would be natural causes and include human agents as natural causes.
br.d
Right – the primary cause is Calvin’s god. And since the number 2 always follow the number 1, then every secondary cause is of necessity caused by the primary cause.
br.d
“in universal divine CAUSAL determinism – every event is the consequence of (i.e. causes by) an antecedent event. Your statement simply denies universal divine CAUSAL determinism is CAUSAL. But of course – only for evil events.”
rhutchin:
I don’t see it. All events result from a primary cause (God) or secondary causes (natural – including human – causes). What’s the issue?
br.d
It not an issue for me – its simply recognizable strategy of evasion.
Consistent Calvinism attributes the cause of good events (for example a salvation event) directly to (as you say -the primary cause) – Calvin’s god.
But for sinful evil events they always want to make the primary cause magically disappear – and attribute it solely to some secondary natural cause. Desire, depraved nature, human will, predisposition..etc…..ad infinitum *AS-IF* a secondary cause magically caused itself. Pointing to a secondary cause allows them to evade acknowledging the primary cause. Its called altruistic dishonesty.
br.d writes, “But for sinful evil events they always want to make the primary cause magically disappear – and attribute it solely to some secondary natural cause.”
Calvinism is straightforward in saying that God ordains all things and that “…God works all things after the counsel of His will…” This includes evil events.
br.d writes, “But for sinful evil events they always want to make the primary cause magically disappear – and attribute it solely to some secondary natural cause.”
rhutchin
Calvinism is straightforward in saying that God ordains all things and that “…God works all things after the counsel of His will…” This includes evil events.
br.d
AHA! :-]
THE CONSEQUENCE ARGUMENT – ON THEOLOGICAL UNIVERSAL DIVINE CAUSAL DETERMINISM
If Theological Determinism is true, then all of our neurological-impulses, desires, choices, actions are the inevitable unavoidable consequences of immutable decrees, set in motion at the foundation of the world. Our every creaturely function is fated to occur at a specified time. And at the moment they are fated to occur, they do so framed by the state of nature, which exists at that time.
But it is not up to us what supernatural forces/decrees are set in motion millennia before we were born. Therefore it is not up to us, what thoughts, desires, choices are decreed to infallibly occur. Nor is it up to us what time these are fated to occur. Nor is the state of nature which exists at any time up to us. Therefore the consequences of these things are not up to us.
(adopted from Peter Van Inwagen’s universally recognized consequence argument)
br.d quotes Van Inwagen, “If Theological Determinism is true, then all of our neurological-impulses, desires, choices, actions are the inevitable unavoidable…they do so framed by the state of nature, which exists at that time…..Nor is the state of nature which exists at any time up to us. Therefore the consequences of these things are not up to us. ”
This is the common complaint that people suffer for Adam’s sin. Adam sinned and now we die. This according to God’s decree. That’s the life – and state of nature (Total Depravity) – into which we are born.
br.d
If Theological Determinism is true, then all of our neurological-impulses, desires, choices, actions are the inevitable unavoidable consequences of immutable decrees, set in motion at the foundation of the world. Our every creaturely function is fated to occur at a specified time. And at the moment they are fated to occur, they do so framed by the state of nature, which exists at that time.
But it is not up to us what supernatural forces/decrees are set in motion millennia before we were born. Therefore it is not up to us, what thoughts, desires, choices are decreed to infallibly occur. Nor is it up to us what time these are fated to occur. Nor is the state of nature which exists at any time up to us. Therefore the consequences of these things are not up to us.
(adopted from Peter Van Inwagen’s universally recognized consequence argument)
rhutchin
This is the common complaint that people suffer for Adam’s sin. Adam sinned and now we die. This according to God’s decree. That’s the life – and state of nature (Total Depravity) – into which we are born.
br.d
Thanks rhutchin – a great example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking. :-]
From that quote that you provided – it looks like that is what he thinks.
Personally I believe the authors of the NT really were very descriptive in their writings. If they really believed that God had to supernaturally zap each of Jesus’ disciples in order for each of them to have faith in Jesus, then the Gospel authors would have written that in clear and unambiguous language.
Br.D,
Exactly. Wouldn’t we find at least one (just one) example of it in scripture?
Something like….
For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God (as a result of having the noetic effects of the fall removed and his newly freed will), and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
I remember when I first started in the Calvinism debate on-line. I stated that there were no biblical examples given supporting the notion of “regeneration precedes faith”. My Arminian brothers were quick to applaud my stance. However, when I showed the scriptures were silent regarding prevenient grace, those same brothers now said “Whoa. Now hang on, brother.” Then came the name calling.
Sad, but typical. It seems our Calvinist/Arminian brothers are more concerned about winning the debate instead of being right with God.
Phillip,
One of my goals for posting on this site is to increase the amount of “credible push-back” out there so that onlookers can read and have material to work with in their effort to understand (when the wave hits them). Many Western, educated men (usually) have jumped on the YRR -Calvinism wave and in their cage-phase they have inundated the internet with their opinion (albeit most of it is taken from monergism.com and repeated over and over).
In an effort document other ideas would you post a brief post along this line:
It is not “regeneration precedes faith.”
It is not prevenient grace.
these verses would lead us to ___________________________.
Thanks.
FOH,
Not sure if I follow you. Please clarify.
Please know for sure this is not a trick question!
1. We all know that the determinist, “dead men dont make choices” idea is not correct.
2. Arminians go for prevenient grace, which you state is not correct.
3. Please state a third option so that readers can see “their choice.” (sorry, couldn’t resist!)
FOH,
From Wikipedia….
“Prevenient grace is a Christian theological concept rooted in Arminian theology, though it appeared earlier in Catholic theology.”
Both “regeneration precedes faith” and “prevenient grace” eventually leads us back to Roman Catholicism.
“Regeneration precedes faith” and “prevenient grace” are the solutions to the Augustinian notion of TD/TI. If you reject the notion of TD/TI then you aren’t forced to come up with a solution for it.
That said, if another option had to be provided I would go with the Traditional Statement (at least at face value).
““We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will….”
I see no biblical evidence that Adam lost the ability to believe. Nor his descendants.
Let me know if that will suffice.
Phillip,
Thanks. that will do.
My point is that we needed to see more than 1 & 2 are not right.
So many things (TD/TI) have worked their way into the fabric of evangelicalism and have become “givens”.
It is a “given” that man cant choose (why?) so Calvinism and Arminianism compensate.
This site is not about these issues, but some other givens that evangelicals disagree on are:
Significance of baptism (opposite would be baptism regeneration) (Church of Christ)
Extent of omniscience (debate would be forms of open theism) (Clark Pinnock)
The eternality of the soul (conditional mortality) (Fudge, John Stott).
There are others, but my point is that certain ideas are baked into the history of the Western church and dominate.
FOH,
Please let your readers know that a rejection of TD/TI will result in some name calling. Screams of Pelagianism (!) and Semi-Pelagianism (!) are sure to come. These are used as “bully” tactics to get you “back in line” with “mainstream” Christianity. So just beware.
Phillip writes:
“Please let your readers know that a rejection of TD/TI will result in some name calling. Screams of Pelagianism (!) and Semi-Pelagianism (!) are sure to come. These are used as “bully” tactics to get you “back in line” with “mainstream” Christianity. So just beware.”
If Pelagius’ error was to reject TD/TI and assert that scripture does not teach some sort of individualized ‘prevenient grace’, then I guess he and I were on the same page, although I refuse to be put in a box, as it is highly unlikely I agree fully with everything he, or anyone else, believes.
What scripture does seem to teach, in my opinion, is that all men need grace, and Jesus is the promised anointed One, who came to announce and provide the atonement for sin available to all who turn from sin. Whatever theory of atonement or theological system one constructs upon that is mostly just that – a man-made construct that may be more or less accurate.It would seem wise to me to remain humbly aware that much of what we ‘believe’ about how, what and why God works is in large part theoretical. Some day, what we now see in part, we will understand more fully.
Phillip writes:
“Please let your readers know that a rejection of TD/TI will result in some name calling. Screams of Pelagianism (!) and Semi-Pelagianism (!) are sure to come. These are used as “bully” tactics to get you “back in line” with “mainstream” Christianity. So just beware.”
Exactly!
Don’t forget “Universalist” as a go-to insult from some Calvinists. Or the ignorant and cowardly one-word answer of “Omniscience” b/c no reasoned response can be found or articulated.
Norm writes, “Don’t forget “Universalist” as a go-to insult from some Calvinists.”
Silly Norm. Universalism and non-Universalism (like Calvinism} are the two basic theological systems – either God saves all or God saves less than all. To be called an Universalist is not an insult – it just recognizes that a person appeals to Universalist arguments to argue against Calvinism (which, of course, are the best arguments against Calvinism).
Then, “Or the ignorant and cowardly one-word answer of “Omniscience” b/c no reasoned response can be found or articulated.”
Omniscience is an argument all to itself as it carries the meaning of God knowing perfectly all that will happen in the future which some people {like Brian) deny. So, feel free to affirm or deny omniscience – but just argue consistently from whatever side you take.
Norm:
Notice how you are cornered to “affirm or deny omniscience.” This is not even a word from the Bible and you have to use only a Greek philosophical definition.
Kind of like….. “Answer yes or no sir, have you stopped beating your wife?”
Funny, when my boys were younger people would ask me (usually with a broken-window look in their eyes), “Are you in charge of these boys?” or “Are you responsible for these boys?” Of course I would answer yes….and pay for the window!
They were “mine”… I had “created” them. I was in charge of them. But everything they did was not what I wanted. I think that is one reason God refers to Himself as our Father. We are his children, not His robots.
To Calvinist friends:
If He plans everything we do….we are His robots.
If He knows everything we do (and the knowing of it locks it in, making it the same as planning), then we are His robots.
He would not insist on the name Father if there was no relationship and freedom involved.
This is true.
In an attempt to escape their robot theology Calvinists will say “men are not robots”
But this is an evasion.
Its not that men ARE actually robots in Calvinism, its that men FUNCTION ROBOTICALLY in Calvinism.
In the sense that every neurological impulse is predestined.
Yes, I totally agree with you Phillip
Allegiance to a social group can compromise a believer’s personal relationship with Christ in a multitude of ways.
I may be wrong, but I think Christian philosophers whose allegiance is to truth are possibly the least conflicted.
TS00
“My eternal thanks go to the recently converted Calvinist pastor who spoke at my former church, and pointed out the very weak translation of many, many verses in the revered King James translation”
This person’s testimony of exodus from Calvin would make a great blog article, I believe. I cannot speak for Leighton, but I am sure SBCToday would publish such an article.
Norm, just saw this comment. I regret to inform you that the pastor I mentioned had actually recently BECOME a Calvinist, but had not yet ‘thrown away’ all of his former knowledge and understanding. Sadly, he will learn.
Gents:
This is a link to the Romans 9-11 paper by Eric Hankins. It’s a must read.
Say goodbye to reprobation, Calvinists!
https://soteriology101.com/2018/04/09/romans-9-and-the-calvinist-doctrine-of-reprobation/
Roger Olson writes….
“All agree that Pelagianism is rank heresy. It was outrightly condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. Both the magisterial and radical reformers (at least the leading Anabaptists) condemned it as it is traditionally understood to mean (which Pelagius may or may not have meant—he was often ambiguous) that the human person, even after the fall, is capable of achieving saving righteousness apart from supernatural grace.”
Dear Brothers (and sisters),
I am not even remotely close to being a “church” historian. I know very little, if anything, about “those who came before us”. Not to be disrespectful, but I don’t really care. It wasn’t until I stumbled across Calvinism years back that I came across words like reformed theology, the doctrines of grace, Arminianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism. I never heard of Total Depravity/Total Inability, Unconditional or Conditional Election. Much less jawbreakers like infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism. There’s classical Arminianism prevenient grace and there’s Wesleyanism prevenient grace.
Good grief!
So you start to do your own homework. What’s this Council of Ephesus Olson alludes to?
Google search….
“The Council of Ephesus was a council of Christian bishops convened in Ephesus (near present-day Selçuk in Turkey) in AD 431 by the Roman Emperor Theodosius II. … It met in June and July 431 at the Church of Mary in Ephesus in Anatolia.”
Roman Emperor? Church of Mary? This is YOUR authority? And who was Pelagius’ adversary? The Roman Catholic Augustine. Again, I know very little about “church” history, but I doubt Augustine gave anyone a fair shake. And every time I do a “google” on church history or “the Fathers”, the road almost always leads to Rome.
I prefer the road less traveled.
Tsk, tsk. There you go again, appealing to documented facts and recorded history. ;->
Yeah, silly me.
It wouldn’t surprise me if our Calvinist/Arminian brothers believed God has all the writings of Calvin/Arminius in His library and refers to them daily.
Phillip:
Well said.
Augustine is held up like a hero ….even though he venerated Mary and the saints.
Calvin….. well, he dunked people in the river and burned with green wood (“but people had different values then, FOH!”)
Jonathan Edwards was a slave-holding, slave-holder defender that helped bolstered that idea.
A curious note:
YRR fanatics go to bat for “reformed” theology. Reformed (barely) from Catholicism. Bravo. And, what, they got it right immediately (all these ex-catholic priests)? ….and we need not ‘reform’ it any more? How can that be?
Dig further and find the Anabaptist-types were getting it right before these Catholics and barely-ex-Catholics (Reformed guys).
Second curious note:
We can all visualize the painting of Luther on trial, standing before the tall-hat priests. He cannot recant he says! From what? From one simple thing. “Justification by faith.”
That sounds so good!! Until you read further and find all these barely-ex-catholic guys adding…. “Oh, only a teeeeny tiiiiiny percentage of you are gonna get that faith given to you….and when you do you cant refuse……so I guess it really doesn’t matter.”
Anabaptists? YES!
I have toured the sites of Anabaptistica in Europe. I hiked halfway up a mountain and through some woods to get to a cave where they held secret worship services b/c the Reformers were out to get them. I saw a hidden room in a private home where the residents hid Anabaptists from their “Reformed” persecutors. “Walk in lockstep or die! And, BTW, sola gratia!”
It was a German named Has Ulliman who approached Conrad Grebel in 1525 and corrected the ordinance of baptism. Up until then, the Anabaptists were affusing each other. That may have been due in part to the cold northern European winters. Ulliman refused affusion, saying he had studied the Greek and the word transliterated (not translated) baptizo (baptism) meant to immerse, not sprinkle. So the group broke the ice from the Limmat River (I think it was), and immersed Ulliman.
Correct, the Reformers held onto some RCC rites and practices because of the political climate in Geneva.
And about baptizo being transliterated and not accurately translated — do you think the RCC had any influence over King Jimmy’s translators? Do you think there was any political pressure from the RCC in that?
I think it may be the case that the post-Apostolic father (generation following the disciples) were had not been corrupted by the spirit of Rome.
Additionally Calvinists, (B.B. Warfield for example) agree that Augustine was also the father of Catholic doctrine.
Additionally, academia sights the synchronization of Catholic doctrine with the gnostic dualistic doctrines of NeoPlatonism to Augustine.
English historian, Theodore Maynard, in The story of American Catholicism writes:
“It has often be charged… that Catholicism has been overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that charge – and to make it her boast. The great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized.”
Gnostic and NeoPlatonic doctrines would be imbibed by the Catholic NeoPlatonists, and Augustine would carry them forward, and in his eloquent writing, baptize them as Christian, just like the Catholic church had baptized great god Pan.
All,
Here is the goofiness (for lack of a better word) that I find with the concept of prevenient grace. That being either regeneration (Calvinism) or released from the bondage of sin (Arminianism).
In our own judicial system, we know the person guilty of a crime must be pardoned, or found “not guilty” before he is granted a new life. But according to Calvinism/Arminianism, the inmate is given freedom (Arminianism) and a new lease on life (regeneration) BEFORE ever being resolved of the crime (justified).
Calvinism would have us believe that it is life (regeneration) that brings justification (righteousness). Yet the scriptures teach us just the opposite.
Romans 5:18 (NIV)……
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification (the perfect life and blood of Christ) that brings life (via the new birth) for all men.
Romans 8:10 (NASB)…..
If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive (via regeneration) BECAUSE of (His) righteousness.
Colossians 2:13 (NKJV)…..
And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him (via the new birth), having forgiven you all trespasses (justified)
Now this is where the Arminian brothers yell “Go, brother. You tell’em.” But now comes the issue of being released from the bondage of sin prior to faith.
Romans 6:17 (NKJV)….
But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.
Galatians 5:1 (NKJV)….
Stand fast therefore in the liberty (freedom) by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage (the law).
Now come the cries of Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. Even heretic.
Regeneration does not only preceded faith, it doesn’t even precede justification. And there is no freedom (or released from the bondage of sin) until we are found in Christ Jesus.
The Calvinistic notion of “regeneration precedes faith” is a joke. And there are some Calvinists that reject it (to their credit). Arminians argue among themselves on exactly how prevenient grace works. That’s proof, in and of itself, that there is no biblical evidence to support it.
phillip writes, “according to Calvinism/Arminianism, the inmate is given freedom (Arminianism) and a new lease on life (regeneration) BEFORE ever being resolved of the crime (justified).”
Not exactly. Regeneration is that event described in Ephesians 2 where God takes the person who is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins and gives them spiritual life. The regenerated spiritual life provides the “good soil” in which the word (gospel) can flourish and produce faith by which a person believes in Christ and lives a life in submission to Christ.
Gnat (defined) see above.
Phillip,
Are you referring to this comment…
” Regeneration is that event described in Ephesians 2 where God takes the person who is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins and gives them spiritual life.” ?
Most believers read naturally (and all believers until they are “taught” Calvinism), that the life we have in Christ (new live in Christ, born again, etc) is because we are justified by Christ’s sacrifice.
The Calvinist need (for they theory to work) an additional step introduced in there. Kind of a “He make us alive, so we can believe, so He can make us ‘alive in Christ.'”
It is semantic gymnastics that makes a mockery of all the new birth in Christ/ new life in Christ verses.
FOH writes, “The Calvinist need (for they theory to work) an additional step introduced in there. Kind of a “He make us alive, so we can believe, so He can make us ‘alive in Christ.’”
As a former Calvinist, FOH knows that Calvinism says that a person must be given spiritual life if they are to receive and exercise faith. The person who is spiritually dead cannot receive or exercise faith.
Phillip,
Permit me to develop a bit further how this man-made Calvinistic idea of “regeneration precedes faith” makes a mockery of Scripture.
We are told by Calvinists that the Spirit regenerates man and that is then the “good soil” that the seed falls on. Of course this is all conjecture but necessary to make their man-made system work.
Example:
Calvinists tell that no one can seek God.
An unbeliever comes to a Bible study. Then he begins to ask questions and study the Bible diligently for years. After many years of study and attending as an unbeliever, he comes to full repentance in Christ. Maybe he even joins a Reformed Church…. and is then taught the “doctrines of Grace.”
When was he regenerated? Options:
1. When he first showed interest …attended….searched the Scriptures (cuz remember, otherwise he’s a “dead dude.” No can seek!)
2. Just before he repented….. which of course could get the regeneration/ repentance/ justification closer together.
3. When he repented.
Now, Calvinists will never take door number 3!!
But ……#2 means that he was seeking as a dead man.
And #1 means that he was regenerated years and years before justification. We do not get the idea ANYWHERE in Scripture that regeneration is that separate. I mean I can see Sproul saying “regeneration precedes faith!” but I cannot see him saying “and sometimes that means 20 years!”
That’s “spiritual life” “new life” “new birth in Christ” “renewing of our minds” is not a thing that happens 20 years before repentance.
Phillip:
My last comment on the regeneration idea.
Regeneration is spiritual birth, right? Is that the “born again” part?
Calvinist friends…. are we born again (regenerated) so we can repent and be born again?
So born again 2 times?
FOH asks, “Calvinist friends…. are we born again (regenerated) so we can repent and be born again?”
As a former Calvinist, FOH knows that Calvinism links Joh3 with Ephesians 2 equating the quickening of spiritual life with being born again. The person then receives faith and exercises that faith to believe in Christ thereby obtaining eternal life. One need only be spiritually reborn once in this process. FOH now takes the view that a person cannot be given new spiritual life until they show they merit such by believing in Christ.
FOH,
No particular comment. Just rhutchin’s overall annoying behavior.
Bless his heart. Probably still struggling with 2 Timothy 2:10 (and English).
FOH,
Or think of it this way.
Born again, but still not a child of God yet.
Let that sink in.
phillip writes, “Born again, but still not a child of God yet.”
Phillip is correct as John 1 tells us, “as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born…of God.”
A person who is born of God can receive Christ and thereby become a child of God. Good point.
Phillip:
Welcome to the gotcha-verse level of Calvinism.
This is the level where any verse can be taken out of context and slapped back at you to confuse the matter.
You said this, with irony, —- “Born again, but still not a child of God yet.” —- in reaction to my idea that (according to Calvinism) a 20-year seeker must have been regenerated to seek all those years. So, regenerated all those years, yet “in limbo” until the belief takes place.
For that quip you were given this verse (note that I quote the full verse).
“12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.”
Note that John uses this verse to contrast “a husband’s decision” (so physical birth) with the new spiritual birth in Christ. Nothing more.
Notice the ellipses when the verse is quoted to you—-to make it look more like there is some special re-birth before re-birth.
I have never seen this tactic before, so I will need to start saying that Calvinists have 41 verses in their gotcha-kit.
Rhutchin writes… “John 1 tells us, ‘as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born…of God.’ A person who is born of God can receive Christ and thereby become a child of God. Good point.”
This coming from the same person who provided us with his exegesis of 2 Timothy 2:10.
“…I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they, ‘like myself’, may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.”
Hard to trust anyone’s exegesis when they struggle with simple English.
A person who is born, can therefore be born.
And only after having been born, can they acknowledge the fact that they are born.
Therefore, after having been born – they must fulfill the requirements for being born.
They must acknowledge they are born.
Once they acknowledge the fact they are born – then they are a person who is born – who can therefore be born.
Don’t you just love Calvinist logic! :-]
Br.D,
Yes. And your child is born (again), but not your child yet.
Go figure.
Well that convoluted pretzel logic goes along with Calvin’s insistence that within Calvinism there is a -quote “large mixture of hypocrites who have nothing of Christ except the name and outward appearance”.
According to his teaching, these Calvinists were hand picket at the foundation of the world, to be “vessels of wrath fit for destruction”.
For these Calvinists, Calvin’s god holds out salvation as a -quote “savor of greater condemnation”
So Calvin’s god deceives a “large mixture” of Calvinists – making them perceives themselves elected – but with a false salvation.
And further Calvin insists this condition is temporary – and eventually Calvin’s god will -quote “strike them with even greater blindness”
Now it would obviously make sense that those Calvinists can’t be holy spirit inspired.
So any claims they make concerning the Bible or Calvinism can’t be considered trustworthy since they are already in a state of divinely inspired deception.
And since no man knows who they are as that is the -quote “Secret Counsel of God” then who knows if all of the Calvinists we dialog with aren’t all in that state?
If the only Calvinists we’ve talked to are these, that would explain why their logic is so convoluted. :-]
Dear brothers (and sisters),
I want to be careful here, because I do not want to cause any further injury, but I want to add some further clarification in hopes of diminishing any confusion.
Brother Ronnie (Rogers) writes… “I do not accept any of the five points as defined by Calvinists.”
I’ve read many of his articles. And he has some excellent stuff (again, I love the guy). So I know he doesn’t accept any of the 5 points as “defined by Calvinists”. Calvinists view TD/TI as spiritually dead like a corpse. Arminians don’t. But they both believe that totally depraved sinners are utterly unable to respond to God without a supernatural work of grace. For them, fallen man needs more than “a tap on the shoulders”. He needs his nerves “rewired” (or a spiritual ZAP) so he can be aware of the tap.
Irresistible grace as defined by Calvinists is regeneration. Arminians view this grace as “freedom”. For them fallen men are slaves to sin and therefore have to be set free if they are to have any hopes of believing/repenting. They don’t believe in FREE will, but rather FREED will. Prevenient grace is not something God does FOR us, but rather TO us. We are changed, internally, and without our consent. Thus, irresistible.
Romans 6:17-18 (NKJV)….
But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
We are either slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness. There is no middle ground (neutral state). Once we are delivered (thru faith in Him) we go from being slaves to sin to becoming slaves to righteousness. The order is clear.
Slaves to sin. Faith (in Him). Delivered (set free). Slaves to righteousness.
And if a “slave to sin” can only sin (including can’t believe/repent), then does that not imply that a “slave to righteousness” can only do righteousness? I hope not. Because this “slave to righteousness”, (I’m speaking of myself) sins all the time.
Twice previously I said Ronnie is a “2 point Calvinist (or Arminian if you prefer)”. Arminians reject TD/TI and IG as defined by Calvinists, but they do embrace those terms as defined by themselves. I meant no ill will towards my brother, but just to show that while he has distanced himself from what Calvinists believe, he now appears to teach what Arminians believe. And I have come to consider Arminians to be 2 point Calvinists. As TS00 so astutely states… “…in order to avoid Calvin’s necessary divine determinism, Arminius invented a new doctrine of his own, that being prevenient grace.” I would just clarify that by saying Arminius’ “version” of prevenient grace, since prevenient grace has its roots in earlier Catholicism. Arminianism is just a softer form of Calvinism (hence Calvinism Lite).
No one questions the sinfulness of man. We are wicked to the core and completely incapable of earning a right standing (or repairing the damage we caused) with the Lord. But there is a huge chasm between that in TD/TI. All Christians understand the wickedness of man, but only Calvinists/Arminians embrace TD/TI. And if you embrace TD/TI, then you are forced to embrace some form of irresistible grace. And I think I have successfully proven that Arminians teach a form of irresistible grace (though, unaware, they would deny it).
Blessings to all.
Phillip… you’ve made some good observations. Both Armins and Calvins believe in a settled foreknowledge before creation of who will end up identified as elect… so both have to have an irresistible grace that gets those foreknown ones there. For a settled foreknowledge is only possible if an underlying deterministic cause of all future events exists. The settled foreknowledge is not the cause but only csn exist by some such deterministic cause
I believe however there is sufficient divine grace for seeking that is irresistibly given to each and every person, at least a few times in their lives. And they must seek with that grace while the opportunity is there, or lose it. And there is no known set future of which ones will or will not seek to the point of a saving faith decision that God responds to. The future in that department of omniscience is known full of what “might be” in agreement with the Scriptures definition of the future.
Brian,
Thanks, brother.
Yes, some things God does FOR us are “irresistible”, like the providing of a Savior, divine creation, and the spoken word. But those grace “enablements/revelations” do not overcome the noetic effects of the fall and restore us to a pre-fall condition. I believe that fallen, depraved man can still be reasoned with. Romans 1:20 tells us that fallen man is “without excuse”. If fallen man is as depraved as Calvinists/Arminians teach, man would not only have an excuse, but a valid (and justified) reason.
We must agree to disagree, Phillip.
Even Calvinists don’t agree among themselves. So, if a former Calvinist says he rejects the 5 points, I accept that. And I don’t run the 5 points thru my grid of definitions to say that one who has denounced Calvinism is actually still one — or at least two points of one according to your definitions.
Ronnie said he has no qualms presenting points that may sound Arminian. He, like me, prefers to be defined as a biblical theologian. Wherever Calvin and Arminius might agree with Ronnie and me, then that simply makes the former two more biblical, and not the latter two like the former two. If you believe a brother is in error, please don’t lump that brother in with the purveyors of non-biblical positions. It is insulting.
I know you mean well, and I am glad for that. But the result is the same.
Norm,
Good to hear from you. Again, my humble apology if I hurt you in any way. It was not my intent.
I lean towards brother Leighton’s views (and some other SBC pastors I know of). A full rejection of every petal of the TULIP. Both from a Calvinistic and Arminian perspective.
I can’t tell you how much I appreciate you, brother. Always have since you were the moderator at SBCT. You are both my brother and a friend. We can agree to disagree. And I am completely fine with that. Doesn’t change my feelings towards you one bit.
Brothers (sisters),
The 5 Points of Arminianism outlined below with some commentary (From the Society of Evangelical Arminians website)…..
Conditional Election (1).
That God, from all eternity, hath decreed to elect to everlasting life, all those who, through His grace, believe in Jesus Christ, and in the same belief, and obedience of faith, persevere to the end. But the unconverted and unbelieving He had resolved to reject to everlasting damnation.
Why, one may ask, do the Arminians not begin with the doctrine of Total Depravity and its corollary Total Inability? Is the reason not because they reject the doctrine? No, on the contrary, we discover their affirmation of the doctrine at point three. Arminius clearly believes in the doctrine of depravity, and its corollary inability, by explicit confession that, in a depraved state, free will is “imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.” The Remonstrants maintain the same affirmation in the strongest terms possible
Unlimited Atonement (2).
That in consequence of this decree, Christ the Saviour of the world, died for all and every man, so that by His death, He hath obtained reconciliation and pardon of sins for all men, nevertheless, in such a manner that none but the faithful really and effectually enjoy the benefits thereof.
Total Depravity/Total Inability (3).
That man could not [i.e., does not possess the capability to] obtain saving faith of himself, or by the strength of his own free will, but stood in need of God’s grace, through Christ, to be made the subject of its power.
This accords with and merely affirms the doctrine of Total Depravity and its corollary Total Inability.
Resistible Grace (4)
Therefore this grace is the cause of the beginning, the progress, and the completion of man’s salvation, in so much that no one could believe, or persevere in faith, without this operating grace, and consequently, that all good works must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. Nevertheless, the manner of the operation of this grace was not irresistible.
Obviously, this point rejects the unwarranted theory of irresistible grace that regeneration must precede faith in Christ, an eminently philosophical notion without a biblical context, which is, then, a mere pretext in search of a proof-text.
Perseverance (5).
That true believers had sufficient strength, through divine grace, to resist and overcome Satan, sin, the world, and their own lusts, but whether they might not, through their negligence, apostatize and lose the power of holy saving truth, the testimony of a well-directed conscience, and forfeit that grace, must first be more fully inquired into, under the guidance of the holy scriptures, before they could, with confidence and unhesitating minds, assert and teach it.
This fifth point is dated at 1610; by 1618, in The Opinions of the Remonstrants, the Arminians conclude their study of the holy scriptures with the following affirmation on the subject of perseverance and apostasy: “3. True believers can fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently.” They also argue: “4. True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish.” Such has been “the Arminian” view on the subject since 1618. More so, this view is also advocated by the early Church fathers, though Calvinists will argue otherwise.
………………………………………….
Brothers (sisters),
My stance.
#1. I believe Israel is God’s elect. Period. Saved or lost. Believers make up His body, not His elect. Therefore, I reject both the Calvinistic and Arminian view regarding election.
#2. I believe Christ died for all men (elect (Jews) and non-elect (Gentiles)). Only believers are recipients of the benefits of the cross. And I would add that those benefits were not made possible until after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, the view that Christ died for all mankind is not a uniquely Arminian view. Most religions/denominations believe this. Only some Calvinists (5 pointers) believe otherwise.
#3. I reject wholeheartedly. Whether defined by Calvinists or Arminians. Doesn’t matter. I reject any interpretation of total depravity/total inability. Though rotten to the core, fallen man never lost the ability to believe.
#4. If you reject #3, then #4, the solution for it, is unnecessary. And no matter how they define it, it is just as irresistible as its Calvinistic counterpart. They are not resisting the grace (they can’t), but rather rejecting the gospel of Christ. Ironic that they would claim there is no biblical evidence of “regeneration precedes faith” and not see the same regarding their own view.
#5. Suffice it to say I believe in the eternal security of the believer. I don’t see a born again child of God becoming otherwise (unborn again).
Blessings!
Phillip,
Interesting that you had 5 points and the #5 is the shared point with Calvinism. Then you would be a 1-point Calvinist?
Not picking a fight here, just asking.
FOH,
Nope.
Perseverance (defined by Calvinism) asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end; the eternally elect in Christ will certainly persevere in faith
All points are tied tightly together. Their perseverance is tied to their unconditional election.
Also, since I lean that Israel is the elect of God, that distances me even further.
Thanks for asking.
phillip writes, “Perseverance (defined by Calvinism) asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end; the eternally elect in Christ will certainly persevere in faith ”
The better word is “preserved.” This based on Philippians 1-2 where Paul writes, “I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus…work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.”
Yesterday I commented a few times on the Calvinist idea of “regeneration precedes faith” and how that could leave a person in limbo for 20 years if he is in the process of studying the Bible and coming to Christ. Seeking and reading (which they say can only be after regeneration) yet not a child of God. Re-born, but not really…or reborn, then reborn.
The Calvinist position is that a person is quickened, receives faith, exercises faith (of course that is irresistible—- so “faith” is not really what we think it is —but that’s another topic), believes in Christ, and obtains eternal life. Somehow in all this, a person is spiritually reborn only once in this process, despite how long it may take.
((not to mention those who study the Bible, reading, seeking for 5 years who DONT come to Christ—- what were they doing? were they regenerated? If not, how did those “too-dead” people even have discussions about spiritual things? Again, another topic.))
Of course, when I promote such heresy (that a person must believe) to a Calvinist, he usually accuses me of “works” or “merit”. Paul takes care of this idea in Romans 4 (see whole chapter, not partial verses out of context).
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” 23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,
———-
This whole chapter is given by Paul to demonstrate (juxtapose) how faith is not a work. We must believe. Period. At any time he could have said anything (ANYTHING!) that would have made it look like the faith is given to us…. but he does just the opposite. A kind of a declaration: “there is nothing you can do except believe” “there is no merit or work you can do, only believe.”
Now, often a Calvinist cannot see this because he is filtering all of Scripture through the lens that man is too dead to do anything (Total Depravity), so no matter how many times Paul says it, it must not really be that way!!
FOH,
Romans 4:5 NKJV (NIV)….
But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly (the wicked), his faith is accounted for righteousness
Who can the ungodly (the wicked) be but the lost? For Calvinism to be true, the verse would have to read…
“But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the regenerate (those born of God), his faith is accounted for righteousness.”
Phillip:
Correct!
In addition to showing how Scripture does not support Calvinism, you also said for Calvinism “the verse would have to read….”
This is important in any Calvinism discussion. Not just what the Scripture says in thousands of ways (“O Jerusalem I wanted….but you would not” “seek first the kingdom” “draw near to God and He will….” “I am all things to all men to win some”), but what it does NOT say.
It is amazing how many times they have to come up with an idea that is not said in Scripture.
They do this by starting with Total Depravity. If man is “too dead” (repeat after me: “Dead men dont make choices”) then you gotta scaffold something together to figure it out. Disregard hundreds of Scriptures to the contrary…. just build the system on the (faulty) premise that man is “too dead”.
FOH writes, “Not just what the Scripture says in thousands of ways (“O Jerusalem I wanted….but you would not”
A little deceptive with the omission. Should be “(“O Jerusalem I wanted [your children]….but you would not [let me have them]”
Agreed.
But, ironically, our Arminian brothers do the exact same thing. Again, on their own website they state…
“…this point (resistible prevenient grace) rejects the unwarranted theory of irresistible grace that regeneration must precede faith in Christ, an eminently PHILOSOPHICAL NOTION WITHOUT A BIBLICAL CONTEXT, which is, then, a mere pretext in search of a proof-text.”
For them, Romans 4:3 would have to read…
For what does the Scripture say? “Having been released from the bondage of sin (his free will restored) Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
And yet in Romans 6:17-18 (NKJV) Paul teaches just the opposite….
But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
Again. The order is clear.
Slaves to sin. Faith (in Him). Delivered (set free). Slaves to righteousness.
There are numerous biblical examples of people coming to faith in Jesus Christ. If the Calvinistic/Arminian notions of IG/PG were true, don’t you think we would find just one biblical example to support it? Just one? And, yet, for them? “O yeah. Done deal.”
Discern, brothers (sisters)!
phillip writes, “And yet in Romans 6:17-18 (NKJV) Paul teaches just the opposite….
But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
Again. The order is clear.
Slaves to sin. Faith (in Him). Delivered (set free). Slaves to righteousness.”
Not exactly. They obey that doctrine to which they were delivered. Thus, setting your order in line with this: The verses are not directly speaking of salvation but of obedience to Christ.
Slaves to sin. Delivered to doctrine (through the word). Obedience of that doctrine by faith. Thereby, Slaves to righteousness.
phillip writes, ” For Calvinism to be true, the verse would have to read…”
Not exactly, not really off that much. Regeneration quickens the spirit so we have an ungodly person whose spirit has been given new life. He is now able to see and enter the kingdom of heaven. Regeneration provides the “good soil” for the word with the result tat faith is conveyed to the ungodly which faith plus the new spirit manifests as belief in Christ and justifies.
It is God who regenerates the spirit, God who draws the person by the preaching of the gospel, and God who gives faith through the gospel. The whole operation is simultaneous for most (if not all) people.
Phillip,
I hate to even keep commenting on all this conjecture and hypotheses…..but maybe one more.
I mentioned real-life scenarios where “too-dead” people study God’s word for years…. some coming to faith and others not. I asked legitimate questions of when the regeneration comes (since for Calvinists a person “cannot even seek at all” unless God draws him or regenerates him). Has he (a) been regenerated and that is why he is reading the Bible with believers for years (maybe even saying “God if you are there, show me the truth”)? Or does he (b) read the Bible (looking a lot like “seeking”) as a “too-dead” man, only to be regenerated at the last minute and pulled over the goal line?
If (a) there is a lot of “limbo time” in there.
If (b) how was he seeking all those years and asking God to show him the truth if he is “too-dead”?
The answer? A solid……
“The whole operation is simultaneous for most (if not all) people.”
Most…maybe all….. I mean simultaneous…. I think. I mean…we dont know…there is absolutely no Scripture on this so —just conjecture…. but let’s just say “most, (if not all)” That should do the trick!
Romans 6:17-18 (NKJV)….
But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
Regarding Romans 6:17-18 rhutchin writes….
“The verses are NOT DIRECTLY SPEAKING OF SALVATION but of obedience to Christ.”
Calvinist John Gill writes…
“By ‘the form of doctrine’ is meant the Gospel, which is the ‘doctrine’ of the Scriptures, of Christ and His apostles….”
From the Geneva Bible commentary….
“This kind of speech hath a force in it: for he meaneth thereby that ‘the doctrine of the Gospel’ is like a certain mold which we are cast into to be framed and fashioned like unto it.”
While I still reject all forms of TD/TI, I’m starting to think that rhutchin is spiritually dead like a corpse (that would explain a lot). Maybe its not that he’s unwilling to accept the clear teaching of scripture (and English), but rather he can’t. Maybe rhutchin should stop commenting and start learning.
Poor rhutchin. Bless his little heart of stone.
FOH writes, “The Calvinist position is that a person is quickened, receives faith, exercises faith (of course that is irresistible—- so “faith” is not really what we think it is —but that’s another topic), believes in Christ, and obtains eternal life.”
It should be, “The Calvinist position is that a person is quickened, receives faith (of course that is irresistible), exercises faith to believe in Christ, and obtains eternal life.”
Then, (…so “faith” is not really what we think it is —but that’s another topic)
If you address this topic, the definition of faith is that given in Hebrews 11 (I am surprised that you don’t agree with this) so that faith is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” The things hoped for/conviction of include those things Paul describes in Ephesians 1, adoption as sons, redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, and an inheritance. Such faith naturally manifests as belief in Christ and one could argue that such things are irresistible to a person given the assurance and conviction of those things.
Brian,
Previously you wrote… “Both Armins and Calvins believe in a settled foreknowledge before creation of who will end up identified as elect… so both have to have an irresistible grace that gets those foreknown ones there.”
I found the below in my research on Arminians’ version of prevenient grace and thought about what you said. Just thought I would share. This comes from a book entitled “Lectures in Systematic Theology” by Henry Thiessen.
Acknowledging these three presuppositions, evangelicals interpret this matter in one of two primary ways: some see election as dependent upon divine foreknowledge, others see election and foreknowledge, as they relate to saving faith, as essentially inseparable. These two approaches deserve analysis….
A) Election is seen, in the former approach, as that sovereign gracious act of God whereby he chose in Christ for salvation all those whom he foreknew would respond positively to prevenient grace. This can be analyzed in the following manner. Originally man had freedom in two senses of the term: freedom to carry out the dictates of his nature and freedom to act contrary to his nature. Man had the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. In the fall he lost his ability not to sin; his ability to sin became inability not to sin (Gen. 6:5; Job 14:14; Jer. 13:23; 17:9; Rom.3: 10-18; 8: 5-8). Now he is free only in the sense that he is able to do as his fallen nature suggests. Because man is without any ability or desire to change, God responded by prevenient grace. This grace (sometimes considered a part of common or universal grace) restores to the sinner the ability to make a favorable response to God (Rom. 2:4; Titus 2:11). This fact is implied in God’s dealing with Adam and Eve after the fall (Gen. 3:8f.) and in the many exhortations to sinners to turn to God (Prov. 1:23; Isa. 31:6; Ezek. 14:6; 18:32; Joel 2:13f. ; Matt. 18:3; Acts 3:19), to repent (1 Kings 8:47; Matt. 3:2; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 2:38; 17:30), and to believe (2 Chron.20:20; Isa. 43:10; John 6:29;14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil. 1:29; 1 John 3:23).
Because of prevenient grace man is able to make an initial response to God, and God will then give to him repentance and faith (Jer. 31:18; Acts 5:31: 11:18; Rom. 12:3; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pet. 1: 1). God in his foreknowledge knows what men will do in response to his prevenient grace, whether or not they will “receive the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1). Thus, foreknowledge is not itself causative. There are things which God foreknows because he has purposed to permit them to come to pass, and still other things which he foreknows because he foresees what men will do without causing them to do so. God foreknew what men would do in response to his prevenient grace, and he elected those whom he foresaw would respond positively. In this way election follows foreknowledge. In election God determines (a) to save those whom he has foreknown would respond (1 Pet. 1: If.), (b) to give them life (Acts 13:48), (c) to place them in the position of sons (Gal. 4: 5f . ; Eph. 1:5), and (d) to conform them to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29f.). Briefly, in this approach toward a solution, God, through prevenient grace, provides everyone with the ability to respond to him if they so choose. God, foreknowing those who will respond, elects them to salvation.
B) Election and foreknowledge are inseparable and essentially the same. In this approach, election is interpreted differently than in the one just considered. Here election may be interpreted as that act of God by which he graciously and on account of no foreseen merit chooses out from among sinful men certain ones to be the recipients of his special saving grace. This position does not consider prevenient grace to be a paid of common grace, nor foreknowledge to be merely prescience. Granted, common grace comes to all (Acts 14: 17), God is not wishing for any to perish (2 Pet. 3: 9), the atonement is unlimited (1 John 2:2), and the call for salvation is universal (Rom.10: 13); nonetheless, the Scriptures are abundantly clear – that only those who are the elect shall be saved. The reasonableness of this can be shown in several ways. God can show grace on whom he wills (Matt. 20:12-15; John 15:16; Rom. 9:20f.). He does elect some to salvation (Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2: 13). Foreknowledge is not mere prescience, but includes also a kindly selection and relationship (Rom. 8:27-30; 1 Pet. 1: If.; cf. the use of “know” in Scripture: Exod. 2:25; Ps. 1:6; Matt. 7:23; Rom. 11:2; Gal. 4:9; 1 Thess.5:12; 1 Pet. 1:20; 1 John 2:3, 13). Further, election was done in eternity past (Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9); God gave the elect to his Son (John 6:37; 17:2, 6, 9; 1 Pet. 2:9); salvation is because of God’s will, not man’s (John 1: 13 ; 1 John 4:10); and, finally, repentance, faith, and holiness are all gifts of God (John 6:65; Acts 5:31; 1 Cor. 12:3; Eph. 2:8f.; 2 Tim. 2:25).
Phillip… Theissen has given the Arminian and Calvinistic views. Both have God playing a fantasy vision of a completed future in His mind and setting it as immutable before creation of any actual freewill.
The idea of God seeing a freewill decision as completed from a person in response to His offer of prevenient grace requires something establishing that specific life as being necessary, all God’s interaction in that life as being predestined by Him, and whatever led to any so-called free choice in that future life and only being made only one way also recognized and decreed by God to proceed, at least by His permission… all before creation begins.
That is not logically compatible with freewill…. sorry. 😉 There be no knowledge of a completed decision by a freewill from a freewill that doesn’t even exist yet. 😉
1. Man was not bestowed by God with absolute freedom that is why you say it is not logically compatible with FREE WILL. Free Will as it is defined in the dictionary is meant to be absolutely autonomous by itself in real life. A free will that can decide on itself and nothing can ever manipulate or influence it. I heard some says that actually Man has no freedom because everything is controlled by God…so Man has no freedom.
2. The freedom that we received from God is limited. This is what I believe. We cannot have an amount of freedom that will supercede our Maker who owns the absolute freedom and absolute knowledge, power, presence.
3. Our human knowledge is limited of the details in the completion of the future that has been pre-determined to come. They can be realised only by the time it has already happened.
TS00,
In our effort to reconcile two event-specific verses saying “God does not change His mind” with hundreds of other statements BY the Lord saying He is changing His mind, we must always look at context.
That is difficult for Calvinists since they so often need to yank verses out of context.
But Samuel and Balaam are speaking about very specific moments and stating that there is no more discussion, God will not change His mind on the matter at hand. Much of what Balaam says is poetic there….including
24 The people rise like a lioness;
they rouse themselves like a lion
This is not meant to be doctrine. It is a very specific to the context.
However, the Lord makes broad, descriptive statements about how He functions:
Jeremiah 18: 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
————
Here from the mouth of the Lord —in a broad “this is how I am” sort of way —- He tells us that He can and does change His mind.
It is very obvious why Calvinists want to favor Samuel’s situation-context words over the Lord’s descriptive statements, ignoring hundreds of verses like this.
I have no problem reconciling Samuel’s last words to Saul on the matter.
Calvinists have no way at all to deal with the Lord’s words here and hundreds of places like this.
FOH writes, ‘Here from the mouth of the Lord —in a broad “this is how I am” sort of way —- He tells us that He can and does change His mind.”
Or is God simply laying out the rules that guide His action. God says that He will judge evil and destroy it. He then says that He will not destroy the person who repents of the evil he is doing. If this is all you mean by “change of mind” then there is no argument with the Calvinists – the argument goes back to whether God knows the future and knows who will repent.
Sorry for the length of the following, as I have included a rather lengthy quote:
If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
Jeremiah 18:7-10
FOH writes:
“Here from the mouth of the Lord —in a broad “this is how I am” sort of way —- He tells us that He can and does change His mind.”
Rhutchin writes:
“Or is God simply laying out the rules that guide His action. God says that He will judge evil and destroy it. He then says that He will not destroy the person who repents of the evil he is doing. If this is all you mean by “change of mind” then there is no argument with the Calvinists – the argument goes back to whether God knows the future and knows who will repent.”
Let’s examine some of the (English translation of the) words that God uses, and see whose description appears to be more reflective of the intent of the text.
“If . . . then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.”
Even if one allows that some sort of general ‘rules’ of the game are being set forth, the setting forth of ‘rules’ points to the coming game. God knows how to issue instructions and warnings. See Deuteronomy 5 or Exodus 20 for examples. Even here, in the ‘fine print’, God makes it clear that the future is not ‘settled in the heavens’ nor fixed in stone. If the people obey God’s instructions (rules), they will receive his promised assistance and blessings. If they rebel against his commands (rules), they will face punishment, loss of blessing and, eventually, destruction. Men are given the freedom to choose evil, and – if and when they do so – they are in danger of God’s judgment. But then – and this reveals the genuine heart of God – he offers men a second chance. He urges them to turn from their evil ways so that he can ‘relent and not inflict on [them] the disaster [he] had planned’.
By nature of laying out ground rules, God discounts the assertion that the game is rigged, that he has determined, before it is ever played who will be the winners and who will be the losers, along with every move that they will make to ensure his decreed outcome. A soccer player must be taught the rules and skills necessary to play soccer, in preparation for an actual game. The result of the actual game – unless it is dishonestly predetermined – depends upon the as yet unknown actions and interactions of the various players, using their knowledge and skills, sometimes well, sometimes in error. God, in divine foreknowledge, knows each of these things before they come into being. He alone can know that which is not yet. He alone can forewarn men to not make a particular choice, leading them to avoid folly and do well, without having predetermined or controlled their actions.
Unlike man, God has foreknowledge of events not yet in existence, and the ability to insert himself into history in order to effect the end result. This is not something we can easily wrap our minds around, and countless philosophers have offered up their two cents as to how this works. Some, like Calvinists, insist that the only way God can foreknow events is to determine them. Holding this as indisputable truth, all scripture is then filtered through what is, in reality, just a theory. While this theory is a possibility, it is by no means the only theory explaining how foreknowledge might function. In authentic science, theories must be repeatedly questioned and tested, and if any evidence is proven to contradict it, the theory must be abandoned.
Thus, when scripture repeatedly suggests that God ‘reconsiders’ or ‘relents of’ planned actions, we must begin to doubt the theory of foreknowledge that asserts a meticulous, irresistible control of all future events. Any reasonable, honest person would admit that words like ‘reconsider’ and ‘relent’ appear to suggest a non-fixed state of affairs. This should lead one test the other predominant theory, that the future is not determined by divine decree but is genuinely contingent upon the actual choices that men freely make. The earnest seeker after truth must hold up each theory to every word of scripture, and keep an honest record of the results.
I have scant patience with those who twist scripture and play word games to arrive at their desired assertions, just as many so-called scientific studies, funded by corporations, are rigged to produce the desired results that will allow them to sell products and make a profit. I have even less patience when men accuse God of playing these sorts of word games with the people for whom he has demonstrated a genuine love and desire to redeem. Having sent the unmistakable and costly message of his love and proffered mercy for all in Jesus, Calvinists insist that God actually only loved some (the elect), and never intended to save the rest. And make no mistake, it is this, and only this, refusal by Calvinists to acknowledge that God actually loves and desires to save ALL men, that leads to their faulty interpretations. Theirs is the deliberate attempt to turn the gospel, proclaimed by angels as ‘good news, which shall be unto all people’ into ‘good news, which shall be for only some people’. THIS is the point of contention between the gospel of Jesus and the gospel of Calvin.
Assertions that God is merely describing the nature of events that he himself long ago determined and decreed, arises from Calvinism’s insistence that all men CANNOT be saved, because God did not desire them to be saved. It can be his determination alone, as he did not provide the necessary means for many to be saved; he had determined in ‘eternity past’ that they ‘SHALL NOT’ be saved.
The Calvinist turns every ‘if, then’ of scripture into a disingenuous, ‘seeming’ choice being offered to men. Whatever euphemisms they employ – and they have dreamed up many! – their assertion is indisputably that God DID NOT ever intend to save ALL men. Since scripture repeatedly declares that God desires that no man ever do evil or perish in their sin, Calvinism must somehow explain why a sovereign and omnipotent God does not get his ‘wish’. Either God truly does not desire that none perish, he does not have the power to accomplish his will, or there is another ‘power’ at play – such as that which God granted to free men.
The indisputable bedrock foundation of Calvinism is that only those whom God desires to be saved have been granted ‘atonement’ through Jesus and will, without fail, be saved. The despicable limited atonement of Calvinism is an essential element, which cannot be discarded without destroying the system. Today’s resurgent Calvinism relies on a sleight of hand, often not admitting what Calvinism demands: the offer of salvation cannot honestly be made to all men. Jesus only died for some, who will, unfailingly be saved. Thus, every promise, every warning, every call for all men to ‘turn from wickedness and be saved’; every promise made to ‘whosoever believes’ is granted by Calvinists, but modified by their ‘secret code’. This secret code turns ‘whosoever believes’ into ‘ whosoever are chosen, regenerated and granted the ‘gift’ of faith to believe’. That’s quite a lengthy modifier, and mostly just left in the closet, unless the Calvinist is cornered and forced to drag out and defend it.
What I have not seen explained is the genuine ‘as if’ that God must employ, due to his unique nature of being the Sovereign and sole uncreated essence in the universe, outside of the constructs of creation’s time, space and matter. This genuine ‘as if’ requires God to put aside his omniscient foreknowledge of man’s genuine, free, and as yet unmade, choices. In order to enable them to freely make those choices, he must deal with men ‘as if’ he didn’t know what they would choose ahead of time. Got that?
God must treat men ‘as if’ he does not know what each person will ever think, say and do, even though his nature grants him full knowledge of ALL things, past, present and future. This is not God playing games. He is not ‘pretending’ to offer men the option to do things which they cannot truly do; rather, he is ‘setting aside’ his foreknowledge, and allowing them to make choices ‘as if’ he does not already know what those choices will be. Nor, by the way, does God ever deny that he has this foreknowledge, or pretend as if he is ‘controlling’ the future simply because he foresees it. Again and again God clearly presents men with th choices they must make. Even more, God steps in and makes warnings to his creatures, based on his knowledge of the horrible consequences that ‘wrong’ choices will produce. Not mocking, futile warnings, but genuine urgings to do what is right, because men’s choices are real: If they choose well, good will result; if they choose poorly, evil will result.
As many a sci-fi movie has attempted to fictionalize, God sets out to prevent disastrous consequences that he alone foresees; and in this non-fictitious version called ‘life’, he gives real warnings, because there is a real possibility of avoiding disaster. God encourages all men to choose well, arising from a genuine desire that they will listen and avail themselves of the chance he offers to escape disaster. Somehow, just as in ‘Back to the Future’, our choices truly affect a ‘future’ that already exists (in God’s foreknowledge) without being ‘set’ in place. This is not something easily explained, any better than the feeble attempts by science fiction, which cannot answer the unsettling question of ‘How could this possibly happen?’
Unlike in the movies, even before making what is a genuine offer of ‘salvation’, God foreknows who will accept and who will decline. Not because he dictated the script, or limited the possibilities to only one, but because he knows the ending before the script is even written. Without determining the events as they take place. (Note: this is a mere lay attempt to describe the revealed ‘what’ rather than a scholarly attempt to set forth the ‘how’ of a sovereign God offering salvation to creatures he created with the freedom to accept or reject such an offer.)
But the Calvinist twists the perfectly defensible ‘as if’ that allows and honors man’s free choices into a duplicitous, malevolent ‘as if’, that predetermines all events, but presents them to men ‘as if’ they were actually their own free choices. This theology makes God, at best, one who plays very loosely with the Truth. Playing word games, he makes demands of people whom he has purposely made unable to obey, offers salvation to people for whom atonement was never genuinely made, and pretends as if their irresistibly predetermined destiny is due to their own ‘choices’ to follow their own ‘desires’, when, in reality, their ‘choices’ have all been scripted. All the while pretending ‘as if’ the offers being made are genuine, and the ‘choices’ men make could be other than what they will irresistibly be.
The true ‘as if’, impossible for mortal minds to fully grasp, is the necessity of an omniscient God to, in essence, set aside his foreknowledge and deal with each man as if he does not fully know his mind, heart and every thought, word and deed that he will ever freely initiate. Although such understanding is too high for us to attain, note that we are not asked to defend something indefensible or overlook the appearance of evil. In order to enable freely made choices in a world in which God has knowledge of the end from the beginning, God must interact with men within the limitations of the ‘here and now’, as if he does not know the future. This authentic ‘as if’ is necessitated by an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being creating a world in which he grants genuine freedom of choice to dependent, created, inferior, mortal beings. The omniscient, timeless one interacts with his limited, time-bound creatures, which generates some of the confusion we have with scripture. This is the genuine ‘mystery’ that man may not arrogantly deny, as Job was reminded. But it does not lay the existence of evil at the feet of God, while placing responsibility for individual acts of evil at the feet of men.
What Calvinism does with the unavoidable, well intended ‘as if’ is reprehensible. Under guise of ‘praising’ his Sovereignty they lay inferior, insincere sacrifices upon the alter provided to bring forgiveness for sin. While loudly proclaiming ‘Glory’, their well-rehearsed scheme accuses God of being the author of all evil.
Will they deny this with every falsely innocent breath? Will they, like the well-clad Pharisees of old, assert that they are only proclaiming ‘the gospel’; that they are simply giving God the ‘glory’ he so ‘rightly deserves’? Will countless men and women continue to be blinded and enslaved by this false leading which, if they are not rescued from, will land them in the ditch with their blind teachers? Yes, yes and yes.
And we must respond as Jesus did. Here is a lengthy, but helpful, description of Jesus’ condemnation of earlier false teachers by John F. Walvoord, long-time president of Dallas Theological Seminary:
“In this section [Mathew 23:1-12], climaxing the controversy of Christ with the scribes and Pharisees, seven solemn woes are pronounced upon them. Only Matthew records this scathing denunciation of these religious leaders of the Jews. These woes, in contrast to the Beatitudes, denounce false religion as utterly abhorrent to God and worthy of severe condemnation. No passage in the Bible is more biting, more pointed, or more severe than this pronouncement of Christ upon the Pharisees. It is significant that He singled them out, as opposed to the Sadducees, who were more liberal, and the Herodians, who were the politicians. The Pharisees, while attempting to honor the Word of God and manifesting an extreme form of religious observance, were actually the farthest from God.
His first condemnation, in 23:13, related to the fact that they did all they could to shut out others. False religion and pretense are always the worst enemies of the truth and are far more dangerous than immorality or indifference. As the religious leaders of the Jews, they were held guilty before God of blocking the way for others seeking to enter into the kingdom of God.
In verse 14, another woe is indicated, in which the scribes and Pharisees were charged with devouring widows’ houses and making long prayers to impress others. The verse, however, is omitted in most manuscripts and probably should not be considered as rightly a portion of this Scripture. It may have been inserted from Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.117 If it is included, it would bring the total woes to eight instead of seven.
In Matthew 23:15, the second woe is mentioned. In this one, the Pharisees were described as extremely energetic on both land and sea to make proselytes of the Jewish religion. But when they were successful, Jesus charged, “Ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” In referring to hell, Christ used the word Geenna or Gehenna, a reference to eternal damnation, rather than to Hades, the temporary abode of the wicked in the intermediate state. The Pharisees and their proselytes both would end up in eternal damnation.
A third woe is mentioned in verse 16, based on the trickery of the Pharisees, who held that swearing by the gold of the temple bound the oath. Jesus denounced them as both fools and blind, as obviously the gold was meaningless unless it was sanctified by the temple, and the gift on the altar was meaningless unless it was given significance by the altar. Repeating His accusation, He declared in verse 19, “Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?” Accordingly, Christ concluded that an oath based on the temple was binding, just as an oath based on heaven carried with it the significance of the throne of God and God who sits on the throne.
The fourth woe, mentioned in verse 23, has to do with hypocrisy in tithing. While they were so concerned in paying the tithe down to the smallest spice or seed, they omitted the really important matters: obeying the law and manifesting mercy and faith. He repeated His charge that they were blind, straining out a gnat or a small insect, but swallowing a camel. He was, of course, speaking figuratively of their dealing with minutiae but omitting the really important things.
The fifth woe is pronounced in verse 25, where He repeated the charge that they were hypocrites, merely actors acting a part. He charged them with cleaning the outside of the cup and the platter but being unconcerned about what was inside, where cleanliness really matters. He meant by this that they were concerned with ceremonial cleanliness, that which men observed, but not really concerned with holiness. While observing ceremonial rites of cleansing, they were not above extortion and excess.
In verse 27, Jesus mentioned the sixth woe. In this one, He described them as whited sepulchres, graves that had been made beautiful and white on the outside but within were full of dead men’s bones. This illustrated that the Pharisees were outwardly righteous but inwardly full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Jesus concluded with the seventh woe, in verse 29, in which He charged them with building tombs of the prophets and garnishing them with decorations and claiming that they would not be partakers with their fathers in martyring prophets. Jesus called their very witness to account, that they were the children of those who killed the prophets, and He told them, in verse 32, “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.” In other words, do what your fathers did and even do worse. Jesus was, of course, referring to their intent to kill Him and to their later persecution of the church.
In the severest terms, in verse 33, Jesus addressed them, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” He described the scribes and Pharisees as poisonous snakes, destined for terrible judgment which would be theirs in hell, specifically Gehenna, the place of eternal punishment.”
Calvinists are simply modern day Pharisees. They are not merely in error in some thing or things, as are the seven Churches of the Revelations, but they are wolves in shepherds’ clothing, a brood of vipers, leading others astray as they portray God falsely and distort his message of love, forgiveness and reconciliation.
Daily (through the Bible) reading in 2 Cor 5.
10 For we must all stand before Christ to be judged. We will each receive whatever we deserve for the good or evil we have done in this earthly body.
——-
It appears that Paul is speaking to believers. He mentions “receiving what we deserve” or having done good or evil.
How does that fit with the Calvinist “two wills”? I mean, we are there and He says, “what you did was evil.” And we say “yes, but it was your divine, hidden will, right?”
Right!
Calvin’s god is dishonest!
He leads Adam to believe he wants Adam to obey – when he’s already SECRETLY made Adam’s disobedience unavoidable (i.e. rendered certain) before Adam existed.
A dishonest god!
Is that god of scripture?
I don’t think so! :-]
FOH writes, “It appears that Paul is speaking to believers. He mentions “receiving what we deserve” or having done good or evil.
How does that fit with the Calvinist “two wills”?”
Jesus said (it is God’s will) that believers love one another. Does not God then give believers lattitude to love some and not others or love some a little and others a lot – thereby to choose contrary to His will? Certainly the one who obeys Christ consistently and faithfully will fare better than that one who does not.
2 Thes 2:13 should be read in light of 2 Thes 2:10-12. Belief in the truth is essential to be saved, and its rejection results in being lost. Did they believe because they were chosen, no, that would make them robots. They were chosen because they believed. 1Pe_1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 2 Thes 2:13 because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: God knows everything…Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
One Calvinist counter argument to the “robot” issue which is a common observation made by non-Calvinists.
The Calvinist will simply argue that humans aren’t robots.
But this is an ONTOLOGICAL argument only – which of course the Calvinist isn’t going to divulge.
No one actually asserts that Calvinism turns humans into robots ONTOLOGICALLY. The distinction here is FUNCTIONALITY.
And that is what observers are actually noting in Calvinism – humans FUNCTION robotically – by virtue of the fact that their every numerological impulse is programmed by the big engineer/programmer in the sky – at the foundation of the world.
Where at that point – a world full of bio-bots are still in the R&D phase of their development! :-]
I have quoted (Calvinist) Grudem often on these pages.
He says something like…. “Yes I am aware that the theology I am proposing makes it sound like we are robots. But we all know we aren’t robots.”
Of course just saying that does not change the fact that his theology carried out to its logical end insists that we are in fact robots.
But …ooops…. there I go… we know we’re not robots. There. Phew. All fixed.
Thanks FOH – your post just came in – and at the time I was turned off for a CPU enhancement.
Now I can think even faster than I did before! :-]
I could use me one of them thar brain jobs. 😉
Good to have humor! :-]
br.d writes, “by virtue of the fact that their every numerological impulse is programmed by the big engineer/programmer in the sky – at the foundation of the world.”
Programmed in the sense that God created man and included a brain that works off numerological impulses generated as the man reacts to his world. A person puts his hand on a hot stove and immediately, neurological impulses lead to his pulling his hand away. A person reads a book and understands what he is reading as neurological impulses access his memory and ability to think. The system was programmed into the man that God created in His image. God, through His infinite and perfect understanding, can know the neurological impulses that will be generated when a person puts his hand on a hot stove or reads a book or has any other experience. God is not the immediate cause of any neurological impulse but is the creator of the system that operates through neurological impulses. In this system, a person is not a robot because God does not directly generate the neurological impulses within a person but God is an external influence on the neurological impulses that are generated.
br.d
“by virtue of the fact that their every numerological impulse is programmed by the big engineer/programmer in the sky – at the foundation of the world.”
rhutchin
Programmed in the sense that God created man and included a brain that works off numerological impulses generated as the man reacts to his world. ….etc
br.d
Firstly
There is no such thing as “mere” permission in Calvinism – so Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit neurological impulses to occur naturally. He AUTHORS each and every one – and in EVERY PART.
Secondly:
There is no sense in appealing to NATURAL determinism which is MUTUALLY EXCLUDED by Theological Determinism.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the THEOS determines *ALL* things without exception.
Simple math:
Take the sum total of things determined and subtract *ALL* from it.
You get ZERO left over for NATURE to determine.
Calvinist R.C. Sproul and Paul Helms agree
R.C. Sproul:
-quote
“If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God.” – Chosen by God
Paul Helm’s:
-quote
“Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each
of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of God.” – The Providence of God
And John Calvin himself puts the last nail in the coffin of natural determinism.
-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless He INSPIRE it.
– Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172
Br.d writes, “And John Calvin himself puts the last nail in the coffin of natural determinism.
-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless He INSPIRE it.
– Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172”
We see the means whereby God inspire events described in the Scriptures:
– “Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve. So he went his way and conferred with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them.
– “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation. I will send him against an ungodly nation, And against the people of My wrath I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Yet he does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations.”
– “The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect.”
– “Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
– “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.”
– “Now Eli was very old; and he heard everything his sons did to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting….Nevertheless they did not heed the voice of their father, because the LORD desired to kill them….So the Philistines fought, and Israel was defeated, and every man fled to his tent. There was a very great slaughter, and there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers. Also the ark of God was captured; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, died.”
Br.d
“And John Calvin himself puts the last nail in the coffin of natural determinism.
-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless He INSPIRE it.
– Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172”
rhutchin
We see the means whereby God inspire events described in the Scriptures:
br.d
One should never make the silly mistake of conflating Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) with scripture
By INSPIRE John Calvin means AUTHOR
As such INSPIRE occurs INTERNALLY within the MIND of Calvin’s god
At the foundation of the world – all by lonesome self. :-]
The creature however is LATER used by Calvin’s god as a MEANS of ACTUALIZING what Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES.
As Calvinist Paul Helm’s reminds us:
-quote
“Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but EVERY TWIST AND TURN OF EACH OF THESE IS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL of god.” – (The Providence of God)
OH BTW:
If one doesn’t particularly like that quote from Calvin – he has another almost identical
John Calvin
-quote
“Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He inspires”
– (A Defense of the secret providence of god)
br.d writes, “One should never make the silly mistake of conflating Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) with scripture”
Theological Determinism says that God has an infinite understanding of His creation and had this understanding before He created the universe. By that infinite understanding, God knew all the factors acting on any future event and God was able to decide where and when He would directly involve Himself in the affairs of His creation (e.g., the flood of Noah, the impregnation of Mary) and when He would let natural consequences play out without His direct involvement (e.g,, Cain’s murder of Abel, the stoning of Stephen). Molinism provides a description of the manner in which this comes about. Prior to the creation, God could conceive of all the possible worlds He could create allowing Him to first conceive of all possible events. In choosing one universe to create, God determined all that would happen with no deviation from that determined in the creation.
br.d
“One should never make the silly mistake of conflating Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) with scripture”
rhutchin
Theological Determinism says that God has an infinite understanding of His creation ……etc
br.d
Theological Determinism is simply the thesis that a THEOS determines everything WITHOUT EXCEPTION – that will have existence and that will not have existence.
And Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world designs the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
Thus he designs evil which is to come to pass – all of which is FIRST-CONCEIVED in his mind and then RENDERED-CERTAIN
Understanding Calvinism is easy:
A Calvinist is a DETERMINIST wearing a mask of IN-Determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking points. :-]
br.d writes, ‘Theological Determinism is simply the thesis that a THEOS determines everything WITHOUT EXCEPTION – that will have existence and that will not have existence.”
Yes, directly and through secondary means.
Then, “Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world designs the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in the lake of fire.”
So, it appears from the Scripture – ““For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Then, “Thus he designs evil which is to come to pass – all of which is FIRST-CONCEIVED in his mind and then RENDERED-CERTAIN””
Actually, God describes certain actions to be evil as in the ten Commandments. There is nothing new to God.
br.d
“One should never make the silly mistake of conflating Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) with scripture”
rhutchin
Theological Determinism says that God has an infinite understanding of His creation ……etc
br.d
Theological Determinism is simply the thesis that a THEOS determines everything WITHOUT EXCEPTION – that will have existence and that will not have existence.
br.d
‘Theological Determinism is simply the thesis that a THEOS determines everything WITHOUT EXCEPTION – that will have existence and that will not have existence.”
rhutchin
Yes, directly and through secondary means.
br.d
And as such Calvin’s god AUTHORS every movement – whether that movement is a primary or secondary movement.
Additionally Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world designs the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in the lake of fire.”
rhutchin
So, it appears from the Scripture – ““For many are called, but few are chosen.”
br.d
Again – one should never make the silly mistake of conflating Theological Determinism with scripture.
For one always ends up with making scripture CROOKED.
Additionally Calvin’s god designs evil which is to come to pass – all of which is FIRST-CONCEIVED in his mind and then RENDERED-CERTAIN all that is going to come to pass
rhutchin
Actually, God describes certain actions to be evil as in the ten Commandments. There is nothing new to God.
br.d
A wonderful example of Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK – thank you rhutchin!
Of course there not going to be anything new to one who FIRST-CONCEIVES everything in his mind and then RENDERS-CERTAIN everything to be what it is.
Understanding Calvinism is easy:
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points.
br.d writes, “Firstly, There is no such thing as “mere” permission in Calvinism – so Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit neurological impulses to occur naturally. He AUTHORS each and every one – and in EVERY PART.”
“Merely” permit would mean that God is a disinterested, uninvolved observer in the activities of His creation. Under Calvinism, “If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God.” per Sproul. God created the universe and rules all events in His universe at all times. for God to author anything means that God had an infinite understanding of all things before He created the universe and in creating the universe, God made certain one unique outcome for that universe. All things come about as God intended. So, God understood that Eve and then Adam would eat the fruit when confronted by Satan f He did not prevent that outcome. God decided not to prevent that outcome by a conscious decision after the counsel of His will. Thus, God permitted the outcome but did not merely permit the outcome.
Then, “Secondly: There is no sense in appealing to NATURAL determinism which is MUTUALLY EXCLUDED by Theological Determinism.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the THEOS determines *ALL* things without exception.”
God is able to take advantage of naturally occurring events to accomplish His purposes. This is illustrated in storms, earthquakes, and other natural events that God permits to accomplish His purpose. God determines such events by not overruling natural tendencies. Events naturally determined are a subset of all things determined by God.
As Paul Helm said, ““Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each
of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of God.” All events are under the direct rule and control of God but those naturally occurring do not require that God initiate their occurrence.
br.d
“Firstly, There is no such thing as “mere” permission in Calvinism – so Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit neurological impulses to occur naturally. He AUTHORS each and every one – and in EVERY PART.”
rhutchin
“Merely” permit would mean that God is a disinterested, uninvolved observer in the activities of His creation.
br.d
FALSE
“Mere” permission is a term Calvin himself used to differentiate an event not *AUTHORED* by Calvin’s god.
-quote:
It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the *AUTHOR* of them. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (pg 176)
Secondly: There is no sense in appealing to NATURAL determinism which is MUTUALLY EXCLUDED by Theological Determinism.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the THEOS determines *ALL* things without exception.”
rhutchin
God is able to take advantage of naturally occurring events to accomplish His purposes.
br.d
This is simply an attempt to SMUGGLE IN “mere” permission – in camoufloaged form.
Calvin’s god AUTHORS every event
As Paul Helm said, ““Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of God.”
rhutchin
All events are under the direct rule and control of God but those naturally occurring do not require that God initiate their occurrence.
br.d
On the topic of initiating events – the Calvinist response is they do not know the MECHANISM.
What is asserted is that Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIEVE and RENDER-CERTAIN every event.
And what is there to misunderstand about: EVERY TWIST AND TURN IS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL of Calvin’s god.
Again – there is no such thing as “mere” permission in Calvinism – Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit anything to naturally occur.
CONCLUSION:
The Calvinist is robbed of “mere” permission and all creaturely automomy.
What is the poor sould to do but craft SEMANTAIC ILLUSIONS of the things his theology robs him of.
rhutchin: “Merely” permit would mean that God is a disinterested, uninvolved observer in the activities of His creation.”
br.d: FALSE “Mere” permission is a term Calvin himself used to differentiate an event not *AUTHORED* by Calvin’s god.”
“Mere” permission is a term Calvin himself used to differentiate an event not *AUTHORED* by Calvin’s god. It means that God is a disinterested, uninvolved observer in the activities of His creation.
Then, “Secondly: There is no sense in appealing to NATURAL determinism which is MUTUALLY EXCLUDED by Theological Determinism.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the THEOS determines *ALL* things without exception.”
n Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the THEOS determines *ALL* things without exception, incluing those things that can be attributed to natural determinism. Under Natural Determinism, one might combine two chemicals to get a reaction, that happens because God determined that outcome.
rhutchin: “God is able to take advantage of naturally occurring events to accomplish His purposes.”
br.d: “This is simply an attempt to SMUGGLE IN “mere” permission – in camoufloaged form. Calvin’s god AUTHORS every event.”
If God is using naturally occurring events to accomplsih His purpose then He is not a disinterested, uninvolved observer and His action is not mere permission. As Paul Helm said, ““Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of God.” This applies to naturally occurring events God.
rhutchin: “All events are under the direct rule and control of God but those naturally occurring do not require that God initiate their occurrence”.
br.d: “On the topic of initiating events – the Calvinist response is they do not know the MECHANISM.”
The mechanisms are well known. They are the physical laws that God implemented to govern God’s creation. For example, a person can drop an object and it will fall downward because of gravity. God need not impel the object downward as He established gravity to do this.
Then, “What is asserted is that Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIEVE and RENDER-CERTAIN every event.
And what is there to misunderstand about: EVERY TWIST AND TURN IS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL of Calvin’s god.”
In other words, there is nothing new to God that He was ignorant of.
Then, “Again – there is no such thing as “mere” permission in Calvinism – Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit anything to naturally occur.”
Mere permission is attributed to non-Calvinist philosophies that deny God’s control over His creation. It has no place in Calvinism.
Then, “CONCLUSION: The Calvinist is robbed of “mere” permission…”
Can’t be robbed of something you never had.
Then, “…and all creaturely automomy.”
Man is not autonomous with respect to God; man is autonomous with respect to other people.
rhutchin:
“Merely” permit would mean that God is a disinterested, uninvolved observer in the activities of His creation.”
br.d:
FALSE
I posted John Calvin’s direct quote on this and you removed it because you knew it did not confirm what you need.
Here you’re simply doing what you always do with other people’s quotes – contorting them to make them conform.
On “mere” permission John Calvin asserts absolutely nothing concerning “disinterested” or “uninvolved observer”
He specifically defines “mere” permission as a concept of permission of an event which Calvin’s god did not *AUTHOR*
Which is totally consistent with Theological Determinism – where for example Calvin’s god deceives Adam into believing that he is PERMITTING Adam to “obey” or “disobey” – when he SECRETLY only PERMITS what he AUTHORED.
So There is no sense in appealing to NATURAL determinism which is MUTUALLY EXCLUDED by Theological Determinism.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the THEOS determines *ALL* things without exception.”
rhutchin:
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the THEOS determines *ALL* things without exception, including those things that can be attributed to natural determinism. Under Natural Determinism, one might combine two chemicals to get a reaction, that happens because God determined that outcome.
br.d
Now you’re simply switching to a new term “attributed” which is part of the ongoing shell-game with words.
The attempt here is to use “attributed” as a replacement term for AUTHOR with the hopes of not getting caught.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god is the *AUTHOR* of every movement of every event.
Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit any movement – (whether primary or secondary, whether chemical or non-chemical), to naturally occur on its own.
rhutchin:
God is able to take advantage of naturally occurring events to accomplish His purposes.”
br.d
This is simply an attempt to SMUGGLE IN “mere” permission – in camouflaged form.
Any movement within any event that is not specifically AUTHORED by Calvin’s god – he does not permit.
rhutchin
If God is using naturally occurring events to accomplish His purpose then He is not a disinterested, uninvolved observer and His action is not mere permission. As Paul Helm said, ““Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of God.” This applies to naturally occurring events God.
br.d
You’re simply chasing your tail- at this point.
Simple Math again:
– Calvin’s god determines *ALL* events without exception
– Take the sum total of all things determined and subtract *ALL* from it
– You have ZERO left over for nature to determine.
Calvin’s god specifically *AUTHORS* every integral part of every event
rhutchin:
“All events are under the direct rule and control of God but those naturally occurring do not require that God initiate their occurrence”.
br.d:
On the topic of initiating events – the Calvinist response is they do not know the MECHANISM.” What they do assert is that *ALL* things are determined by Calvin’s god.
rhutchin:
The mechanisms are well known. They are the physical laws that God implemented to govern God’s creation. For example, a person can drop an object and it will fall downward because of gravity. God need not impel the object downward as He established gravity to do this.
br.d
Here you are simply switching to a different term “impel” as a replacement term for “force” or “coerce” which is old argument.
I’m sure Calvin’s god’s decrees have NO FORCE!
Or perhaps he uses a FORCE that FORCES without FORCING :-]
Bottom line – Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit ANYTHING!
And what is there to misunderstand about: EVERY TWIST AND TURN IS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL of Calvin’s god.”
rhutchin:
In other words, there is nothing new to God that He was ignorant of.
br.d
Here we have INFERENCE of divine knowledge via observation rather than AUTHORSHIP.
Of course Calvin’s god is not ignorant of what he AUTHORS
rhutchin
Mere permission is attributed to non-Calvinist philosophies that deny God’s control over His creation. It has no place in Calvinism.
br.d
AH! but that is what Calvinists SAY – but not really – or not with intellectual honesty in any case.
For as we see with this thread – Calvinists are constantly trying to SMUGGLE in “mere” permission – in camouflaged form.
CONCLUSION:
The Calvinist is robbed of “mere” permission, and all creaturely autonomy
What is the poor soul to do but use SEMANTIC ILLUSIONS to manufacture those things he’s been robbed of.
rhutchin
Can’t be robbed of something you never had.
br.d
Easy to claim – but all the attempts to SMUGGLE it back in again in camouflaged form – give the game away. :-]
rhutchin
Man is not autonomous with respect to God; man is autonomous with respect to other people
br.d
Which affirms there is no such thing as a natural event occurring naturally on its own – which is the definition of autonomous.
– Acting in accordance with its own inclinations.
I would be very interested in what a ‘naturally occurring’ event might look like under the Calvinist scheme. How would a Calvinist define a naturally occurring event, and what distinguishes them from all the ones the Westminster Confession declares were brought to pass by God? If God did not determine/author/cause naturally occurring events, who or what did? If they arise spontaneously, apart from anyone’s control, does that insinuate a category of events that are outside of the ‘whatsoever comes to pass’ determination of God?
I simply cannot imagine a possible Calvinist scenario where such a thing as a ‘naturally occurring’ event might be possible.
TS00
I simply cannot imagine a possible Calvinist scenario where such a thing as a ‘naturally occurring’ event might be possible.
br.d
YUP! Totally agree!
This is where we find Calvinists using “Double-Speak Talking-Points” as a way of getting around their own doctrine.
As FOH would faithfully say: Having their cake and eating it. :-]
Agreed.
My reading today from 2 Chronicles 10 also brings this out.
Rehoboam just became king and he takes the advice from his younger, spoiled counselors. Then the Word says….
“15 So the king paid no attention to the people. This turn of events was the will of God, for it fulfilled the Lord’s message to Jeroboam son of Nebat through the prophet Ahijah from Shiloh.”
———
Why does the Word stress in some places “This was the will of God” if everything is the will of God?
Determinism-Calvinism wants us to believe that God micro-manages every detail (see br.d’s many good quotes from them) but the Bible tells us clearly in many places that some things were the will of God (above), but other things (see the may references including Jeremiah 19) were not His will in any way.
Such an unexplainable theology. I wish one of the resident Calvinists would ever tell us how it works.
TS00 asks, “I would be very interested in what a ‘naturally occurring’ event might look like under the Calvinist scheme.”
Adam/Eve each eating the fruit, Cain’s murder of Abel, the sale of Joseph, the stoning of Stephan. In each event, God certainly understood what was happening and did so before He created the universe, but in each case, God’s understanding of the limitations of the people involved and their life influences led to the decisions that were made without outside influence or coercion by God. Yet, all this was known by God before He created the world, so in creating the world God authored each and every event of history making each event certain by His knowledge and necessary by His understanding. As br.d points out, there was not a neurological impulse that sprung into the minds of the participants that was unknown to God and not under God’s control. God could have made a world where no sin would ever occur and He chose not to do so. Thus, we get the events described in the Scripture and in the newspapers every day.
rhutchin,
You state:
“Adam/Eve each eating the fruit, Cain’s murder of Abel, the sale of Joseph, the stoning of Stephan. In each event, God certainly understood what was happening and did so before He created the universe, but in each case, God’s understanding of the limitations of the people involved and their life influences led to the decisions that were made without outside influence or coercion by God. Yet, all this was known by God before He created the world, so in creating the world God authored each and every event of history making each event certain by His knowledge and necessary by His understanding. As br.d points out, there was not a neurological impulse that sprung into the minds of the participants that was unknown to God and not under God’s control. God could have made a world where no sin would ever occur and He chose not to do so. Thus, we get the events described in the Scripture and in the newspapers every day.”
My response:
Your ignorance of the Bible is really telling.
Especially the “God could have made the world where NO SIN would ever occur and he chose not to do so”.
My question to you is WHY did God not make the world where NO SIN would ever occur?
The answer is in the bible, but you would never know it, cuz you Calvinists are stuck on stupid.
THIS is why John Calvin is so stupid.
WITHOUT EVIL in the world, there would be no such thing as free will.
In heaven, there is NO EVIL. Evil was booted out of heaven, Satan and his angels…WHERE were they kicked out to, and WHEN did that happen? Before Adam was FORMED on the earth, or AFTER?
This Earth is where HELL is located, and HELL was not created for man. The Earth was FLOODED in Genesis 1, and God had to PART THE WATER so that land would appear.
This Earth is SATANS RULE, even if God is the OWNER, or LANDLORD. And Satan has kingdoms to give to Jesus here on earth if only Jesus would worship him.
Like I noted before, you people really don’t talk about Satan much, except to say that he has LIMITATIONS. NO HE DOES NOT HAVE LIMITATIONS. He can do anything he wants. The story of Job was a BET, no different than The Devil Went Down to Georgia song.
The demons in a man, the demons asked if Jesus was gonna PUNISH THEM BEFORE THE TIME. They can’t be punished until a certain time, meaning, that they can do anything they want, without limitations.
Evil is NECESSARY for free will. And that, Calvinists will never understand.
But, since heaven is out ULTIMATE GOAL, why did God put us ON THIS EARTH to begin with, using your logic. Why not just keep us all where is already is? How about answering that one, WITHOUT the influence of Calvin or his minions like lying Paul Washer, etc.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24My question to you is WHY did God not make the world where NO SIN would ever occur?…WITHOUT EVIL in the world, there would be no such thing as free will. ”
Again, we find ourselves at odds. I don’t see the Scriptures telling us that evil is necessary to free will.
Then, “Evil is NECESSARY for free will. And that, Calvinists will never understand. ”
God has free will and He is not affected by evil. In heaven, believers will have free will, but there will be no evil. Again, we disagree on this.
Then, “But, since heaven is out ULTIMATE GOAL, why did God put us ON THIS EARTH to begin with, using your logic.”
In Romans 9, we read, “What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
That’s because you sick the the script of Calvinism. You refuse to do research. You are not what I would call as someone who asks questions in order to research the answers as I have proven to you by your crazy responses that there is no Jew or Gentile. What’s interesting about that statement is that you definitely believe that there is a difference between male and female, and you make that quite clear, even tho Paul states otherwise along with the same statement that there is no difference. Regardless, see my last few comments to you that clearly shows your ignorance regarding the distinction of Jew and Gentile.
Lastly, your Romans 9 reference is irrelevant to my final question from my last comment. Why did God not keep us in heaven with him from the beginning? Why did he put us on earth instead? Romans 9 had nothing to do with it.
This life, which was always meant to be temporary, as Paul tells us, is our free will to choose life, or death. Paul states:
2 Cor 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
This earthly life is a test. We either fail, or win. It’s a choice based on free will to choose life or death, and evil is necessary for choosing which one road we travel. Calvinism is insane and evil to the core.
Ed Chapman
Yes – we all recognize that Calvinists who participate here do not appear to be here with an attitude of truth-seeking. They are here for to defend Calvinism’s IMAGE.
As FOH gentlemanly states it: “Rinse & Repeat – Rinse & Repeat” :-]
This reminds me of the priests of Dagon
Come back – pick up the IMAGE – clean it – polish it.
Come back – pick up the IMAGE – clean it – polish it.
Come back – pick up the IMAGE – clean it – polish it.
rh writes:
” If God had never said, “Thou shalt not…” so that nothing could be called evil”
This is very telling. In the legalistic, black and white world of Calvinists and such, sin is improperly conflated with evil. Where there is no law, there is no sin, means that people can not be held accountable for their evil without due process. Due process is accompanied by undeserved grace, revealing that, while all men deserve punishment for sin, God has provided atonement so that all who repent and turn from sin may be forgiven.
Evil exists apart from sin, being the root thereof. Evil would be evil, whether or not God ever issued a moral command to demonstrate what sin is. It is evil to hate, kill, deceive and manipulate, whether or not there exist laws forbidding such things or not. Evil did not arise from the existence of the law, but sin became manifest thereby. There is a difference. Jesus’ atonement came to deal with sin, via the law, but does not eliminate evil.
While scripture charges that all are sinners, it does not declare that all are evil – this is the chief error of Calvinism. Many a person eventually discovers that, in God’s eyes, they are sinners, and, were it not for Jesus, they would perish. But this does not mean they are evil, it means that they are lawbreakers. Evil arises from hatred of others, or too much love for self, which is perhaps one and the same. No law can eliminate hatred, or conjure up love; nor can some supernatural, magic rah-rah by God, such as the false concept of regeneration posited by Calvinism.
It is this love for God, all bound up with our faith in him and his love for us, that sets the child of God apart from those who are genuinely evil. All alike struggle with inappropriate desires of the flesh, and the seductive traps Satan lays in order to ensnare us, but not all alike are evil.
Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, not because he had never committed a ‘sin’, but because he was upright in his heart and behavior. Unlike all around him, he did not spend his days in corrupt, selfish abuse of others, but most likely worked diligently to love and care for his family and to instruct them about God.
The faulty conflation of sin and evil leads to the error of Calvinism’s ‘sinners in the hand of an angry God’ theology. God is patient with sinners, willing to correct and assist them as they grow in understanding and righteousness. It is the wicked, the haters of God and all that is good; who refuse to be corrected or relinquish their harmful behavior, who will face the wrath of God. Jesus dealt compassionately with sinners, urging them to repent, but showed nothing but derision for the self-seeking, God-hating Pharisees.
The incorrect emphasis on sin, when Jesus died to deal with that very issue, leads to much error and harm. It is evil which is the real problem in this world, and never did any evil arise from the mind, decree or heart of God. It took many years for me to grapple with the disconnect between what scripture teaches and what Calvinistic Protestantism teaches.
Sin is not the problem; that is the lie of Satan, which Jesus came to dispense with. Jesus came to say ‘Here am I, the solution to your sin problem, as long promised.’ It is finished, sin has been paid for, and no one can lay the penalty of death at your feet – unless you refuse to embrace the remedy. We can now follow Jesus on the path of learning how to love God and others and live. No longer must we fear death, nor remain helplessly enslaved to sin.
Yet all I ever heard in my Calvinist church for over a decade was ‘sin, sin, sin’, as if the pastor had never heard the good news. Indeed, I suspect he had not, at least, not its genuine, life-giving meaning. The gospel of Calvinism, like Judaism, is a legalistic, works-based religion that does not genuinely understand sin, love or grace, but offers up twisted, ugly distortions thereof. Still stuck on sin, it is as if Jesus never died; they cannot see past ‘sin’ to the root of the problem, which is evil. A righteous man can sin (which he will regret and repent of) but an evil man can never truly do good. A righteous man’s worst sin stems from fleshly weakness, whereas the evil man’s best deeds arise from self-interest and deception. Calvinism falsely asserts that all men are in this dreadful, evil state from birth, put there by the very curse of God on account of another man’s sin.
Reading scripture with distorted definitions and understandings will lead to nothing but error and despair. God did not come to condemn sinners, but to rescue those who were not evil by nature, but helplessly trapped in sin. Calvinism is the very essence of Satan’s evil lies, twisting the good news of God’s love and glorious plan of salvation into a horrid system of decrees, fatalism and favoritism.
Under Calvinsm, rather that desiring to rescue all who are not evil at heart, but simply ensnared by sin, God actually curses all men with an inability to be anything but evil – then punishes those whom he refuses to rescue from his curse. What a cruel, terrible, horrible perversion of the gospel of love, which desires that no man be enslaved to sin, but that all be set free.
TS00
In the legalistic, black and white world of Calvinists and such, sin is improperly conflated with evil.
br.d
For me – this manifests the Gnostic element within Calvinism.
Remember Augustine was first a disciple of Gnosticism and then as a Christian NeoPlatonist.
Augustine’s evolution in this path forward is slow and methodical.
He will not cast off any explanation of how the COSMOS is designed as long as that explanation works for him.
So Augustine is marked as the PREMIER influence in the western church for synchronizing NeoPlatonism into Catholic doctrine.
But also elements of the Gnostic system remain as observable elements here and there through out his writings.
Today we have what we call the principle of Yin and Yang
The concept that things exist in ANTITHESIS
In other words good and evil exist as Co-equal – and Co-necessary constituents of the ONE
In Yin Yang – the blackness of black is what makes the whiteness of white show forth.
Augustine writes this “Antithesis is marvelous to contemplate”
Jon Edwards writes “The glory of god’s goodness would not be able to shine forth without the evilness of evil”.
Do you see the pattern?
This is a characteristic of Calvinism that Non-Calvinists intuitively find problematic – but without identifying exactly what it is.
Calvinism – evolving with elements of Gnosticism would quite naturally contain a deity who is characterized as GOOD-EVIL
And everything then will follow a pattern of existing in Good-Evil pairs.
For example:
Souls are predestined to the Good and to evil
Human thoughts choices and desires are RENDERED-CERTAIN as good – and RENDERED-CERTAIN as evil.
The DUALISM found within the Gnostic system.
Let’s also remember that Calvinism teaches that God did this on purpose…. He kind of needs evil and judgement and wrath… uh… to show how good He is.
So, he didnt just let evil happen…. He made it happen to show how good He is. There are many quotes from Calvin on this. Here’s one:
“God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.”
Good News!
Exactly!
I am convinced that aspect of Calvin’s system is from Augustine – and Augustine gets it from Gnosticism.
That’s why Non-Calvinist Christians find it either repulsive or it make the hairs on the back of their necks stand on edge.
The Calvinist himself is numbed to this sensation in his path to embracing the system.
On that reminds of the scripture which describes the conscience seared with a hot iron.
In the Calvinist’s case – if not seared – weakened to the point where pricks of conscience are no longer felt
Calvinists accuse me of … “only wanting to talk about the love of God. What about His justice and wrath!”
Yum. Yes, that yummy wrath!
But I simply respond that the Bible says that “God is love.” Yes the Bible talks about his justice and wrath.
But notice that the Word says “God is love” (not “God is loving”).
“God is loving” would be the equivalent to “God is just” (both are adjectives).
God is love is nowhere matched with the equivalent form “God is justice” (both nouns).
It is amazing that Scripture says “God IS love”! Not….He likes love, or He is loving, or He loves. He IS love.
So, juxtapose that God-is-love to the idea of rendering-certain the eternal death of 95% of humans created in His image.
Not Good News.
It would not be ‘not good news’, if it were not utterly, provably, untrue. 😉 Scripture abounds with declarations and descriptions of God’s love, goodness, mercy, kindness, patience, etc. I used to think John 3:16 was overused, but the older I get, the more I see how it sums up the gospel so well.
God so loved, because God is love. He sent prophets, revelation and his own Son to warn men and urge them to turn from wickedness and escape his coming wrath, which will be directed at all unrepentant evildoers. Calvinism turns its focus on that coming wrath, as if it is what God is all about, when all of scripture and history reveals that God has been holding his arms out to mankind, desiring them to come to home to him and find shelter, peace and life.
I once was amazed that many atheists were so angry and bitter about God, until I realized they were responding to the Calvinist caricature, not the loving, merciful God of scripture. I do not deny that I have some qualms about much of what is depicted in the Old Testament, and I question whether the explanations I have heard are adequate. I do not accept for a moment that anyone ever was punished without adequate knowledge and warning, as this simply does not line up with who God has revealed himself to be.
How long was Noah preparing the ark? Can we safely presume that he was preaching and warning throughout those years of what was to come, but was ignored? The same with Israel’s long march to the promised land – did not all of the surrounding peoples hear the stories of the parted sea, manna in the desert, fire and clouds, and have fair warning that they were dealing with the true God and Creator of the universe? The story of Rahab suggests that they did, and simply refused to humble themselves and become his followers, unlike she did.
I do not deny that God warns of a wrath to come; but he also urges men to flee from this wrath, by putting their faith in the love and forgiveness manifested in Jesus. God is not a cruel, harsh, unpredictable tyrant, throwing his weight around and terrifying his helpless creatures. We are not spiders hanging on flimsy threads, about to be cast into the fire. We are precious, beloved creations of God, designed to know and love him forever; there is nothing he desires more for us. May we ever proclaim his love and mercy to all men, that all may know, without a doubt, that he desires none to perish, just as he has said.
TS00,
Good to see you back!
“I do not deny that God warns of a wrath to come; but he also urges men to flee from this wrath, by putting their faith…..”
Indeed. How “just” and “loving” is that if He warns of the wrath to come but renders-certain that man not be able to flee. That sounds like cruelty to me! ((By the way “put their faith” is a biblical term but not a Calvinist one.))
“We are not spiders hanging on flimsy threads, about to be cast into the fire…..”
Indeed. Even if we were as “low” as spiders we would be able to shimmy back up the thread to safety. Calvin and Jonathan Edward’s God even blocks the way up that thread!
Of course our resident Calvinist will answer: “No FOH, the spider’s sinful depraved nature directs him only and always in the direction of the flame.”
Right. That makes as much sense as “The Parable of the Seeking Father.”
TS00 writes, “God so loved, because God is love. He sent prophets, revelation and his own Son to warn men and urge them to turn from wickedness and escape his coming wrath, which will be directed at all unrepentant evildoers.”
So, God only saves people on the condition that they repent.
FOH — if we look at the term “wrath” we have to ask the question “what is it”.
Let’s say that it is a RESPONSE.
So Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN [X] will come to pass – and then expresses “wrath” over [X] coming to pass.
What is Calvin’s god expressing wrath towards (or responding to) in this case?
He’s expressing wrath about (or responding to) the very thing he RENDERED-CERTAIN.
As you have often stated: There is no such thing as the creature disobeying Calvin’s god’s will.
Whatever the creature does – Calvin’s god willed it.
So if he expresses wrath for that event – then he’s merely expressing wrath for the very thing he willed.
In order to make this APPEAR ethical the Calvinists moves into his *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
The Calvinist’s doctrine stipulates the creature CANNOT do otherwise than what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
So the Calvinist treats that part of the doctrine *AS-IF* it were FALSE.
LOL I like that (rince/repeat).
chapmaned24 writes, ‘This earthly life is a test. We either fail, or win. It’s a choice based on free will to choose life or death, and evil is necessary for choosing which one road we travel.”
That is your personal philosophy, so you still need to get the Scriptures to say this.
If you actually read the whole bible as a novel at least 5 times at a minimum, and matched words and phrases, and asked the hard questions for the purpose of personal study, then you too would have that same philosophy. My philosophy is matched, by the way, with most of Christendom. So I’m not alone. Baptists have a little bit of a different spin on things than most of Christendom, as well, but they are closer to the truth than you are.
However, I have given you evidence regarding Jews and Gentiles, and you are not even studying that out, which shows you lack of interest in seeking the truth.
You’ve got Calvin’s talking points and you are sticking with it. I feel sorry for you.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
I’m gonna give you a little bit of INSIDE INFORMATION. Don’t tell anyone…it’s OUR secret.
Romans 9:17
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
You guys LOVE this one, don’t ya? It’s your favorite verse. You guys HAMMER this one in your church’s.
But you don’t even know what it means.
One word missing is the word MOSES.
Moses is a depiction of JESUS, the REDEEMER. Egypt is a depiction of BONDAGE TO SIN, and the Pharaoh is a depiction of THE DEVIL, and God was USING the lives of these to tell a STORY of Jesus redeeming the world of sin, and defeating THE DEVIL.
In other words, it’s PROPHESY. God used the Pharaoh to tell a story, and because Pharaoh was USED by God to tell PROPHESY of Jesus, the PHARAOH GETS MERCY REGARDING HIS ETERNAL DESTINY, and who are we to tell God who to give mercy to, and who not to give mercy to.
And I’m quite certain that you think that the Pharaoh is burning in hell, cuz I’ve heard that conclusion many times. I don’t believe that for a moment, because of the way that Romans 9 – 11 discusses the BLINDNESS of the Jews, and the MERCY that they get.
The Pharaoh and Jesus is both in Heaven right now, sharing a glass of WINE FROM THE VINE, laughing at you Calvinists for your ignorance.
The ONLY purpose of God USING people in the
Ed Chapman
rhutchin
The only reason that God USED people in the OT, as Romans 9 mentions, is to TELL A STORY of a future event which we call PROPHESY.
And there is LOTS of Prophesy to be fulfilled, and it is told by the lives of others in the Hebrew Scriptures, which is why I can feel confident that the story of Joseph is a depiction of Jesus, and the brothers are a depiction of the Jews to tell a story of the relationship that Jesus has with the Jews.
And Romans 9:17 is the explanation of both.
rhutchin,
A complete study of Romans chapter 2 thru Romans chapter 7, coupled with 1 John 3:4 and Romans 3:20 is something to delve into.
I’m not sure if you’ve ever noticed this, but 99 percent of the time that Calvinists reference Romans 5, you will see that they do NOT quote verse 13 at all. They bypass that one verse even tho they quote the verse before, and the verse after.
But even if they don’t, Romans chapter 4 covers what they delete anyway. But they won’t talk about Romans 4 in relation to Romans 5.
IGNORANCE of the law of Moses is the same as saying INNOCENT, no matter how many sins that they may have committed.
The inheritance that we got from Adam is NOT his sin, but that we all die a natural death, because he ate of the tree of death, instead of the tree of life, and God forbid him from eating of the tree of life in a fallen state, because if he would have eaten of that tree in a fallen state, he would have lived forever in a fallen state, eternally separated from God, but have eternal life.
If only people would delve into asking questions and researching the answers, the answers will jump out at ya.
But this is why I do not believe in Original sin. What we inherited from Adam is natural death, even if we are innocent of sin ourselves due to ignorance of sin.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “The inheritance that we got from Adam is NOT his sin, but that we all die a natural death,…”
People inherited a corrupt (sinful) nature from Adam. It is from this corrupt nature that people sin. Thus, not only did Christ have to die for the sins of God’s elect, He had to cover them with His righteousness.
No. No one inherited a corrupt sinful nature from Adam. 1 Cor 15:36 – the end tells you that all of us is planted or sowed in corruption, raised in glory, etc. Adam was already a sinner from the very start. He just didn’t know what his sins were until he got… what was the name of that tree again… oh, ya, KNOWLEDGE. And this is where your theology falls apart, and many others, cuz y’all bought off on what the Catholics teach. Ditch all of Catholicism, and your eyes will open. Reformers are still Catholic without the white dress and dunce cap.
Seriously, ditch the concept of original sin, cuz it doesn’t exist.
Everyone is innocent of sin until they get KNOWLEDGE.
But you don’t want anyone to know that, cuz when referencing Romans 5, ya purposefully delete verse 13.
You people have some serious problems. And I ain’t joking.
Ed Chapman
Hi Ed,
I removed the last statement in this post as it looked like it was going over the edge into attack mode.
No prob. I tend to do that. Thanks.
chapmaned24 writes, “Adam was already a sinner from the very start.”
Only in the sense that God knew Adam would sin. Otherwise, God declared His creation very good and I’ll take that to mean that sin had not been committed and Adam would not be a sinner until he sinned.
Then, ‘Everyone is innocent of sin until they get KNOWLEDGE. ”
Paul said, “the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” By the law is the knowledge of sin. so sin precedes law and people are not innocent before learning of their sin through the law.
rhutchin,
You state:
“Only in the sense that God knew Adam would sin. Otherwise, God declared His creation very good and I’ll take that to mean that sin had not been committed and Adam would not be a sinner until he sinned.
Then, ‘Everyone is innocent of sin until they get KNOWLEDGE. ”
Paul said, “the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” By the law is the knowledge of sin. so sin precedes law and people are not innocent before learning of their sin through the law.”
My response:
Yes, God knew that Adam would sin. At the same time, YES, God’s creation was very good.
I do not see how one would negate out the other. It’s JUST HOW GOD HAD PLANNED, otherwise, God would have kicked the devil and his angels to JUPITER or MARS instead of the earth to keep the devil from tempting anyone giving them a FREE WILL CHOICE to disobey God, knowing that 1 Corinthians 15 states that Adam was PLANTED in corruption and weakness in a NATURAL body, not a spiritual body.
In addition, Christians were never under the law of Moses, keep that in mind. I already showed you that Abraham didn’t have the law of Moses. So here is my question. What brought Abraham to Christ, since he didn’t have the law as a tutor?
My point is that NO ONE is GUILTY of sin until they get KNOWLEDGE of the sin. Everyone goes thru the SAME THING that Adam did, and Adam was innocent until he knew. You were once innocent until you knew as well.
YOU ate of that tree of Knowledge of Good and evil once you read THE TUTOR.
So, for the law to be a tutor, what you are doing is LEARNING of YOUR SINS FOR THE FIRST TIME, giving you a guilt conscience. Then you can repent of your sins, THEN you can get baptized.
Your response here is so incomplete, because I provided many verses to refute your Calvin script, namely Romans 4, Romans 5, Romans 7, and 1 Cor 15.
You can’t negate out that Adam was PLANTED in corruption, weakness, and dishonor, a natural body, not a spiritual one, because natural comes first,not a spiritual.
Ed Chapman
The only way Calvin’s god knows Adam would sin – is by Calvin’s god specifically bringing Adam’s act of sin into existence – and by caveat not bringing into existence his act of obedience.
Calvin’s god cannot bring obedience and disobedience into existence at the same time because they negate each other.
For any event representing sin or evil – rhutchin is always very careful to craft the language of his statements to INFER divine foreknowledge via observation – rather than divine foreknowledge via decree.
This type of language is designed to deflect Calvin’s god as the cause.
Since Calvinists reject divine foreknowledge via observation – this type of language comes as part and parcel with Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points.
br.d
If only he could understand that Adam’s body was:
1 Cor 15:42 It is sown in corruption
1 Cor 15:43 It is sown in dishonour
1 Cor 15:43 it is sown in weakness
1 Cor 15:44 It is sown a natural body
And God considered that VERY GOOD.
God planned on a weak corrupt dishonorable body that dies in which would give in to temptation, and God considered that VERY GOOD.
Ed Chapman
Your posts often remind me of the scripture that says “love hopes all things”.
You have a consistency of hope that rhutchin’s mind will be open
It is a consistency of hope that I don’t appear to have
I think the Lord has blessed you with that.
Thanks br.d. But believe me, it took years for me to be able to explain this stuff to myself. I was never a fan of academic big words that religious philosophers use on a regular basis. Denzel Washington in a movie once said, “Explain this to me like I’m a two year old”. So, I take religious dogma, and bring it down that people can finally get it, in simple terms easily understood.
chapmaned24 writes, “If only he could understand that Adam’s body was:
1 Cor 15:42 It is sown in corruption
1 Cor 15:43 It is sown in dishonour
1 Cor 15:43 it is sown in weakness
1 Cor 15:44 It is sown a natural body
And God considered that VERY GOOD.”
Adam’s body is sown in corruption by death. Prior to Adam’s eating the fruit, his body would not be sown in death. Prior to Satan entering God’s creation and tempting Eve and getting Adam to eat the fruit, God had declared His creation very good.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“Adam’s body is sown in corruption by death. Prior to Adam’s eating the fruit, his body would not be sown in death. Prior to Satan entering God’s creation and tempting Eve and getting Adam to eat the fruit, God had declared His creation very good.”
That’s NOT what 1 Cor 15:36-end states at all. The mere fact that Adams body was made of DIRT is what makes Adam’s body corrupt, and weak. The sin had nothing to do with it.
YOU think that the sin was eating a fruit that God forbid.
So do I, but that is NOT WHY ADAM COVERED HIS GENITALS.
Adam had more sins to account for other than eating an apple.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “The mere fact that Adams body was made of DIRT is what makes Adam’s body corrupt, and weak. The sin had nothing to do with it.”
I think sin had everything to do with it. Take away the sin and Paul has nothing to write.
rhutchin,
You state:
“chapmaned24 writes, “The mere fact that Adams body was made of DIRT is what makes Adam’s body corrupt, and weak. The sin had nothing to do with it.”
I think sin had everything to do with it. Take away the sin and Paul has nothing to write.”
My reply,
Then you haven’t read 1 Cor 15:36-end yet, or studied it out.
Especially verse 36…YOU HAVE TO DIE BEFORE YOU LIVE.
That latter half of the chapter discusses EARTHLY BODIES that began with Adam, regardless of sin or no sin.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “That latter half of the chapter discusses EARTHLY BODIES that began with Adam, regardless of sin or no sin.”
The section begins “But someone will say, ‘How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?’” That the subject is people who are “dead” it deals with sin as the wages of sin is death. Take away the sin, remove death, and Paul has nothing to write.
rhutchin,
And another comment from me…from your comment of:
“I think sin had everything to do with it. Take away the sin and Paul has nothing to write.”
Paul preached FAITH without the law, did he not?
Earlier I proclaimed that the Tutor (schoolmaster as the KJV puts it), was for the Jews ONLY.
Galatians 4:4-5
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Romans 3:21
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested
Galatians 3:23-26
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Based on the above verses, the Jews ONLY were the ones SHUT UP unto the faith, because THEY were the ones KEPT UNDER THE LAW, and Jesus came on the scene to REDEEM those who were UNDER THE LAW, because it was those UNDER THE LAW who were under condemnation, NOT ABRAHAM at all. Sure, Abraham was a sinner like everyone is, but why was Abraham NOT under the law?
Why not Abraham? Why is Abraham special? He didn’t get the law, but the children of Jacob did thru Moses? What’s up with that?
You don’t talk much about Abraham and his righteousness, do you? As a matter of fact, I have yet to see you talk about Abraham at all, especially that he was RIGHTEOUS, long before Jesus died on the cross. It’s all about the Righteousness of Jesus with you people, instead of the righteousness of Abraham.
If Abraham was righteous before Jesus died on the cross, and Abraham didn’t have the law, Jesus redeemed those UNDER THE LAW, and we Gentiles, who like Abraham, never had the law, are justified by FAITH, and declared righteous by faith.
So why do you people not discuss Abraham in like manner? Does Paul Washer consider Abraham nothing but a lowly sinner, too? Not worthy?
What’s up with that?
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
Romans 3:19
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law:
Who is UNDER THE LAW? Jews, not Gentiles
Romans 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law,
Summary:
FOR WHATEVER THE LAW STATES, IT DOES NOT STATE IT TO THE GENTILES. SIN DOES NOT HAVE DOMINION OVER GENTILES.
So tell me, how is my summary different from the verses above? The 2nd one includes Jews, too, if they DITCH THE LAW. The first one includes the Gentiles who PUT THEMSELVES UNDER THE LAW, such as The 7th Day Adventists, The Herbert W Armstrong clan, the Returning to our Jewish Roots cults, and…Calvinists, who are LAW PLUS GOSPEL driven.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
Romans 14:23
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Galatians 3:12
And the law is not of faith
One of the greatest EXAMPLES of the the DEFINITION of SIN for the GENTILES is the above. Whatever is NOT OF FAITH is sin. It doesn’t matter what that might be.
In the example above, it is FORBIDDEN to eat meat offered to idols, but Paul demonstrates that idols are NOTHING to begin with, so, you can indeed eat meat offered to idols, but if your FAITH is weak, you actually think that you are sinning if you do eat meat offered to idols, for it states, “he that doubts is DAMNED if he eats, BECAUSE…”
But we who are MATURE, knows dog gone well that idols are nothing, therefore, EAT THE MEAT, just don’t eat the meat IN FRONT OF those who think it’s a sin to do so.
So, for Gentiles, sin is defined as: WHATSOEVER IS NOT OF FAITH is sin.
For those UNDER THE LAW, sin is, THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW, as 1 John 3:4 states.
Oh, and if ya didn’t know, John, James, and Peter were apostles to the Jews:
Galatians 2:9
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Cephas is Peter in the above.
So, when you read the epistle of James, it states to the 12 tribes scattered…that’s to the Jews. John’s epistles are also addressed to the Jews, and so is Peter’s epistles. Not to a mixed group of Gentiles and Jews.
Also, the book of Hebrews (hence the name of the book) was to the Jews.
But, as the book of Acts states, Paul’s custom was to go to the Jew first, in the synagogues, before ever going to the Gentiles.
Acts 17:1-
1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas
And beyond that, the unbelieving Jews hated Paul and his message. This is how you can tell that the book of Thessalonians is TO THE JEWS, not the Gentiles, even tho Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles…ya gotta remember, TO THE JEW FIRST.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin
Adam’s body is sown in corruption by death. Prior to Adam’s eating the fruit, his body would not be sown in death. Prior to Satan entering God’s creation and tempting Eve and getting Adam to eat the fruit, God had declared His creation very good.
br.d
John Calvin
-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless He INSPIRE it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly…..can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived….nor move a single finger to perpetrate….unless in so far as He COMMANDS….they are….FORCED to do Him service.” (Institutes I, 17, 11)
br.d
Hey, I just used the INTERNET to Google John Calvin and Abraham, thinking that I could get some info as to what Calvin thought of Abraham, and MOST of the resources come up with “Abraham Kuyper”, instead of Abraham of the Bible itself. That’s very telling.
A few (very few) discussed Abram from Genesis, but that’s about it.
I’ve also been looking at what Calvin and Luther thought about THE LAW, and the reason why I did that, is because they don’t seem to acknowledge that Abraham never had the law AT ALL, and that is extremely important, but they don’t seem to see the connection there, that Abraham had NO CLUE as to what the Law of Moses would declare as SIN. You can’t be charged of a crime when there is NO LAW, as verse 13 states in Romans 5, and you can’t be punished for a non-existent crime, either, as Romans 4:15 states:
Romans 4:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Moses hadn’t gotten to the scene yet, but they play this out as if Abraham is UNDER THE LAW himself. They don’t see the following:
1 NO LAW, FAITH (Abraham)-At that time, Abraham was a Gentile…circumcision hadn’t taken place YET…until a later date.
2 LAW (MOSES), LAW IS NOT OF FAITH
3. NO LAW (JESUS), FAITH
FAITH TO FAITH
Which is why I think that Calvinists will PURPOSEFULLY delete any reference to verse 13 of Romans 5 when referencing Romans 5 discussing our FAKE inheritance from Adam. The real inheritance that we got was DEATH OF THE BODY, and 1 Cor 15:36-end discusses this at length, showing full and well that Adam was gonna die a NATURAL death regardless of sin or no sin. They don’t talk about that OTHER tree at all, which is the ONLY means to have NOT DIED.
There is SO MUCH that is wrong with Calvinism. Calvin wanted PREEMINENCE, to make a name for himself, exalting himself. Pride. He’s no different than the devil as far as I’m concerned. Atheists are always condemning Christians for no critical thinking. Calvin proved their point.
Ed Chapman
Hi Ed,
I am wondering if it is accurate to conclude that sin does not exist prior to the law?
Doesn’t God tell Cain “Sin is crouching at the door” – many years before the law was established?
br.d
Yes, we sure can:
1 John 3:4 Sin is the transgression of the law
Romans 3:20 The Law is the KNOWLEDGE of sin.
Romans 7:7 I had NOT KNOWN sin but by the law.
Ed Chapman
br.d writes, “The only way Calvin’s god knows Adam would sin – is by Calvin’s god specifically bringing Adam’s act of sin into existence – ”
God knows Adam will sin through His infinite understanding of Adam (given that He created Adam) and the external forces and influences on his thinking and decisions.
Then, “For any event representing sin or evil – rhutchin is always very careful to craft the language of his statements to INFER divine foreknowledge via observation – rather than divine foreknowledge via decree.”
God’s decrees flow from God’s infinite understanding of His creation and implement His eternal purpose and plan for His creation and those decrees determine his divine foreknowledge.
Then, ‘This type of language is designed to deflect Calvin’s god as the cause.”
God is the cause as His decision to create sets in motion all that will happen all of which is perfectly understood by God from the beginning.
rhutchin,
Dude, really, you sound like a COMPUTER ENCYCLOPEDIA with all that language you use.
Where do you get that from? God created NATURE, in that things happen NATURALLY, and God does INTERVENE in the SUPERNATURAL.
You don’t seem to understand NATURE. Adam was created CORRUPT AND WEAK…NATURE.
Tornado’s, for example, are NOT God’s judgment on a nation, as Calvinists love to claim…it’s NATURE based on scientific factors of the LAWS of nature that God created.
Miracles are SUPERNATURAL, because God has to INTERVENE to change nature.
There would be NO NEED to INTERVENE if it was already decreed.
Dude, really, you need to go back to the drawing board in Christian theology. Calvin got it wrong, and so did the Catholics.
Jeeeesh, man!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Tornado’s, for example, are NOT God’s judgment on a nation, as Calvinists love to claim…it’s NATURE based on scientific factors of the LAWS of nature that God created.”
Take away sin and there would not be the flood of Noah and without the flood of Noah, there would be a tornado or cyclone or hurricane.
rhutchin,
Noah’s flood was SUPERNATURAL, not natural. Huge difference.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Noah’s flood was SUPERNATURAL, not natural. Huge difference.”
Yes, it was. The flood was God’s response to sin. “…the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually….So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” Take away sin and there would not be the flood of Noah.
rhutchin,
I’m really intrigued by your statement:
“Take away the sin and Paul has nothing to write.”
When in fact we have:
Romans 5:13
Before the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT “NOT IMPUTED” MEANS?
Romans 4:
And where there is no law there is no [sin].
When Paul was preaching to the Gentiles, did Paul provide a LIST to people informing them what their sins were?
I don’t recall that, do you?
Last I read, Paul gives a SHORT STORY and his story was about FAITH, and BOOM, people believed.
Where is this TUTOR that he supposedly provided people with? Did he have a zerox machine? Isn’t it the Catholics that boast that THEY gave us the Bible? Seems to me that if that is true, that the Catholics gave us this TUTOR.
The TUTOR was for the JEWS, SINCE THE GENTILES NEVER HAD IT, AND PAUL DIDN’T GIVE IT TO THEM.
Where is this TUTOR for Abraham? Why didn’t God give him the list of 613 do’s and don’ts informing him about sin?
Was Abraham justified by law, or faith? He didn’t have law, so he had NO CLUE about sin. And that was the message of Paul.
Abraham justified by faith WITHOUT the tutor, without knowledge of sin. Last I recall, THAT’S what Paul preached.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Romans 5:13 – Before the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT “NOT IMPUTED” MEANS?”
Keep reading, it says, “(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,…” In saying, “Nevertheless death reigned…” Paul is saying that there was sin. Paul emphasizes this by then saying, “…even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam…” Paul had earlier explained this sin in Romans 2, “…when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts…” their sin provides the basis for death to reign.
rhutchin
Take away sin and there would not be the flood of Noah and without the flood of Noah, there would be a tornado or cyclone or hurricane.
br.d
Here we have the EFFECT (sin) pointed to rather than the CAUSE (eternal decree)
In Theological Determinism – the CAUSE of the sin was Calvin’s god choosing to RENDER-CERTAIN that sin. Supposedly so that he could then use it as pretense to bring about the flood.
Hi Ed,
I removed one word from this post as some Christian readers may consider it inappropriate language on a Christian sight.
br.d
I had to refresh the screen to see what word that was. LOL.
Well, like Aunt Edna once said to Fred Sanford, “Well, I never!”, in which Fred responded, “I’ll bet you did!”.
I get it. OK…I submit. UNCLE.
Ed
br.d
The only way Calvin’s god knows Adam would sin – is by Calvin’s god specifically bringing Adam’s act of sin into existence – ”
rhutchin
God knows Adam will sin through His infinite understanding of Adam (given that He created Adam) and the external forces and influences on his thinking and decisions.
br.d
Here we have the Calvinist hiding the face of Calvinism behind a mask of Molinism.
In Calvinism – Calvin’s god knows Adam will sin simply because at the foundation of the world he had the choice between RENDERING-CERTAIN Adam’s disobedience – or RENDERING CERTAIN the opposite.
Now it is a LOGICAL impossibility for Calvin’s god to RENDER-CERTAIN something and its opposite at the same time – he can only RENDER-CERTAIN one of these.
In this case Calvin’s god chose to grant existence to Adam’s disobedience.
And by caveat DID NOT PERMIT the existence to Adam’s obedience.
Now on the topic of Calvinist Double-Speak:
For any event representing sin or evil – rhutchin is always very careful to craft the language of his statements to INFER divine foreknowledge via observation – rather than divine foreknowledge via decree.”
This type of language is designed to deflect Calvin’s god as the cause.
And since Calvinists reject foreknowledge via observation – this language pattern is understood as Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK.
rhutchin
God’s decrees flow from God’s infinite understanding of His creation and implement His eternal purpose and plan for His creation and THOSE DECREES DETERMINE his divine foreknowledge.
br.d
Thank you for affirming my statement
Calvin’s god knows Adam will sin – because he knows he will specifically bring Adam’s act of sin into existence – and nothing otherwise.
rhutchin
God is the cause as His decision to create sets in motion all that will happen all of which is perfectly understood by God from the beginning.
br.d
Correct – Since Calvin’s god cannot grant existence to Adam’s disobedience and his obedience at the same time – one is RENDERED-CERTAIN to come to pass – and the other is RENDERED-CERTAIN to not come to pass.
Therefore Calvin’s god is the *NECESSARY* cause of every event – including Adam’s disobedience.
Without it Adam does not disobey – or do anything for that matter.
As John Calvin states it:
-quote
Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He inspires. – A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version
Now as you can see – Calvinists evade these DARK ASPECTS of Calvinism like the plague!
And that is why Calvinist language is often marked as DOUBLE-SPEAK talking points
br.d writes, “Here we have the Calvinist hiding the face of Calvinism behind a mask of Molinism.”
Prior to Molinism, people believed that God was omniscient and knew all that would happen as well as all that could happen. Molina took that and tried to support free will, but his only argument was his assumption of free will. As Molina dealt with the things known to the mind of God and this through His infinite understanding.
Then, “In Calvinism – Calvin’s god knows Adam will sin simply because at the foundation of the world he had the choice between RENDERING-CERTAIN Adam’s disobedience – or RENDERING CERTAIN the opposite.”
Yes, and this made possible by God’s infinite understanding of Adam’s weaknesses in the face of the evnts in the garden and God’s decision not to intervene to prevent Adam succumbing to his natural limitations.
Then, “Now it is a LOGICAL impossibility for Calvin’s god to RENDER-CERTAIN something and its opposite at the same time – he can only RENDER-CERTAIN one of these.”
Agreed. That flies against God’s infinite understanding of His creation and the weaknesses of created beings.
Then, ‘For any event representing sin or evil – rhutchin is always very careful to craft the language of his statements to INFER divine foreknowledge via observation – rather than divine foreknowledge via decree.””
This reflects your inability to understand my position or a purposeful distortion of my position that you understand.
Then, “Therefore Calvin’s god is the *NECESSARY* cause of every event – including Adam’s disobedience.”>
But not the immediate cause – only the remote cause by creating Adam as He did. Adam’s natural limitations were the immediate cause of his disobedience.
Then, quoting Calvin, “Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He inspires.”
Inspired through via Eve (She also gave to her husband with her.) via Satan (the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die….”)
Then, “Calvinists evade these DARK ASPECTS of Calvinism like the plague!”
LOL!! You have an active imagination.
br.d
“In Calvinism – Calvin’s god knows Adam will sin simply because at the foundation of the world he had the choice between RENDERING-CERTAIN Adam’s disobedience – or RENDERING CERTAIN the opposite.”
rhutchin
Yes, and this made possible by God’s infinite understanding of Adam’s weaknesses in the face of the evnts in the garden and God’s decision not to intervene to prevent Adam succumbing to his natural limitations.
br.d
Here is just more Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK
Here Calvin’s god AUTHORS events specifically so that he can intervene to prevent them :-]
Or he leaves the future OPEN for Nature to determine whether something will be TRUE or FALSE.
For any event representing sin or evil – rhutchin is always very careful to craft the language of his statements to INFER divine foreknowledge via observation – rather than divine foreknowledge via decree.””
rhutchin
This reflects your inability to understand my position or a purposeful distortion of my position that you understand.
br.d
Oh I understand completely how Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK Works
As John Calvin states it – quote “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
You’re simply following his instructions! :-]
Calvin’s god is the *NECESSARY* cause of every event – including Adam’s disobedience.”>
rhutchin
But not the immediate cause – only the remote cause by creating Adam as He did. Adam’s natural limitations were the immediate cause of his disobedience.
br.d
Every secondary cause has a PRIMARY cause. And Calvin’s god is the PRIMARY cause of every remote cause.
John Calvin
-quote
“Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He inspires.”
rhutchin
Inspired through via Eve (She also gave to her husband with her.) via Satan (the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die….”)
br.d
Word it any way you want to – it is still *HE* who is inspiring it and NOT NATURE.
As you say – you have an active imagination! :-]
br/d writes, “Here Calvin’s god AUTHORS events specifically so that he can intervene to prevent them :-]”
You have it backwards. It is God’s decision to prevent an event that makes Him the author of subsequent event; it is God’s decision not to prevent an event that makes Him the author of the event.
Then, “For any event representing sin or evil – rhutchin is always very careful to craft the language of his statements to INFER divine foreknowledge via observation – rather than divine foreknowledge via decree.”
I already put that false claim to rest. For you to continue using it is duplicitous.
Then, “Every secondary cause has a PRIMARY cause. And Calvin’s god is the PRIMARY cause of every remote cause.”
Yes. When God created the universe, He became the necessary cause of all that followed no matter how remote an event from the creation.
Then, “Word it any way you want to – it is still *HE* who is inspiring it and NOT NATURE. ”
Yet, God uses natural causes (or nature) to inspire certain events and absent those natural factors, the event would not happen. We see this illustrated in the garden. God uses Satan to tempt Eve and Eve then offers the fruit to Adam. Take Satan out of the garden and Eve is not tempted and does not offer fruit to Adam.
Then, “As you say – you have an active imagination! ”
In context, “you” is br.d who seems to use a little sleight of hand to suggest otherwise – a little devious on br.d’s part I venture.
br.d
Here Calvin’s god AUTHORS events specifically so that he can intervene to prevent them :-]”
rhutchin
You have it backwards. It is God’s decision to prevent an event that makes Him the author of subsequent event; it is God’s decision not to prevent an event that makes Him the author of the event.
br.d
*AS-IF* he wasn’t the AUTHOR of the event he decided to prevent :-]
“For any event representing sin or evil – rhutchin is always very careful to craft the language of his statements to INFER divine foreknowledge via observation – rather than divine foreknowledge via decree.”
rhutchin
I already put that false claim to rest. For you to continue using it is duplicitous.
br.d
Here is reverse attribution again – too funny! :-]
No false claim – just a recognition of how Calvinism’s duplicitous language works.
From John Calvin’s quote
Word it any way you want to – it is still *HE* who is inspiring it and NOT NATURE. ”
rhutchin
Yet, God uses natural causes (or nature) to inspire certain events and absent those natural factors, the event would not happen. …etc
br.d
This is almost correct
Natural events are MEANS – and MEANS are sufficient causes but not necessary causes.
Since they are not necessary their absence is discretionary and thus superfluous.
However absent Calvin’s god CAUSING the event it CANNOT happen
Thus absent Calvin’s god CAUSING Adam’s obedience it CANNOT happen.
“As you say – you have an active imagination! ”
rhutchin
In context, “you” is br.d who seems to use a little sleight of hand to suggest otherwise – a little devious on br.d’s part I venture.
br.d
This shows I understand how the reverse attribution works
No deviousness here. :-]
chapmaned24 writes, “YES, God’s creation was very good. ”
Excellent!!
Then, “In addition, Christians were never under the law of Moses, keep that in mind. I already showed you that Abraham didn’t have the law of Moses. So here is my question. What brought Abraham to Christ, since he didn’t have the law as a tutor? ”
God did. “Now the LORD had said to Abram: “Get out of your country, From your family And from your father’s house, To a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” So Abram departed as the LORD had spoken to him,”
Then, “My point is that NO ONE is GUILTY of sin until they get KNOWLEDGE of the sin. Everyone goes thru the SAME THING that Adam did, and Adam was innocent until he knew.”
Yes, Adam’s ignorance ended when God said, ““Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Adam’s innocence ended when he ate the fruit. All people are guilty as Paul explains, “For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)…”
Then, “Your response here is so incomplete, because I provided many verses to refute your Calvin script, namely Romans 4, Romans 5, Romans 7, and 1 Cor 15.”
Yes, you did, while carefully ignoring the Scripture on which Calvinism depends for its understanding.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“All people are guilty as Paul explains, “For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)…”
My response:
This is where your FATAL error is.
What that states is that those outside of the law will NATURALLY DIE and NOT BE JUDGED BY THE LAW.
But the Jews, who are under the law, are judged by the law.
Gentiles (NOT JEWS) are judged by their GOD GIVEN CONSCIENCE without regards to the law.
chapmaned24 writes, “What that states is that those outside of the law will NATURALLY DIE and NOT BE JUDGED BY THE LAW….Gentiles (NOT JEWS) are judged by their GOD GIVEN CONSCIENCE without regards to the law.”
I understand it to say, “Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts,…” You seem to be drawing a distinction between the (Mosaic) law under which the Jews are judged and the (Natural) law under which gentiles are judged. I refer to the “law” being the basis for judgment hwether it is the Mosaic law or natural law.
And that’s where you are incorrect. God judges based on knowledge, not based on what ya don’t know. Abraham, righteous, incest, inbred Isaac. What does the law say about brother/sister “relations”?
rhutchin,
As usual, I forgot to mention something, too, so here it goes:
You had said:
You state:
“Only in the sense that God knew Adam would sin. Otherwise, God declared His creation very good and I’ll take that to mean that sin had not been committed and Adam would not be a sinner until he sinned.”
As Romans 5:13 states,
For before the TUTOR (THE LAW) SIN WAS IN THE WORLD, BUT SIN IS NOT IMPUTED WHERE THERE IS NO TUTOR (LAW).
I take that as Adam was a SINNER long before he knew about what sin was.
What gave Adam GUILT? Why did he use FIG LEAVES? What was wrong with being naked?
At the same time, Abraham…what was wrong with sleeping with his sister? Was that a sin, or was it not a sin?
What does THE LAW (tutor) say?
I’d say that Abraham was indeed sinning, but just didn’t know about it, and therefore, he was INNOCENT of the sin. Just like Adam was innocent before he got knowledge of his sins.
Just like YOU were innocent before you got knowledge of your sins after YOU ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil…THE TUTOR.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “What gave Adam GUILT? Why did he use FIG LEAVES? What was wrong with being naked?”
Perhaps his eating the fruit. Why fig leaves – maybe a loss of innocence.
Then, “At the same time, Abraham…what was wrong with sleeping with his sister? Was that a sin, or was it not a sin?”
Not a sin until God declared it a sin in the Mosaic law. By that time, genetic corruption made brother/sister relationships detructive.
rhutchin,
Where did you conclude that it’s NOT A SIN until God declared it in the Law of Moses? God CHANGED HIS MIND? That he didn’t think that it was a sin before, but now does? Hmmmm. Really? And you concluded this HOW?
chapmaned24, “Where did you conclude that it’s NOT A SIN until God declared it in the Law of Moses? God CHANGED HIS MIND?”
Scripture does not declare it to be sin until the Mosaic law. Nothing wrong with God waiting to declare this or that. An example is Ephesians 3 – “…by revelation God made known to me the mystery…which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:”
rhutchin,
This is a second response from me regarding your last comment:
You had said:
chapmaned24 writes, “The inheritance that we got from Adam is NOT his sin, but that we all die a natural death,…”
People inherited a corrupt (sinful) nature from Adam. It is from this corrupt nature that people sin. Thus, not only did Christ have to die for the sins of God’s elect, He had to cover them with His righteousness.
MY RESPONSE:
Some of this might be a repeat from my last. Bear with me.
NO ONE inherited a corrupt sinful nature from Adam. Adam was already corrupt from his own beginning.
Tell me, what does the following say?
Romans 5:13 (A verse that Calvinists don’t want anyone to see when they reference Romans 5)
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
What is not IMPUTED?
What is not IMPUTED?
What is not IMPUTED?
Oh, but wait, there’s MORE:
Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
NO what?
NO what?
NO what?
1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Sin is WHAT?
Sin is WHAT?
Romans 3:20
for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
The law is WHAT?
The Law is WHAT?
What was the NAME of that tree in the garden? Something about KNOWLEDGE?
Rhutchin, we go round and round and round about this time and time and time again. You are not listening.
Without KNOWLEDGE of sin, then no sin can be imputed at all to anyone.
Romans 7:7
I had not known sin, but by the law
Romans 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Romans 7:9 is the DEATH that Genesis talks about. Romans 5, however, is NATURAL DEATH, not spiritual death.
Time and time again I keep telling you that Adam was gonna die a natural death anyway, whether he sinned or not, whether he ate of the tree of knowledge or not, and that the only way that he would not have died was to eat of the tree of life, and he never did, so the default was the same either way.
Everyone dies a natural death all because Adam failed to GAIN eternal life, by eating of the wrong tree, when he GOT KNOWLEDGE of his sins, (plural). He felt GUILT of being NAKED. WHat does the law of Moses say about uncovering your nakedness?
That is supported by 1 Corinthians 15 in the following discussing your NATURAL BODY.
1 Cor 15:42 It is sown in corruption
1 Cor 15:43 It is sown in dishonour
1 Cor 15:43 it is sown in weakness
1 Cor 15:44 It is sown a natural body
WHAT CAME FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?
1 Cor 15:44
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1 Cor 15:46-
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
—————————
Adam is FROM THE EARTH and had a NATURAL body, not a spiritual body, because NATURAL comes first, with BLOOD in the flesh. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Earthly bodies are NATURAL bodies, planted in corruption, dishonor, and weakness. Notice the first word, CORRUPTION, along with the word PLANTED or SOWED?
This PLANET that we are on was ALWAYS meant to be temporal, like I said before.
We did not inherit Adams corruption. He already had it from the beginning of his soulish life on earth, long before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
De-convert from the catholic teaching of original sin.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
This is my third comment to you rhutchin from your comment of:
“People inherited a corrupt (sinful) nature from Adam. It is from this corrupt nature that people sin. Thus, not only did Christ have to die for the sins of God’s elect, He had to cover them with His righteousness.”
First, JESUS DOES NOT COVER SINS, he TAKES THEM AWAY. The blood of animals COVERED sins, whereas Jesus takes away the covered sins, and they are no more. Covered sins are NOT removed sins, and we are told the word REMISSION of sins is what Jesus is all about, not COVERING.
Second, the elect are JEWS ONLY, not you. We keep going over this over and over and over again. You just don’t get it.
Third:
Jesus hadn’t been born yet when Abraham and Moses were alive. So what happened to them before Jesus died FOR THEIR SINS?
And what was Abraham’s sins? Surely you know what his sins were, for the bible tells you.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned 24 writes, “First, JESUS DOES NOT COVER SINS, he TAKES THEM AWAY. …”
I agree. Thus, I wrote, “not only did Christ have to die for the sins of God’s elect…” with this in mind.
Then, “Second, the elect are JEWS ONLY, not you. We keep going over this over and over and over again. You just don’t get it.”
We disagree on this. The elect are comprised of the remnant (children of promise) from Romans 9-11 and the gentiles who were grafted in.
Third, “Jesus hadn’t been born yet when Abraham and Moses were alive. So what happened to them before Jesus died FOR THEIR SINS?”
As with people after Christ, they were saved by the grace of God through faith.
rhutich,
You keep getting the word ELECT wrong, time and time again.
The word REMNANT is the Jews, the word SLUMBER is the Jews, and the word Elect is the Jews.
None of that is discussing Calvinists.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “The word REMNANT is the Jews, the word SLUMBER is the Jews, and the word Elect is the Jews.”
The “elect “as it relates to salvation can include the remnant (the children of promise) from among the Jews as well as the gentiles grafted in. The “elect” as it relates to national Israel would only be the Jews.
rhutchin
Again, we find ourselves at odds. I don’t see the Scriptures telling us that evil is necessary to free will.
br.d
This is a difference between the Theological Determinist and the IN-determinist
As Dr. Alvin Plantinga uses LOGIC go enunciate this in “The Free Will Defense”
-quote
A world containing creatures who are significantly free [i.e. Libertarian Freedom] and who thus freely perform more good than evil actions is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures [i.e. without Libertarian Freedom] at all.
Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t *CAUSE* or *DETERMINE* them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely.
To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent [as is the case in Theological Determinism] them from doing so.” -endquote
br.d writes, “As Dr. Alvin Plantinga uses LOGIC go enunciate this in “The Free Will Defense”…To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent [as is the case in Theological Determinism] them from doing so.”
Then, Plantinga’s statement seems to turn on the word, “…prevent…” What does he mean by {…prevent…”? God can “prevent” a man robbing a bank by placing cops all around it. If that action by God destroys free will, then God has destroyed the free will of all people because He has placed restraints on their ability to make choices based on culture, knowledge, experience, peer pressure and the physical abilities to hear, see, taste, and touch. All of these factors differ among people and serve to prevent some doing certain things while others are not prevented. Plantinga has severely limited the instances in which a person could be considered to exercise libertarian free will.
However, is “evil” necessary to free will? If God had never said, “Thou shalt not…” so that nothing could be called evil, would that mean that people did not act with free will? I don’t see that it would. Free will refers to a person’s ability to choose, not what is available for them to choose (i.e., evil). A paraplegic may be physically prevented from doing evil (or anything else0 but that does not do away with his free will.
rhutchin
Then, Plantinga’s statement seems to turn on the word, “…prevent…” What does he mean by {…prevent…”?
br.d
He understands the LOGICAL consequences of Theological Determinism.
“prevent” in this case would equate to NOT PERMIT.
Calvin’s god cannot create event [X] to be RENDERED-CERTAIN and RENDERED-UNCERTAIN at the same time because these negate one another and this is a LOGICAL impossibility.
Therefore what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN is what he PERMITS
Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing otherwise is PERMITTED
Thus everything else is LOGICALLY “prevented” – or NOT PERMITTED.
rhutchin – a “so called” naturally occurring events:
Adam/Eve each eating the fruit,
br.d
The truth:
While commanding them NOT to eat the fruit – Calvin’s god used supernatural powers to NOT PERMIT Adam and Eve to refrain from eating the fruit.
.
rhutchin
Cain’s murder of Abel
The truth:
Calvin’s god used his supernatural powers to NOT PERMIT Cain’s refraining from murdering Able.
Dito for all the rest.
rhutchin
As br.d points out, there was not a neurological impulse that sprung into the minds of the participants that was unknown to God and not under God’s control.
br.d
br.d would not craft that statement the way you did as it strategically is designed to allow for foreknowledge via observation in order to evade the fact that Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES in his mind – every sin and evil – and then RENDERS-CERTAIN people perform them.
And don’t ever again put words into br.d’s mouth.
rhutchin
God could have made a world where no sin would ever occur and He chose not to do so. Thus, we get the events described in the Scripture and in the newspapers every day.
br.d
Thus Calvin’s god chooses to create a world in which every attribute of every creature are determined by factors beyond the creature’s control. Specifically designing the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
As Dr. William Lane Craig puts it:
-quote
God would be like a child who sets up his toy soldiers and moves them about his play world, pretending that they are real persons whose every motion is not in fact of his own doing and pretending that they merit praise or blame.
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god used supernatural powers to NOT PERMIT Adam and Eve to refrain from eating the fruit.”
LOL! You have an active imagination.
br.d
Calvin’s god used supernatural powers to NOT PERMIT Adam and Eve to refrain from eating the fruit.”
rhutchin
LOL! You have an active imagination.
br.d
Its LOGICAL
1) The power to RENDER-CERTAIN is not within the powers of nature.
Therefore it is “Super” natural power.
2) What Calvin’s god PERMITS is only what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN.
PERMITTING Adam and Eve to refrain from eating the fruit would be the LOGICAL NEGATION of what he RENDERED-CERTAIN – and is thus NOT PERMITTED.
3) In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the Calvinist knows via A POSTERIORI knowledge (knowledge after the fact) that whatever comes to pass was RENDERED-CERTAIN.
CONCLUSION:
While commanding them not to eat the fruit – Calvin’s god used supernatural powers to NOT PERMIT Adam and Eve to refrain from eating the fruit.
Thus he did not PERMIT them to obey his command.
Ditto for any other similar event.
br.d writes, “1) The power to RENDER-CERTAIN is not within the powers of nature.”
Yes, if by this you mean “The power to RENDER-CERTAIN…” through coercion. If not through coercion, then it is within the powers of nature.
Then, “PERMITTING Adam and Eve to refrain from eating the fruit would be the LOGICAL NEGATION of what he RENDERED-CERTAIN – and is thus NOT PERMITTED.”
Again, this is true if you are talking about coercion.
This is the Calvinist argument that coercion negates free will. So, I guess we agree,
br.d
1) The power to RENDER-CERTAIN is not within the powers of nature.”
rhutchin
Yes, if by this you mean “The power to RENDER-CERTAIN…” through coercion. If not through coercion, then it is within the powers of nature.
br.d
No – the power to RENDER-CERTAIN is not SAID to necessitate coercion.
Additionally in Calvinism the MECHANICS of how Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN an event is unknown.
Now Domino#1 cannot RENDER-CERTAIN the movement of Domino#2
Calvin’s god is SAID to RENDER-CERTAIN every aspect of every movement of every part.
This is why it is classified as *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism.
rhutchin
“PERMITTING Adam and Eve to refrain from eating the fruit would be the LOGICAL NEGATION of what he RENDERED-CERTAIN – and is thus NOT PERMITTED.”
Again, this is true if you are talking about coercion.
br.d
See answer above
rhutchin
This is the Calvinist argument that coercion negates free will. So, I guess we agree,
br.d
FALSE
Coercion is not a necessary element in the LOGICAL formulation.
The only thing that is necessary is the original assertion – that events are RENDERED-CERTAIN.
And only Calvin’s god has the power to do that.
Therefore it is a “Super” natural power
Another way of looking at this:
1) Calvin’s god cannot create [X] and [NOT X] to both exist at the same time because these negate one another.
2) So where Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN [X] then by LOGICAL consequence the negation of [NOT X] is RENDERED-CERTAIN
CONCLUSION
Where Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN “Adam’s disobedience”
It LOGICALLY follows that Calvin’s god at the same time RENDERS-CERTAIN the NEGATION of “Adam obedience”
And thus Adam was NOT PERMITTED to obey.
br.d writes, “And thus Adam was NOT PERMITTED to obey.”
But not by a coercive act of God to prevent Adam obeying. Thus, God used natural means.
br.d
And thus Adam was NOT PERMITTED to obey.”
rhutchin
But not by a coercive act of God to prevent Adam obeying. Thus, God used natural means.
br.d
Again with the blind claim without any LOGIC!
It is universally understood – nature has the power to force or coerce – see Newtonian mechanics.
But no one would argue that nature has the power to RENDER-CERTAIN anything.
The act of RENDERING-CERTAIN something into existence is a “Super” natural act
Perhaps you’d like to argue for Darwinian evolution!
Again – Calvin’s god does not have to use force or coercion to withhold something from Adam.
Namely granting existence to an event – in this case Adam’s obedience.
br.d writes, “But no one would argue that nature has the power to RENDER-CERTAIN anything.”
In the hands of God, nature can be the means to render-sertain an event. So, Adam’s natural abilities are the means that God uses to render certain his disobedience. God created Adam with those natural abilities, and Adam perceives that he is doing what he desires – as his desires arise out of the natural abilities God gave him. Since God created all things, God rendered certain all actions and all subsequent actions of the created things by the natural abilities He gave to each thing.
Then, “The act of RENDERING-CERTAIN something into existence is a “Super” natural act”
OK. The super natural act is the creation. All subsequent actions flow from the created things and do not require an additional super natural act of God except as God intervenes to alter the course taken by the created things (e.g., the flood of Noah; the confusion of languages at Babel).
br.d
But no one would argue that nature has the power to RENDER-CERTAIN anything.”
In the hands of God, nature can be the means to render-sertain an event….etc
br.d
But nature is NOT doing the RENDERING it is itself being RENDERED.
rhutchin
Adam’s natural abilities are the means that God uses to render certain his disobedience
br.d
Correct – with the caveat that only those specific natural abilities that Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN
Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing otherwise is PERMITTED.
Or you end up with the NEGATION of what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
In this case the only natural ability PERMITTED of Adam was disobedience – having been RENDERED-CERTAIN. The natural ability of obedience would NEGATE what Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN and therefore was LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE and therefore NOT PERMITTED.
The act of RENDERING-CERTAIN something into existence is a “Super” natural act”
rhutchin
OK. The super natural act is the creation.
All subsequent actions flow from the created things and do not require an additional super natural act of God.
br.d
WES-ARM is right to point out your reliance upon blind pontifications.
Calvin reveals why this one is FALSE – when he describes the specifics of a theoretical event in which a man is led by Calvin’s god through the forest – to end up in the middle of a pack of murderers who were themselves RENDERED-CERTAIN to murder him.
That man had to walk a certain distance. And each step represented 360 possible directions he could have turned and gone in. So you multiply 360 times how many steps he took. And nature cannot possibly account for that degree of precision.
John Calvin – Institutes
Will it now be said that man is moved by God according to the bent of his nature, but that man himself gives the movement any direction he pleases? Were it truly so, man would have the full disposal of his own ways. …….Nay, I affirm….that particular events are evidences of the special providence of God. God through the necessity of his counsel, makes impossible that which might have naturally taken place.”
So simply bringing man into existence does not account for highly specific events in which only one specific outcome is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
At this point I will consider the consistency of blind pontifications and absence of LOGIC to be your failure in this matter.
br/d writes, “Correct – with the caveat that only those specific natural abilities that Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN
Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing otherwise is PERMITTED….In this case the only natural ability PERMITTED of Adam was disobedience – having been RENDERED-CERTAIN.”
No, it was Adam’s natural abilities combined with the external environment in which Adam found himself. God di not create Adam to be God – so Adam has limited knowledge, limited understanding, and limited wisdom. God made Adam that way because Adam was to be dependent on God – whatever Adam lacked, God would make up as Adam consulted him. In the garden, Adam decided not to consult God (a decision not directly influenced by God) and in doing so, left him to make a bad decision.
Then, “Calvin reveals why this one is FALSE – when he describes the specifics of a theoretical event in which a man is led by Calvin’s god through the forest – to end up in the middle of a pack of murderers who were themselves RENDERED-CERTAIN to murder him.”
Yes, and God does this because of the ignorance of the traveler, who had he asked God for help, could easily have avoided his fate. It is without God’s help and the working of natural determinism that leads to the end result. We see a similar situation in 1 Samuel, “Now the sons of Eli were corrupt; they did not know the LORD…For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and he did not restrain them…Nevertheless they did not heed the voice of their father, because the LORD desired to kill them….Then the Philistines put themselves in battle array against Israel. And when they joined battle, Israel was defeated by the Philistines, who killed about four thousand men of the army in the field. So the people sent to Shiloh, that they might bring from there the ark of the covenant of the LORD of hosts, who dwells between the cherubim. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God…So the Philistines fought, and Israel was defeated, and every man fled to his tent. There was a very great slaughter, and there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers. Also the ark of God was captured; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, died.”
Then, “So simply bringing man into existence does not account for highly specific events in which only one specific outcome is RENDERED-CERTAIN. ”
Sure it does. You fail to account for God’s infinite understanding and perfect wisdom that account for God’s decision to create man in the first place.
Then, “At this point I will consider the consistency of blind pontifications and absence of LOGIC to be your failure in this matter.”
LOL!! If nothing else, you exhibit considerable bluster.
br.d
Correct – with the caveat that only those specific natural abilities that Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN
Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing otherwise is PERMITTED….In this case the only natural ability PERMITTED of Adam was disobedience – having been RENDERED-CERTAIN.”
rhutchin
No, it was Adam’s natural abilities combined with the external environment in which Adam found himself.
John Calvin
-quote
men can deliberately do nothing unless He [Calvin’s god] inspire it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but EVERY TWIST AND TURN OF EACH OF THESE IS UNDER THE *DIRECT* control of god
John Calvin:
-quote
For it did not take place by reason of NATURE that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation . . . .Since this CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO NATURE, it is perfectly clear that it has come forth from the….counsel of god” Institutes
At this point its apparent you’ve simply invented something you gamble will work for you.
br.d writes, “At this point its apparent you’ve simply invented something you gamble will work for you.”
None of the cited material opposes what I said.
br.d
At this point its apparent you’ve simply invented something you gamble will work for you.”
rhutchin
None of the cited material opposes what I said.
br.d
*AS-IF* :-]
br.d writes, “No – the power to RENDER-CERTAIN is not SAID to necessitate coercion.”
t includes coersion. Other than that, it would involve God’s use of natural causes as in Isaiah 10.
Then, “in Calvinism the MECHANICS of how Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN an event is unknown.”
Two means are coercion and the use of natural means as in Isaiah 10.
br.d
“No – the power to RENDER-CERTAIN is not SAID to necessitate coercion.”
rhutchin
It includes coersion. Other than that, it would involve God’s use of natural causes as in Isaiah 10.
br.d
Here you are simply conceding my point -by using the word “includes” rather than “necessitates”
Lets say for example that Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN that Bigfoot will never have existence.
It is certainly not SAID that he coerced or forced Bigfoot to not exist!
Therefore – as I said – coercion or force are not necessary.
Same principle applies to future events.
Where Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN event [X] have existence – then it LOGICALLY follows that event [NOT X] (its negation) is also RENDERED-CERTAIN to NOT have existence.
No coercion of force is necessary.
Additionally – if Bigfoot does not exist – then Bigfoot is not AVAILABLE to you or any other person.
And again that same principle applies to future events.
Where Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN the non-existence of a future event – that future event is not available for you or any other person (including Adam)
In this case – Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN the existence of Adam’s disobedience
Its negation (obedience) was therefore RENDERED-CERTAIN to never have existence.
And that which does not existence – is not available to Adam.
Again no coercion or force are necessary.
br.d writes, “Here you are simply conceding my point -by using the word “includes” rather than “necessitates””
Yes – it includes coercion and natural means. So I guess we agree on this.
br.d
Here you are simply conceding my point -by using the word “includes” rather than “necessitates””
rhutchin
Yes – it includes coercion and natural means. So I guess we agree on this.
br.d
As usual – cherry picking something that works for you while continuing on with a blind assertion and NO LOGIC.
Universal DIVINE CAUSAL Determinism is a system of “cause” and “effect” where every event that occurs within time and nature, occurs as the EFFECT of an “antecedent cause”. And that “cause” is not natural – it is DIVINE.
Therefore there are two separate and distinct mechanics to be focused on. The “effect” mechanics, which are limited to the realm (forces and movements) of nature. And the “antecedent cause” mechanics, which cannot be relegated to or limited to the realm of nature because they are DIVINE.
I think you will grant that Calvin’s god is a spirit, and the originator of every DIVINE CAUSE designed to produce a NATURAL EFFECT.
Now the “effect” (or natural) mechanics are acknowledged because these occur within the domain of nature where humans have cognition to observe them.
But as to the question of divine/supernatural mechanics – in times past your answer to this question was – the scripture doesn’t supply that information. And that was your indirect way of acknowledging the Calvinist doesn’t know.
So I will append my statement to be more precise:
The Calvinist doesn’t know the specific mechanics of the divine supernatural antecedent cause. He does however have knowledge of various mechanics of the resulting effects because these occur within the domain of nature where man has cognition to observe them.
Therefore my statement still stands:
Calvin’s god used a Divine/Supernatural power to NOT PERMIT Adam to obey. This power cannot be relegated to or limited to the realm of nature – or the forces or movements of nature – any more than Calvin’s god can be.
br.d writes, “Universal DIVINE CAUSAL Determinism is a system of “cause” and “effect” where every event that occurs within time and nature, occurs as the EFFECT of an “antecedent cause”. And that “cause” is not natural – it is DIVINE. ”
I think you have defined “natural determinism” above or that which occurs absent a divine influence. Divine determinism can use natural determinism and let that natural determinism proceed without influence by the divine or the divine can exert his influence to alter the direction in which natural determinism is going. Of course, all divine actions were made in infinity past.
Then, “But as to the question of divine/supernatural mechanics – in times past your answer to this question was – the scripture doesn’t supply that information. And that was your indirect way of acknowledging the Calvinist doesn’t know.”
Let’s restate this accurately. The mechanics are specified in Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” I have cited that verse umpteen million times (that’s an exaggeration for effect to indicate that you should know better). By “counsel of His will, ” we know that this incorporates God’s infinite understanding of all things and His perfect wisdom. So, the mechanics are known.
Then, “So I will append my statement to be more precise:
The Calvinist doesn’t know the specific mechanics of the divine supernatural antecedent cause. He does however have knowledge of various mechanics of the resulting effects because these occur within the domain of nature where man has cognition to observe them.”
That’s gibberish and says nothing substantive.
Then, “Therefore my statement still stands:
Calvin’s god used a Divine/Supernatural power to NOT PERMIT Adam to obey. This power cannot be relegated to or limited to the realm of nature – or the forces or movements of nature – any more than Calvin’s god can be.”
That’s wrong. God set the external situation in which Adam was placed (the garden, Satan, Eve). In doing so, God knew with infinite understanding that Adam would eat the fruit given those factors. Adam was permitted to obey God but could not overcome himself to do so and that was a natural limitation that Adam could not overcome without God’s help..
br.d
Universal DIVINE CAUSAL Determinism is a system of “cause” and “effect” where every event that occurs within time and nature, occurs as the EFFECT of an “antecedent cause”. And that “cause” is not natural – it is DIVINE. ”
rhutchin
I think you have defined “natural determinism” above or that which occurs absent a divine influence.
Divine determinism can use natural determinism and let that natural determinism proceed without influence by the divine or the divine can exert his influence to alter the direction in which natural determinism is going. Of course, all divine actions were made in infinity past.
br.d
Do you have the ability to THINK about what you’re writing?
The term “UNIVERSAL” in Christian philosophy means “WITHOUT EXCEPTION” – NOTHING LEFT OVER.
The term DIVINE refers to the THEOS
The term CAUSAL refers to “Cause and Effect”
The term DETERMINISM refers to “determines”
Thus my statement above:
Universal DIVINE CAUSAL Determinism is a system of “cause” and “effect” where every event that occurs within time and nature, occurs as the EFFECT of an “antecedent cause”. And that “cause” is not natural – it is DIVINE. ”
But as to the question of divine/supernatural mechanics – in times past your answer to this question was – the scripture doesn’t supply that information. And that was your indirect way of acknowledging the Calvinist doesn’t know.”
rhutchin
we know that this incorporates God’s infinite understanding of all things and His perfect wisdom. So, the mechanics are known.
br.d
FALSE
John Calvin writes concerning the control Calvin’s god exercises over satan for example – quote “They do what he COMMANDS – and are FORCED to do him service.
You have absolutely no knowledge about how the mechanics of that FORCE works – you won’t even acknowledge the decrees have any FORCE.
You’re simply moving in IRRATIONAL pontifications while quoting whatever verse comes to your mind.
“So I will append my statement to be more precise:
The Calvinist doesn’t know the specific mechanics of the divine supernatural antecedent cause. He does however have knowledge of various mechanics of the resulting effects because these occur within the domain of nature where man has cognition to observe them.”
rhutchin
That’s gibberish and says nothing substantive.
br.d
Easily understood by a LOGICAL mind. :-]
“Therefore my statement still stands:
Calvin’s god used a Divine/Supernatural power to NOT PERMIT Adam to obey. This power cannot be relegated to or limited to the realm of nature – or the forces or movements of nature – any more than Calvin’s god can be.”
rhutchin
That’s wrong. God set the external situation in which Adam was placed (the garden, Satan, Eve). In doing so, God knew with infinite understanding that Adam would eat the fruit given those factors. Adam was PERMITTED to obey God but could not overcome himself to do so and that was a natural limitation that Adam could not overcome without God’s help..
br.d
Not LOGICALLY possible
1) Calvin’s god cannot RENDER-CERTAIN Adam’s disobedience and Adam’s obedience come to pass at the same time.
He can only RENDER-CERTAIN one of these.
2) Calvin’s god cannot leave OPEN the DETERMINATION of which one of those will come to pass.
That would be OPEN THEISM which Calvinism rejects.
Theopedia – Open theism:
Open theism…..is the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe but leaves certain events “open” …
In this case for Adam or Nature to determine.
3) By virtue of RENDERING-CERTAIN Adam’s disobedience come to pass – Calvin’s god by caveat also RENDERED-CERTAIN that Adam’s obedience wound NOT come to pass.
CONCLUSION:
UNIVERSAL DIVINE CAUSAL DETERMINISM
br.d writes, “Thus my statement above:
Universal DIVINE CAUSAL Determinism is a system of “cause” and “effect” where every event that occurs within time and nature, occurs as the EFFECT of an “antecedent cause”. And that “cause” is not natural – it is DIVINE. ”
You need to add, “…where the devine can be the immediate or remote cause.” That is, you want to conform to the Calvinist view.
Then, “Not LOGICALLY possible 1) …2) …3)…”
That is consistent with what I said.
Then, “CONCLUSION:: UNIVERSAL DIVINE CAUSAL DETERMINISM”
So long as you allow the divine to be either the immediate or remote, cause, no problem. None of your points 1-3 preclude this.
br.d writes, “[Calvin] specifically defines “mere” permission as a concept of permission of an event which Calvin’s god did not *AUTHOR*
When Calvin says that God author’s all things, he means that God is never a disinterested, uninvolved observer in the activities of His creation. Nothing happens but by God’s permission but never by mere permission according to Calvin.
Then, ‘Now you’re simply switching to a new term “attributed” which is part of the ongoing shell-game with words.
The attempt here is to use “attributed” as a replacement term for AUTHOR with the hopes of not getting caught.”
The term, “attributed,” identifies natural determinism as the means by which God author’s some events, such as the reaction generated by the combination of two chemicals..
br.d
John Calvin specifically defined “mere” permission as a concept of permission of an event which Calvin’s god did not *AUTHOR*
rhutchin
When Calvin says that God author’s all things, he means that God is never a disinterested, uninvolved observer in the activities of His creation. Nothing happens but by God’s permission but never by mere permission according to Calvin.
br.d
rhutchin you are so funny! You’ll even try to manipulate the words of John Calvin and call that “Calvinism”
“Author” as defined in John Calvin’s day – in the Latin:
From “auctor” which means: Producer, Father, Progenitor; Founder.
I’m sure the AUTHOR of a book is nothing more than someone interested in that book! – Too funny!
rhutchin
The term, “attributed,” identifies natural determinism as the means by which God author’s some events, such as the reaction generated by the combination of two chemicals..
br.d
Sorry rhutchin – some of the AD-HOC inventions you dream up – are just totally hilarious!
What a hoot! :-]
Understanding Calvinism is pretty straight forward;
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking-points.
Hi Richard… how about considering this possible interpretation – 2Thess 2, 13
2 Thessalonians 2:13 NKJV — But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth….
Paul doesn’t say “before the beginning” in that verse… and Paul is talking about the “beginning of the gospel” ministry he had in Europe when God led him to Thessalonica.
Philippians 4:15 NKJV — Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia…
And there is a pre-salvation drawing by the HS to separate (hagiadzo – sanctify) someone for the gospel influence in their life. See this word used that way by Paul for unbelieving spouses.
1 Corinthians 7:14 NKJV — For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
Brian,
Galatians 3:8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Ed, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make in connection with the explanation I gave for 2Thess 2:13. I’m often a little slow. 😁 Maybe you could illuminate further the point you are trying to make. Thx.
We definitely agree there was a gospel in the OT. But Paul is talking about the beginning of his gospel ministry in Europe… not the beginning of the gospel itself.
Brian, the gospel is Jesus, and has been since genesis 1:1, not 1 Cor 15. Not Matthew 1, etc.
Ed… again… I’m not following. Are you trying to steer the conversation away from the meaning of 2Thess 2:13 or are you saying Paul means the beginning of the gospel in that verse to mean the beginning in Genesis? Do you really think Paul was talking about the “beginning of the gospel” in Genesis in Phil 4:15? Really?
Or were people only saved once Paul preached it, and king David is burning in hell?
Get off your soap box, Ed, for a second and see again that I already agreed there is the gospel in the OT. Now try hard… and work on the questions I asked you about 2Thess 2:13 and Phil 4:15. Thx. I’ll wait and won’t respond again to your diversion.
I’m having a hard time with your explanation that there was a gospel, as if it differs from the gospel. I’m fishing your response because I’ve heard from folks in the Baptist world, the Calvinist world, the Lutheran world that everyone prior to the life of Jesus is burning in hell, all because they didn’t accept Jesus. What gospel is in the OT that you are making claim to, that differs from the one Paul preached?
Ed, I think you get triggered too quickly, my friend. I never said Paul’s gospel was different than the gospel of the OT. Now let’s get back to my questions will you?
Was Abraham saved or not? How? Was Adam and EVE saved or not? How? Etc., etc. How were the people from the OT saved, including those outside of Judaism.
Was king David saved? How about king Solomon?
I can’t answer your question until you answer mine, because my response is going to be predicated based on what you say in the matter, and you haven’t answered. So it’s just gonna be a circular conversation.
My point is that Romans 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 explains Thessalonians, as salvation is a PROCESS BASED ON___________ (fill in blank).
What is the word?
The answer is the same in the OT as it is in the NT, and that gospel was preached throughout the whole bible, not just the NT.
FAITH WITHOUT THE LAW OF MOSES, just like Abraham.
Abraham BELIEVED God, and he was justified. That’s all it took. No imputation of faith, but by his faith he was justified as INNOCENT, even tho it’s a sin to sleep with your sister, which God never told him about…for all have sinned, for until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law.
Abraham didn’t have the law, and just like in the Garden, God never told Adam and Eve that they were naked. God never told Abraham that he was sinning by sleeping with his sister.
Ignorance is bliss; no KNOWLEDGE, no sin, not guilty, innocent.
THE Gospel is the SAME, and it was preached to Abraham, the same gospel that Jesus preached (open the eyes of the BLIND *(spiritual blind), the same gospel that Paul preached. It’s all the same.
So, what happened to those who died before Jesus came on the scene? Where did their spirit go when they died, since Jesus hadn’t arrived yet?
In other words, I don’t think you guys, with all due respect, have a clue, cuz ya never GET DEEP into this stuff. One verse, ya, two verses, ya, but not the complete picture.
Ed Chapman
In other words, I want a flowchart of those who died before Jesus came on the scene, BACKED UP BY scripture. But ya can’t. There is too much ambiguity in your doctrine that leaves these kinds of debates to go on and on for an eternity.
You really have a problem, Ed. I already said it was the same gospel. Paul explains that clearly in Romans 4. Now give me your meaning for the word “beginning” in Phil 4:15 and then in 2Thess 2:13 if you can get out of your fixation with the OT for a moment. Thx.
Brian,
Richard was NOT discussing what you are trying to bring to the table, tho. But I will humor you by answering YOUR question here:
Phil 4:15, the word beginning is in regards to: “when I departed from Macedonia”
In 2 Thess 2:13: GENESIS 1:1, “IN THE BEGINNING”.
2 Thess 2:13 was the PLAN OF GOD from Genesis 1:1.
My explanation of 2 Thess 2:13 is this:
13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
God didn’t choose YOU…He chose a PROCESS by which YOU are saved, and that process is THRU sanctification AND belief.
But, some will conclude that he chose YOU. I don’t.
And that same explanation that I have also applies to the famous EPHESIANS
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Again, God didn’t choose US, he chose THAT WE be holy and without blame before him in love. THEN you can understand what US is all about, and it isn’t about choosing people.
Based on how Richard worded things, I’m on the side of Richard.
Ed Chapman
Brian,
And if you also notice the wording in Ephesians, which is why I equate it to 2 Thess 2:13, at the foundation of the earth. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1
Ed Chapman
Thank you Ed for answering my question and confirming the words “beginning of the gospel” in Phil 4:15 has to do with the start of Paul’s gospel ministry in Macedonia where Thessalonica is located.
And I will stick with thinking that “beginning” in 2Thess 2:13 means the same thing, because in the Macedonian vision the Thessalonians were “chosen” to get the gospel ministry.
Now we’ll see what Richard thinks.
Richard already told you, and it is on record that you and I disagree with 2 Thess 2:13, and I am SURPRISED at that, since YOU are not a Calvinist, which clearly shows the DANGERS of having Calvinism MIXED IN with Traditional Baptists.