808 thoughts on “God: The Initiator of Salvation”

1. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Phil 2: 13. This is prevenient Grace. One does not have to believe in total depravity to believe in prevenient grace. One can simple assert that grace was not withdrawn from mankind to the extent that Calvinists teach but prevenient grace continued to work with man after the fall in paradise ( albeit differently) and still “enlightens every man that cometh into the world” and that those who are not converted cannot blame a lack of irresistible grace but rather will have to blame themselves for “receiving the grace of God in vain.”

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Thank you dnjohn for this post.

      Am I correct to assume this is a position held by some who see themselves as in the Arminian camp?
      If so it would appear that not all Arminians hold to Total Depravity.

      Loading...

      Reply

   2. Until recently I had little problem with the term Prevenient Grace since that is what I thought it meant – simply all the graces that ‘go before’ a persons conversion, such as Christ revealing Himself and acting as an illuminating light to all to reveal the Father and the truth (Heb 1:1 even says as much, with Christ as the ‘effulgence’ of the Father’s glory, likened to the rays of the sun which allow the people on Earth to know the sun exists,) conviction of the Holy Spirit, hearing the gospel, etc. And it is sometimes used in this sense, in which case I would not disagree with it at all.

      Unfortunately, I’ve realized it is that isn’t always what the term means – isn’t even what it is used for the majority of the time, so it is a ‘charged’ term and not a clear one.

      The “FACTS’ of Arminianism (like Calvinism’s TULIP) include “Total Depravity” as the T and hold that fallen humans are “unable to believe the gospel” in their current state. The main concept of Prevenient grace is in the “F” of their summarized views, “Freed by Grace to believe” – wherein God enables everyone who hears the gospel to believe. That ‘enabling grace’ is what Prevenient Grace is. I think there is probably a wide umbrella as to what that actually means, but the core idea is that man can’t believe, due to total depravity, so God must specially enable men (beyond the graces of the gospel itself, the revelation of Christ, the drawing of all by the cross, etc.) in a supernatural manner to overcome their sin nature so they are able to believe.

      But that is an unnecessary step only required by prior belief in the faulty view of Total Depravity. God specifically chose faith as the condition to graciously grant salvation because fallen man could believe in a promise whereas they couldn’t be perfect under the law or achieve salvation by their own power or merit. Fallen humans believe in tons of things we can’t prove or don’t directly see – being persuaded of various truths happens to even unbelievers. So there isn’t really a reason to think a fallen human ‘can’t’ believe the gospel by nature even when presented with it without God stepping in to enable them further.

      Loading...

      Reply

   3. dnjohn writes, ‘For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Phil 2: 13. This is prevenient Grace.”

      If we preface this by Philippians 1:6, “God who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” we see that your “prevenient grace” refers to the sanctification process.

      Loading...

      Reply

   4. You should probably check the context of your proof-texts before posting comments. I don’t particularly disagree with the meat of your conclusions, but your proof is off.

      As Rhutchin stated, the context of Philippians is already-saved individuals. Christians. I think Rhutchin brings up a good point when he says that this seems more like progressive sanctification given the context.

      I also critique your usage of 2 Corinthians 6:1, “We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.” The context here as well as before is fellow Christians. They have already been converted, or have already “received the grace of God.” Receive is active, not passive. They’re Christians, and so they won’t be blaming themselves for anything eternally in the way you suggest. They’ll be enjoying eternity with God just like the rest of us. What this passage speaks to is ignoring the active grace of God in our lives and not progressing in our sanctification.

      Loading...

      Reply

2. Thanks for this article.

   The article mentions the wedding feast. That story alone (told by Christ) should be enough to convince the Calvinist. God prepares the feast and invites. Some say no….He opens it up to all. Not only does He initiate….but is shows that his grace is resistible.

   The OT shows His grace being resisted thousands of times. Why is this so hard to see?

   The monergistic-run site Got Questions (who side with Calvinists) show their double-speak when discussing this feast:

   “Note that it is not because the invited guests could not (italics) come to the wedding feast, but that they would not (italics) come (see Luke 13:34). Everyone had an excuse. How tragic, and how indicative of human nature, to be offered the blessings of God and to refuse them because of the draw of mundane things!”

   Once again a double standard. They say it is 100 monergistic yet they say they “could have come” and that they were “offered the blessing” but refused. Those are both a no-no in Calvinism!

   According to Calvinism no offer is extended, because if it was it would be irresistible.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. I agree, the Wedding Feast is an excellent picture of this! No one would claim those invited initiated the invitation, or that by putting on the wedding garments (garments that were likely provided to the guests, culturally, showing a picture of God clothing us with Christ’s righteousness) that someone would “initiate” the very wedding feast they had been invited to.

      As for Gotquestions, they have more than one writer on staff. I have seen some of their posts mention whether an answer is from a 4-point or 5-point perspective, but yes some of their answers can be quite at odds with others. An entire post on what is regeneration, for example, emphasizes several times that we must have faith to then be regenerated, get a new birth, be made spiritually live, be reconciled and adopted, etc. And no where does it state that one must be regenerated or partially regenerated first to get faith. (Which is not usually the view of a Calvinist…) Yet another article on Total Inability contradicts that over and over by insisting, again over and over, that Total Inability is a summary of “what the Bible teaches” about fallen man being unable to get faith, and prior regeneration/being made spiritually alive, is needed.

      It’s a bit dizzying to follow sometimes. Many of their answers are imported into eBible though for content, which is where I usually read them, and I can at least comment my disagreement with them there.

      Loading...

      Reply

3. thanks Eric for this post…good stuff

   Loading...

   Reply

4. From the article, “What does it mean for God to initiate salvation?”

   The Calvinist.Arminian debate presumes that God initiates salvation through a spiritual change in the reprobate person. The Calvinist calls that act the new birth; the Arminian says it affords all people the ability to hear the gospel and respond either positively or negatively (basically reducing to a Pelagian system). Prior to that spiritual change a person may hear the gospel (this by the grace of God) but will always resist that grace. That situation is not discussed in the article. The article says nothing objectionable to Calvinist or Arminian other than the presumption that reprobate an can make a spiritual decision to accept God’s offer of Salvation. However, the author seems to side with the Arminian on the issue of prevenient grace saying,

   1. “Christ ‘illuminates’ the way to eternal life [to all].
   2. “By the Father’s will, Jesus was lifted up, drawing all men”
   3. ‘The general revelation of God’s natural law written on the hearts of man shows the reality that we all sin”
   4. “Now that Jesus has ascended into Heaven (Heb 4:14,) God continues to illuminate the way through the gospel about Christ
   5. “The general conviction of sin in the world by the Holy Spirit reveals the need for a Savior”

   I doubt that Roger Olsen would quibble with that as his prevenient grace probably includes such things.

   The author asks, “Does spurning the idea that an unregenerate, fallen man is incapable of responding to the gospel in faith, the theory of Total Inability which is shared by Calvinists and many Arminians, mean that one must believe that man is “the initiator in salvation”?” The answer by the author, based on the four acts of God above, seems to be, Yes.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Hi Rhutchin,

      You might find it helpful to read the referenced blog post by Roger Olson on the subject and the comments under it, where it was clarified that in his view of Prevenient Grace, another grace beyond all those you just mentioned, of a supernatural sort, is required to enable the fallen sinner to believe. His view does ‘include such things’ as the article above, but goes father to include a further required, enabling grace of some kind. It is the failure to believe something ‘further’ is needed, (such as enabling prevenient grace, prior regeneration, partial regeneration, some men just being given effectual faith, the faith of Christ being applied to some but not all, or other theories proposed once the theory of Total Inability is accepted.)

      I am curious as to why you think an essay about the myriad and multiple factors in which God initiates salvation, and the human responding to the gospel in faith makes the human an initiate of the Covenant, baptism, God’s household, etc. but in no way an initiator, would somehow “support” the idea that fallen man would become the initiator in salvation if capable of responding in faith.

      Also, why do you specifically believe that someone rejecting the Calvinist/Arminian theory of Total Inability would necessitate his rejecting all the ample passages of scripture (many listed in the above post) as to how God graciously initiates salvation? Why would someone rejecting the theory fallen man is unable to respond in faith to the presented gospel, even with all the grace God gives, logically mandate that they believe man is the initiator?

      And more important than personal beliefs, why would God Himself somehow become the non-initiator of Salvation if He graciously and sovereignly chose a condition that even fallen men could meet; faith; as the requirement for entering the Covenant and being graciously granted salvation, as it would not be based in man’s merit or effort or will, but solely God’s gracious choice to offer and win and credit to them?

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Sorry this line was not finished:

         “It is the failure to believe something ‘further’ is needed, (such as enabling prevenient grace, prior regeneration, partial regeneration, some men just being given effectual faith, the faith of Christ being applied to some but not all, or other theories proposed once the theory of Total Inability is accepted) that was treated in his blog post as equivalent to believing that man initiates salvation.

         My post was specifically to address that false dilemma. Someone isn’t mandated to reject God as the Initiator of salvation if he rejects the Calvinist/Arminian premise of Total Inability. There are more than “just three” options.

         Loading...

      2. Jenai Rothnie writes, “the referenced blog post by Roger Olson on the subject and the comments under it, where it was clarified that in his view of Prevenient Grace, another grace beyond all those you just mentioned, of a supernatural sort, is required to enable the fallen sinner to believe.”

         The blog was a little confusing where it has, “…prevenient grace (enabling, assisting grace that goes before conversion making it possible) is supernatural and a special work of the Holy Spirit freeing the will of the sinner which is otherwise bound to sin (unbelief). ” I found, “…freeing the will…” interesting as the Calvinist has “quickening the spirit.” If all prevenient grace amounts to is freeing the “will” from slavery to sin, I think Dr, Flowers might qualify as a proponent of prevenient grace as his point seems to be that this is the effect of hearing gospel.

         The issue of TD/TI is the condition of man’s spirit – is the lost person spiritually dead and thereby unable to respond to God and if so, what must God do to negate that condition – as stated above, ““s a special act of the Spirit is required to overcome the fallen nature of a person so he is then able to believe?” An argument is then given to answer the question, “What does it mean for God to initiate salvation?” The ensuing argument leaves out any Scripture that Olson or a Calvinist would point to in support of TD/TI This allows the author to say, “Below you will find brief comments of other passages which all Christians should be able to agree shows that God initiates that, we would argue, do not require Total Inability.” Leave out the opponents argument and you can easily argue your position. But, so what?

         Then, “I am curious as to why you think an essay about…factors in which God initiates salvation, and the human responding to the gospel in faith makes the human an initiate of the Covenant, baptism, God’s household, etc. but in no way an initiator, would somehow “support” the idea that fallen man would become the initiator in salvation if capable of responding in faith.”

         I don’t think this. The argument is not whether man initiates his salvation but whether man cooperates in his salvation – God does His part and man does his part to procure salvation.

         Then, ‘Also, why do you specifically believe that someone rejecting the Calvinist/Arminian theory of Total Inability would necessitate his rejecting all the ample passages of scripture (many listed in the above post) as to how God graciously initiates salvation?”

         I don’t believe that. Certainly God initiates salvation – the question being, To what degree must God act to enable a person to be saved. If TD/TI is correct, then certain actions are called for and Calvinists and Arminians can cite Scriptures detailing these actions. If ane argues that TD/TI is not correct, then those Scriptures may be ignored as the essay above does.

         Then, “Why would someone rejecting the theory fallen man is unable to respond in faith to the presented gospel, even with all the grace God gives, logically mandate that they believe man is the initiator? ”

         Let’s use the question asked in the essay, “there is a more fundamental question that Dr. Olson leaves unaddressed. Does spurning the idea that an unregenerate, fallen man is incapable of responding to the gospel in faith, the theory of Total Inability which is shared by Calvinists and many Arminians, mean that one must believe that man is “the initiator in salvation”?”

         The answer is, Yes. Under Total Depravity, a person cannot respond to the gospel for two reasons – (1) he is spiritually dead, and (2) he has no faith with which to respond. If one rejects this notion of TD, then the presumption is that faith is inherent and something a person is born with. The person has a faith that seeks an object for his faith. If a person has no faith (thereby being TD), and can only receive faith through the hearing of the gospel, then of course, God becomes the initiator of salvation through His gift of faith (among many other graces).

         Loading...

      3. rh writes:
         “Does spurning the idea that an unregenerate, fallen man is incapable of responding to the gospel in faith, the theory of Total Inability which is shared by Calvinists and many Arminians, mean that one must believe that man is “the initiator in salvation”?”

         The answer is, Yes. Under Total Depravity, a person cannot respond to the gospel for two reasons – (1) he is spiritually dead, and (2) he has no faith with which to respond. If one rejects this notion of TD, then the presumption is that faith is inherent and something a person is born with. The person has a faith that seeks an object for his faith. If a person has no faith (thereby being TD), and can only receive faith through the hearing of the gospel, then of course, God becomes the initiator of salvation through His gift of faith (among many other graces).”

         Now there’s a novel idea. People are born with faith? Where in the world did he pull that one from? Calvinists and non-calvinists alike recognize – and debate – the meaning and method of man coming to faith in God’s promised salvation. I have never heard anyone suggest that men are born with said faith. But, of course, he does not really believe any such thing, he is just offering a strawman, as Calvinists are wont to do. Plus, it is an attempt to retain the imported, made-up definition of faith as some sort of entity that can be given and received, like a material gift.

         Just assert anything, however absurd, as necessarily true if one rejects Calvinism’s particular doctrines. No one is suggesting, or likely ever thought of, men being born with inherent ‘faith’. Nor is it even slightly possible, for faith is not a trait or a gift, but a voluntary response to something that is declared to be true. Once confronted with a truth claim, a person has the opportunity to believe, reject or reserve judgment. Belief in the truth of a truth claim is not an inherent trait, nor can it be randomly passed out, like tickets to a ballgame. Faith is a choice, in this case, to believe the claims and promises of the One, True God.

         Obviously, as scripture notes (asks rhetorically), no one can believe what they have not heard; hence the call to spread the good news. Nowhere does scripture ask ‘Who can believe unless he has been regenerated and made alive so that he can then be given the gift of faith, unsought and irresistibly bestowed upon a select few, chosen in eternity past by God?’ Nowhere.

         Loading...

      4. TS00 writes, “I have never heard anyone suggest that men are born with said faith.”

         And that is why you believe in TD/TI.

         Loading...

      5. Rhutchin,

         If someone does not believe the Earth is made of cheese, it does not logically mandate that they must believe the Earth is flat. Not believing men are born with faith doesn’t mean someone must hold to Total Inability. A false dilemma isn’t made more true by repeating it. “Given effectual faith by God” and “Born with faith” are not the only options, exclusive of all other possibilities.

         We aren’t born with faith in the gospel We aren’t effectually given faith in the gospel. We “have faith” when we welcome the gospel message so as to believe in Christ (Acts 2:41, Jn 1:12, Eph 1:13, Acts 4:4, etc.)

         Re-read Rom 10:8-17. There you will see how faith comes, and it is neither by being “born” with it or it being effectually given by God. You will also see that the requirement for faith that is given is first hearing the word, not some other method like being regenerated/given faith/made alive/etc.

         Loading...

      6. Glad you’re here, Jenai. We need all the help we can get to call rhutchin on his logical fallacies. 😉

         Loading...

      7. JR: “Not believing men are born with faith doesn’t mean someone must hold to Total Inability.”

         In Hebrews, we read, “…without faith it is impossible to please God…” Then, in Romans, “,,,those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Further, “…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;” The terms, “impossible” and “unable to do so” point us to Total Inability.

         Then, “We “have faith” when we welcome the gospel message so as to believe in Christ…”

         I agree. In Hebrews we see that faith involves assurance and conviction. The gospel conveys assurance and conviction to people but not all who hear the gospel receive such assurance and conviction. So, something differentiates the one from the other. Nonetheless, it is this assurance and conviction (i.e., faith)that manifests as belief in Christ.

         Then, “There you will see how faith comes, and it is neither by being “born” with it or it being effectually given by God. You will also see that the requirement for faith that is given is first hearing the word,…”

         I agree. But not everyone who “hears” the gospel comes to belief in Christ. Something accounts for one person to hear the gospel and believe Christ while another hears the gospel but does not believe in Christ. Christ would refer to a person “having ears to hear” and we can understand that Christ was differentiating between those who have spiritual perception and those who do not. What does spiritual perception involve? We could say that it involves the ability to see the kingdom and enter the kingdom. In John 5, we see that a perosn must be born again for that to occur.

         Loading...

      8. Rhutchin,

         Heb 1:6 says that without faith it is impossible to well-please God, NOT that without faith it is impossible to respond to the gospel in faith.

         Look at the phrase ““…without faith it is impossible to please God…” in it’s context:

         “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. [Why would they be commended for it if they a) couldn’t have it or b) it was something effectually given them?] By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. [‘Understand’ here means “to apply mental effort needed to reach “bottom-line” conclusions:”

         “3539 noiéō (from 3563 /noús, “mind”) – properly, to apply mental effort needed to reach “bottom-line” conclusions. 3539 (noiéō) underlines the moral culpability we all have before God – for every decision (value-judgment) we make. This follows from each of us being created in the divine image – hence, possessing the inherent capacity by the Lord to exercise moral reasoning.”
         https://biblehub.com/greek/3539.htm ]

         By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. [Was fallen Abel unable to do this? No hint of such a thing! Did God tell Cain ‘sorry I didn’t make you alive so you couldn’t bring a better offering? No, he told Cain he would be accepted if he did what was right, and cautioned Cain to rule over his sinful desires.] By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.[Note the parallel again – faith is believing God exists and trusting in His promises/assurances.] By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.”

         Etc. The whole chapter is about how we need faith to come to God and please Him. Nothing in the chapter states or implies that faith is required to have faith, that morally reasoning about God’s testimony and promises is impossible for fallen man, that the ancients simply couldn’t act in faith and neither can we, etc.

         Romans 8, again, context! It isn’t saying those in the flesh cannot repent and turn to God in faith.

         “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you a free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

         [Believers, those in Christ Jesus, have been set free from the law of sin and death. The law was powerless to do this (save) because the strength of the law (in telling right from wrong) is weakened by the flesh of fallen humans [e.g. humans, even ones that strive to do good, are necessarily tempted at times by the flesh and so stray from the law. But Jesus provided another way: by becoming a sin offering for us, His blood can now effectually cover believers so the requirement of the law (righteousness) can be met in us, as God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believer. Now, the believer lives according to the Spirit, vs. attempting and failing to live by the law.]

         “Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.”

         [In context, that is all about the flesh being hostile to God and unable to fully keep the law so as to be righteous. Hence, since all fallen humans are lawbreakers, they cannot please God. This does not mean they cannot respond to the gospel in faith so that they THEN can please God, be governed by the Spirit, get new life, etc.]

         “You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of e his Spirit who lives in you.”

         [The chapter is contrasting two states: #1 subject to death because of sin by being in the ‘realm of the flesh’ and #2 given life by the indwelling Spirit of God. It isn’t saying one is unable to pass from one state to the other without being given faith. This is pretty much the same argument given in Rom 6:1-14 as well:

         “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, a that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.”

         To pass from death to life, a person trusts in Christ and the promises of God. The fallen human with faith is “baptized into Christ’s death,” identifying with His burial, and then God raises up the believer to new life just as He raised Jesus from the dead. Then, the person who formerly walked by the flesh can now walk by the indwelling Spirit and “please God” and submit to God.

         The gospel does not effectually convey or “manifest” assurance and conviction. What it does is *testify* of God’s assurances and tell of the death and Resurrection of Christ. Then, as per Heb 11, some perceive/understand (use their moral reasoning) about that testimony and decide that there is indeed enough assurance in the gospel for them to trust in it. Personal testimonies, scripture, nature, the gospel message itself, the conviction of the Spirit regarding sin, etc. – these are all secondary evidences that the gospel is true. But faith is not the same as “sight” – if gospel assurance was effectually applied to some and not others, there would be no faith required!

         Certainly, “not everyone who “hears” the gospel comes to belief in Christ.” But there is no scriptural reason that there must be only one “something” that keeps people from believing, or only one “something” that draws others to believe. Going back to the parable of the sower already mentioned in this discussion, we see several reasons that people did not believe or continue in belief (a hardened path where the seed could not penetrate before being snatched away by Satan; a shallow rocky soil which the seed could penetrate but not have a firm root; a weedy soil where the seed could take root but the plant would be easily choked by cares of the world) – and many other reasons for people not believing are listed in scripture (love of sin, not wanting personal sin to be revealed, unwillingness to have a personal moral savior vs. a physical political one, etc.) And from the many discussions I have had with atheists, I could add “mad at God” or “hurt by a Christian” to that list. That is, even in the cases of some who do believe deep down that God is real and Christ is the Messiah might still refuse because they are blaming God for a past hurt. (In this regard, Calvinists like John Piper who declare that God decreed every hurt and crime ever committed, including the Holocaust or sexual abuse, can be stumbling locks to people like this who are resisting Christ due to hurt.)

         Jesus did often use the phrase “ears to hear” at the end of parables. That’s a reference back to Jeremiah 5 and some other prophecies on Israel becoming dull of hearing, which I suggest be read in it’s entirety. The nation of Israel forsook God, and so God turned them over to exile and captivity by Rome as well as hardening them in part.

         “What then? What Israel was seeking, it failed to obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see, and ears that could not hear, to this very day.” Rom 11:8

         “…Yet even in those days,” declares the Lord, “I will not destroy you completely. And when the people ask, ‘Why has the Lord our God done all this to us?’ you will tell them, ‘As you have forsaken me and served foreign gods in your own land, so now you will serve foreigners in a land not your own.’ “Announce this to the descendants of Jacob and proclaim it in Judah: Hear this, you foolish and senseless people,
         who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear: Should you not fear me?” declares the Lord…. But these people have stubborn and rebellious hearts; they have turned aside and gone away. They do not say to themselves, ‘Let us fear the Lord our God, who gives autumn and spring rains in season, who assures us of the regular weeks of harvest.’ Your wrongdoings have kept these away; your sins have deprived you of good. Among my people are the wicked who lie in wait like men who snare birds and like those who set traps to catch people. Like cages full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; they have become rich and powerful and have grown fat and sleek. Their evil deeds have no limit; they do not seek justice. They do not promote the case of the fatherless; they do not defend the just cause of the poor. Should I not punish them for this?” declares the Lord. “Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this? “A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way.
         But what will you do in the end?” – Jer 5

         “For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'” Acts 28:7

         There are many, many scriptures on the subject of ‘ears to hear.’ But none of them say that God must “give” people ears to hear so that they can hear. Rather, they are references to the nation of Israel which, unlike every other nation on Earth, specifically had a covenant with God. They forsook God, for idolatry, greed, etc. By the time of Christ the Pharisees were using their position for gain and reputation, not to actually help people follow God. God hardened Israel in part due to this. So when Jesus is saying “those who have ears, let them hear” the listeners would have been familiar with Jeremiah. It’s a warning to them that their leaders are not ruling by God’s authority and are leading them astray; that God will soon bring judgement on the nation; and to return to God. That’s a common theme of Jesus’ teaching to the Israelites, specifically: if you were really following God/the scripture/the prophets you would believe me. Your rejection of me shows that you aren’t really following God, Moses, scripture, etc. at all.

         Now, one could get out of that that many in Israel were hardened in their own rebellion (hence the hardened path in the Parable of the Sower,) but one cannot derive from that figurative/prophetic language that every unbeliever in the world has to be *granted* ears to hear. Jesus message is to those who “have” ears, i.e. take stock of what you do know (of God, scripture, etc.) and test/heed what I say in light of that, NOT in light of what your leaders are saying or what you personally hope the Messiah will look like or hope God will do, etc.

         We “enter the kingdom” BY faith, not so that we can then get faith. The person with faith is born again (Rom 6) as they identify with the death of Christ and God raises them to new life and grants them the indwelling Spirit. No one must be born again to get faith.

         Faith -> Born Again (baptism: death to sin + new life by the Spirit) -> adopted as sons, reconciled with God, enter the kingdom, made Holy, conformed to Christ, sanctified, etc.

         We aren’t born again to get/be given faith or anythihng like that. Our new birth is post faith as God graciously unites the believer in the death & Resurrection of Christ, imputes Christ’s righteousness to us, and grants us the indwelling Holy Spirit so we can walk in that newness of life.

         Loading...

      9. Jenai,
         I appreciate your willingness to post so much good stuff.

         In case you did not know…..much of this has been said to him multiple times by multiple people in multiple ways using multiple Bible passages.

         It is GOOD that you are putting it out there for other interested parties to read, but I’m just letting you know that (a) he has seen most of this before and (b) since he is bringing significant presuppositions to the table I dont think he can “hear” or see your logic. It’s a little bit like speaking a different language.

         For us “he is simply choosing to prefer Calvinism” but for him “he has been chosen to say all he says” (woah, so have we for that matter, according to Calvinism!).

         Loading...

      10. I can second that!

          Calvinists may present the impression that they are open minded – but we eventually understand that is not what they are here for.

          And rhutchin has been here for years – so we know exactly what to anticipate.
          He has a few dialog modes which have been labeled over time.
          1) The dancing boxer routine
          2) The greased pig routine
          3) The puppy dog chasing his tail routine
          4) The fake open-minded person routine

          But we all eventually observe the pattern of Double-Speak.
          Calvinists like to present by inference, conceptions that are the logical inverse of dictates specifically asserted by their own doctrine.

          Loading...

      11. Jenai, I would second FOH, and you probably have seen enough to know already, that even here we see evidence of those who do and do not have ears to hear. 😉 Those who do not, will not understand, even if God takes on flesh and speaks to them in person.

          Nevertheless, I am personally encouraged and informed by your very capable and well-presented messages, so I hope that you will continue to post them!

          Loading...

      12. Yes I totally agree! :-]
          I really appreciate and enjoy reading your posts!

          Loading...

      13. JR: “The whole chapter is about how we need faith to come to God and please Him.”

          Agreed as well as your analysis leading up to this point. By “we,” I take you to mean unsaved humanity unless you meant, “We believers needed faith to come to God (i.e., to believe in Christ/call Him Lord.).”

          Then, “Nothing in the chapter states or implies that faith is required to have faith, that morally reasoning about God’s testimony and promises is impossible for fallen man, that the ancients simply couldn’t act in faith and neither can we, etc.”

          The chapter is silent on unbelievers; it deals with the faith of believers. However, elsewhere, we see that faith is necessary to salvation. As you say earlier, “we need faith to come to God.” and “Faith comes by hearing.” I think this says that people are not born with faith and until a person receives faith, he cannot come to God. As the verse says, “without faith it is impossible to please Him,” and presuming that “coming to God” pleases Him, we can draw reasonable conclusions about the unsaved who have no faith.

          Later, you say, ‘”Then, as per Heb 11, some perceive/understand (use their moral reasoning) about that testimony and decide that there is indeed enough assurance in the gospel for them to trust in it. Personal testimonies, scripture, nature, the gospel message itself, the conviction of the Spirit regarding sin, etc. – these are all secondary evidences that the gospel is true. But faith is not the same as “sight” – if gospel assurance was effectually applied to some and not others, there would be no faith required! ”

          You say, “and decide that there is indeed enough assurance in the gospel for them to trust in it.” This is wrong. Faith is assurance and conviction; Faith comes by hearing.. One who “hears” the gospel has assurance/conviction – more than enough to trust in Christ/submit to Christ as Lord. Some people receive faith, some do not.

          Then, ‘But there is no scriptural reason that there must be only one “something” that keeps people from believing, or only one “something” that draws others to believe.”

          OK – but there is a “something” however simple or complex that would explain it. There are many excuses people offer to refuse to believe the gospel. However, some people do believe and they probably have the same excuses. So, we both agree that “something” explains why some believe in Christ and some do not. At this point, you have offered some excuses that you think comprise this “something” for unbelievers. As a Calvinist, I say that something is God for believers.

          Then, ‘There are many, many scriptures on the subject of ‘ears to hear.’ But none of them say that God must “give” people ears to hear so that they can hear.”

          OK. We now need to explain why some have “ears to hear” and some do not. You do not explain what you think accounts for this. Again, as a Calvinist, I say that God gives some “ears to hear” and not others.

          Then, “one cannot derive from that figurative/prophetic language (of the parable) that every unbeliever in the world has to be *granted* ears to hear.”

          I see that one might suspect strongly such to be the case and draw a reasonable conclusion based on everything else we read in the Scripture.

          Then, “We “enter the kingdom” BY faith, not so that we can then get faith….No one must be born again to get faith.”

          John 3 says that one must be born again to enter the kingdom. You add that one must be born again and have faith to enter the kingdom (i.e., be saved). Which comes first must be fleshed out. The Calvinist would point to Ephesians 2 where God makes the unsaved alive and conclude that being born again precedes faith. Regardless if one is unsaved and “hears” the gospel thereby receiving faith whereupon they are born again, it would seem to deny what Jesus said, “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” You seem to be saying that faith makes the born again experience automatic and predictable.

          I’ll comment on your Romans analysis later.

          Loading...

      14. JR: “Romans 8…isn’t saying those in the flesh cannot repent and turn to God in faith”

          In your analysis of Hebrews, you said, “we need faith to come to God.” Unless you are parsing “turn to” to distinguish it from “come to,” you seem to be going both ways on this. Can you clarify what you believe? I see the point being that those in the flesh (the unsaved) require faith in order to repent and turn to God. Paul contrasts being in the flesh with being in the Spirit with no middle ground. It is because the believer is indwell by the Spirit that he no longer is ruled by the flesh (even though influenced as Romans 7 explains). As you say, “The chapter is contrasting two states: #1 subject to death because of sin by being in the ‘realm of the flesh’ and #2 given life by the indwelling Spirit of God.”

          Then, “The chapter is contrasting two states: #1 subject to death because of sin by being in the ‘realm of the flesh’ and #2 given life by the indwelling Spirit of God. It isn’t saying one is unable to pass from one state to the other without being given faith. “

          While Paul does not state explicitly that faith is needed start by saying, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” In Galatians, Paul wrote, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us…so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith….For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” So, we can read Romans 8:1 as “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who [through faith] are in Christ Jesus.” In the Calvinist system, faith is critical to the transformation from being unsaved to saved. You seem to be distancing yourself from Calvinism by arguing against that role for faith. Are you?

          Then, “Believers, those in Christ Jesus, have been set free from the law of sin and death…Hence, since all fallen humans are lawbreakers, they cannot please God. This does not mean they cannot respond to the gospel in faith so that they THEN can please God, be governed by the Spirit, get new life, etc.”

          This is a key disagreement with Calvinism. Calvinism says that the unsaved can only respond to the gospel with faith. That is why the unsaved, who lack faith, cannot be saved by their own efforts and are Total Depravity/Total Inability. Hebrews is key here for the Calvinist, “…without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”

          Then, ‘To pass from death to life, a person trusts in Christ and the promises of God…Then, the person who formerly walked by the flesh can now walk by the indwelling Spirit and “please God” and submit to God.”

          In Ephesians 1, Paul writes, “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,…” So the unsaved listens to the gospel and consequently believes and then is indwell by the Holy Spirit that then provides him the ability to please God. So where does faith fit into this? In Acts, we read, “some days later, Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.” In Galatians, “…a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus,…” Earlier in Romans, “Christ who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand;”

          As Paul describes those in the flesh “…the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;” he here speaks of having peace with God through faith. The bottom line is that Calvinism says that faith is necessary to salvation and precedes any other act of the person (i.e., “….walk by the indwelling Spirit and “please God” and submit to God.”) I understand you to be arguing against this position.

          As FOH wrote, “In case you did not know…..much of this has been said to him multiple times by multiple people in multiple ways using multiple Bible passages. It is GOOD that you are putting it out there for other interested parties to read, but I’m just letting you know that (a) he has seen most of this before and (b) since he is bringing significant presuppositions to the table I don’t think he can “hear” or see your logic. It’s a little bit like speaking a different language.” So, we see the distinction that the Calvinist makes with regard to faith and that which you, FOH, br.d and others make. If nothing else, the battle lines have been drawn once again.

          Loading...

      15. “Can you clarify what you believe? I see the point being that those in the flesh (the unsaved) require faith in order to repent and turn to God.”

          In Heb 11 it doesn’t say faith is required to respond to the gospel in faith or that faith is first required to repent and turn to God. Rather, it specifically states that faith is required to please God (which in context of the passage is to satisfy His requirement of righteousness, hence why God “credited” righteousness to those who believed God’s promises and acted on that faith. The entire chapter explores why faith is necessary to please God, using examples of people who trusted God’s promises, treating them as certain even when they did not personally see the fulfillment of them, and acted on that trust.

          Logical premises of the form, “A is required for B” do not mandate that “A is necessary to get A” – that would be nonsensical.

          Furthermore, Paul is writing Heb 11 to believers. The point of listing all these faithful followers of God from the OT is so that believers will not grow weary when they do not see God’s promises immediately fulfilled (Heb 11:39-40, Heb 12:1-3.) He isn’t saying, “Be glad you are among those specially chosen to have 100% assurance effectually conveyed to you, congrats you elect, you’ll never struggle or doubt at all!” No, he is telling them that they will face hardship, struggle, and adversity. They will not all immediately see the promises fulfilled. So, we should look to the examples of men of old who trusted even when the first coming of Christ was a long way off to encourage us to trust even when the second coming of Christ could be a long way off! We have certainty that the promise of His Second Coming is assured because we can look at His First Coming which was trusted by people living thousands of years before it happened. We can trust that the promises of God are assured because of His character, even when things seem slow by our standards.

          ” Paul contrasts being in the flesh with being in the Spirit with no middle ground.”

          For one, it is a logical fallacy (Specifically, the “fallacy of the excluded middle”) to automatically assume that when someone presents two contrasting states that there is no middle ground. For an example, imagine someone is describing living in the city vs. living in the country. Does that automatically mean that no one can live in the suburbs, or commute between the two? Etc. Unfortunately, Calvinism seems to do this a lot – presenting two extremes as if there is no middle option or no transition between stages.

          In the case of being in the flesh being in the Spirit, there isn’t much of a middle ground but there is one: the *transition* from death to life that happens when a believer first responds in faith and God graciously raises them to new life. Temporally, this basically happens in an instant. Col 2, Rom 6, and other passages detail this transition which is often summarized in the term “baptism” – passing from death to life.

          “And you have been made complete in Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority. In Him you were also circumcised in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses, having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross! And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.”
          Col 2:10-15

          Here is the sequence:

          1. Initial state: dead in trespasses
          2. Person has faith in the power of God
          3. Buried with Christ in baptism (Circumcised by Christ/Put off sin nature)
          4. God raises believer (makes believer alive with Christ)
          5. New state: Alive in Christ; forgiven; complete in Christ.

          This transition (baptism, death to life) is the ‘middle ground’ and is an essential part of soteriology. Baptism is how God makes us alive, how God initiates us into the New Covenant, how our old sin nature is put off and the righteous garments of Christ put on, etc.

          ” It is because the believer is indwell by the Spirit that he no longer is ruled by the flesh (even though influenced as Romans 7 explains).”

          Agreed. The believer puts ‘off’ the flesh in baptism (which really is Christ ‘circumcizing’ the believer, not the believers own power or action) and then God raises the believer to new life and gives the indwelling Spirit. So the *believer* is no longer ruled by the flesh.

          “While Paul does not state explicitly that faith is needed start by saying, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” In Galatians, Paul wrote, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us…so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith….For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” So, we can read Romans 8:1 as “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who [through faith] are in Christ Jesus.” In the Calvinist system, faith is critical to the transformation from being unsaved to saved. You seem to be distancing yourself from Calvinism by arguing against that role for faith. Are you?”

          Of course faith is critical for the transformation from unsaved to saved. That’s been a large portion of my replies to you, as you seem to be saying that we need to be born again and given faith so that we can then repent and believe. But scripture shows the unsaved person that responds to the gospel in faith is THEN circumcised by Christ and made alive (born again) by God by God’s gracious choice to save believers and credit righteousness to them.

          Note the actual text of Gal 3:14 which you quote from:

          “He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.” Gal 3:14

          Do we receive faith so that we might be redeemed? Do we receive the Spirit so we may receive faith? No, through faith we receive (actively lay hold of, aggressively accept what is offered https://biblehub.com/greek/2983.htm) the promise of the Spirit. Jesus paid the redemption price as our Kinsman Redeemer so that anyone can, through faith, actively lay hold of the promise of the Spirit. The rest of the chapter just backs this up: the righteous live by faith, all those with faith are children of Abraham, we must rely on faith and not the law, etc.

          “This is a key disagreement with Calvinism. Calvinism says that the unsaved can only respond to the gospel with faith. That is why the unsaved, who lack faith, cannot be saved by their own efforts and are Total Depravity/Total Inability. Hebrews is key here for the Calvinist, “…without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”

          All of Christianity, not just Calvinists, believe that the unsaved cannot be saved by their own efforts. Calvinist does not say the unsaved “can only respond to the gospel with faith” – that’s opposite the Calvinist theory of Total Inability which claims the unsaved “CANNOT” or is “inable/unable” to respond to the gospel in faith. The Calvinist view of Total Depravity is not merely that man is unable to be saved of his own efforts or work of the law, but that fallen man is unable to respond to the gospel in faith. Since you are not representing Calvinism correctly, there isn’t much more I can say here. But if you do indeed believe that any unsaved person can respond to the gospel in faith (without being among the select few being ‘born again’ prior or effectually given faith, etc.) then you are not a Calvinist.

          “In Ephesians 1, Paul writes, “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,…” So the unsaved listens to the gospel and consequently believes and then is indwell by the Holy Spirit that then provides him the ability to please God. So where does faith fit into this?”

          The Greek word pístis can be translated either faith or belief – they are synonyms. The Greek word pisteuó can be translated either believing or ‘have faith in’ – again, synonyms.

          The unsaved person who hears the gospel and believes (verb) holds faith (noun.) Those who hold faith believe. Those who believe have faith.

          “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Jn 3:16

          It’s worth noting that believing is not a one time action, but an ongoing state. Those who actively believe actively hold faith.

          “But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, i through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” Rom 3:21-31

          God didn’t make people follow the law. In the same way, He doesn’t make some people have faith. Rather, faith is a person’s response in trust to God’s persuasion. In other ancient writings, pistis stood for a guarantee or warranty. The New Covenant in Christ’s blood is the guarantee of God’s promises – but one has to enter that Covenant by faith to accept that guarantee. If a man guarantees that his heirs will receive a billion dollars each, that does nothing for those who are not heirs. We are all heirs through faith.

          “Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”“Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.” Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
          John 6:30-40

          Note a few things:
          – Believing in Christ is something man must ‘do’ in a sense. This is not described as a work of the law (as we know from other passages it certainly is not) but is likened to eating offered bread; trusting in that which God has provided.
          – The Father chooses to let anyone with faith come to Christ
          – The Father’s will is that anyone who looks to the Son and believes will be raised on the last day (parallel here to “looking” at the snake on a pole and being healed, and to Christ being lifted up so as to draw all men)
          – Seeing the proof right in front of you is not sufficient of itself to make someone believe

          ” In Acts, we read, “some days later, Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.” In Galatians, “…a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus,…” Earlier in Romans, “Christ who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand;”

          I am not sure what your point is here. That faith can be used as either a noun or a verb? Sure. But these scriptures are harmonious, not contradictory. Whoever *believes* in Christ is saved. We can rightly say then that we are saved “by grace, and through faith.”

          Look at the context of the verses you briefly reference:

          “Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, “That’s enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.” At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him.” Acts 24:24-26

          Was Paul speaking about a faith that would be effectually granted to some and not to others? No, he was talking about the faith in general: topics such as Christ, righteousness, self-control, judgement, etc. Feli was not unfamiliar with the topic, and his Jewish wife could presumably also shed light on the topic. That he was “frightened” showed he even had some conviction of conscience – at some level he feared, or even knew, that what Paul was saying was true. But Felix resisted personally believing because “he was hoping Paul would offer him a bribe” – not because “God didn’t effectually grant Felix faith.”

          “The bottom line is that Calvinism says that faith is necessary to salvation and precedes any other act of the person (i.e., “….walk by the indwelling Spirit and “please God” and submit to God.”) I understand you to be arguing against this position.”

          Of course faith is necessary to salvation and precedes the walk of the believer with God, sanctification, etc. But the Calvinist position is that man CANNOT have faith upon hearing the gospel (they are split on the solution. Prior regeneration, simply being given faith (not even from the person in that view, Christ’s faith being effectually applied to the person, irresistible proof given, etc.). You are assuming that rejection of the theory of Total Inability must somehow mandate rejection of the idea that God only grants salvation to those who believe in Christ – and there is no logical basis to claim that.

          “We see the distinction that the Calvinist makes with regard to faith and that which you, FOH, br.d and others make. If nothing else, the battle lines have been drawn once again.”

          No, you just have claimed without basis that “no one else” believes faith is necessary for salvation as if that is the “battle line” – even though everyone agrees faith is necessary for salvation. The “battle line” remains the theory of Total Inability, which you have as yet to support as necessary to scripture, and has of yet to respond to the many, many points and scriptures given that contradict it. Moving the goal posts and flitting around to other out-of-context scriptures rather than confronting verses in context is not the same as supporting a theory.

          Loading...

      16. Jenai
          Logical premises of the form, “A is required for B” do not mandate that “A is necessary to get A” – that would be nonsensical.

          br.d
          I LOVED this statement!!

          And the irony about this is – that is exactly the way Calvinist thinking works.

          Theological Determinism (first conceived by the Greek STOICS) presupposes a MODEL of causation where sequential events occur in a “CAUSAL CHAIN” leading back to a SOURCE/ORIGIN.

          However don’t waste your time trying to LOGICALLY walk a Calvinist back to the SOURCE/ORIGIN of his doctrine’s CAUSAL CHAIN.

          The ORIGINATOR, DESIGNER, SUSTAINER, and CONTROLLER of every movement of every link in the chain is Calvin’s god.

          So when it comes to evil events – the closer you try to walk the Calvinist back to the SOURCE/ORIGIN – the more *TERRIFIED* he gets! And for understandable reasons.

          And that’s why he will argue that “A is necessary to get A”

          Loading...

      17. JR: “In Heb 11 it doesn’t say faith is required to respond to the gospel in faith…”

          It says, “without faith it is impossible to please God,…” – This is an universal truth applicable across to any situation. If one desires to please, God, he must first have faith..

          But then, “for he who comes to God must believe…” The issue here is to discern the relationship between ‘believe” and “faith.” It seems reasonable to conclude that believing God is one way to please God. Given that faith is required to please God, we can conclude that faith precedes and provides the basis for believing. As responding to the gospel must please God, we can say that faith precedes a favorable response to the gospel.

          What we seem to have here is a definition of faith : Faith is “[believing] that God is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” Faith and belief are separate concepts but one never appears without the other.

          So, is faith required to repent of one’s sin against God and turn to God. Something must excite a person to turn away from his sinful life. In Romans 10, Paul says, “the righteousness that is by faith…what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:” So, in Acts, “when [Paul and Barnabas] had arrived and gathered the church together, they began to report all things that God had done with them and how He had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles.” Paul preaches the word of faith and a door of faith is opened to unbelievers. Certainly faith is proclaimed to unbelievers and faith works on the unbelievers and then they respond in to that preaching in repentance acceptance of the gospel. I don’t see how faith can be excluded as a prime mover in driving people to God and Christ.

          Then, “For one, it is a logical fallacy (Specifically, the “fallacy of the excluded middle”)…Unfortunately, Calvinism seems to do this a lot – presenting two extremes as if there is no middle option or no transition between stages.”

          If you find where the Scriptures identify a middle ground between the flesh and the Spirit, I will yield on this point. Until then, I will maintain that there is no middle ground. It may be true that Calvinists present things as black or white, and I suspect that they do this because the scriptures do not allow for a gray middle. If this is a weakness in Calvinism, you are free to exploit it. Your example of baptism does not define a middle ground between flesh and spirit but illustrates the change from flesh to spirit. Colossians says, “God delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” There is no middle ground here – we were in darkness and then we were in light. Again, “When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ.” We were dead; then we were alive. There was no middle ground.

          But you argue, “This transition (baptism, death to life) is the ‘middle ground’ and is an essential part of soteriology. Baptism is how God makes us alive,”

          Paul is giving us an an illustration and that which God accomplished to save us. Christ circumcised the believer separating him form his sin nature, God buried the believer in Christ. the believer then hears the gospel preached and with the faith derived form the gospel, he finds himself raised to new life. Wrapping this up, Paul says, “When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ.” In Ephesians, “You are saved through faith.” If you want “the ‘transition’ from death to life that happens when a believer first responds in faith” then I am fine with that as it puts faith in it’s proper place – the response in faith being calling on God to be saved. Thus we are saved by grace through faith.

          Then, “Of course faith is critical for the transformation from unsaved to saved. That’s been a large portion of my replies to you, as you seem to be saying that we need to be born again and given faith so that we can then repent and believe.”

          John 3 seems definitive to me – one must be born again in order to see and enter the kingdom (i.e., be saved). Being born again necessarily precedes and makes salvation possible. Having been born again, the preaching of the gospel becomes effective – faith comes by hearing. The ability to “see” and “enter” makes possible the ability to “hear.” We will just have to disagree on this and let it differentiate me as a Calvinist and you as a non-Calvinist.

          Then, “Do we receive faith so that we might be redeemed?” No, we were redeemed first and then those redeemed received faith through the gospel.
          Then, “Do we receive the Spirit so we may receive faith?” No, “after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation [so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.]–having also believed, you were sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise,”

          Then, “that’s opposite the Calvinist theory of Total Inability which claims the unsaved “CANNOT” or is “inable/unable” to respond to the gospel in faith.”

          No, it is, “…that’s opposite the Calvinist theory of Total Inability which claims the unsaved “CANNOT” or is “inable/unable” to respond to the gospel EXCEPT in faith. Total Inability is undone by faith as faith is Total ability. But you say, “Since you are not representing Calvinism correctly, there isn’t much more I can say here.” I am pretty sure that I have it right and it is you who have misrepresented Calvinism. Nowhere have I heard of a Calvinist saying that a person is unable to respond to the gospel in faith. Rather, the Calvinist says that faith is required for a person to respond to the gospel.

          More later.

          Loading...

      18. Jenai:

          I am not tracking all of the back-and-forth with you and RH (as I mentioned I dont dialog with him since he just goes ’round and ’round in illogical circles). But I happened to glance at this one he wrote:

          “If you find where the Scriptures identify a middle ground between the flesh and the Spirit, I will yield on this point. Until then, I will maintain that there is no middle ground. It may be true that Calvinists present things as black or white, and I suspect that they do this because the scriptures do not allow for a gray middle.”

          All of Calvinism is based on this black-n-white idea that EVERYTHING is flesh before (their) “regeneration” (dead, incapable, foolishness, etc) and NOTHING is flesh afterward.

          Of course Scripture does not bear this out as (Calvinist) Piper declares over and over in this article
          https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-war-within-flesh-versus-spirit

          Once again…. more waffling on the part of Piper and RH. The promise of “show me a middle ground and I will yield” will never be kept by him. There will be some convoluted “we never answered” retort. Whatever.

          Dead to Calvinists means dead….except when it doesnt. We are dead in Christ and dead to sin, but we sin and struggle with the flesh (which is black-n-white “over with” right?). Inconsistent. Illogical. Unbiblical.

          Good News! Listen world….You are dead and incapable of hearing the Gospel message!

          Good News! Listen church….You are dead to sin…but will struggle with the flesh your whole life.

          Loading...

      19. Ah, we both know the Calvinist cannot afford to concede a single point. It isn’t really that they are incapable of following logic, but that they cannot uphold their system apart from twisted, convoluted detours in hopes of keeping their inconsistencies from being exposed. Even when someone as logical and literate as Jenai points out the obvious holes in his arguments. RH really has no choice but to pretend like he doesn’t see that his arguments leak like a sieve.

          We’ve seen it hundreds of times: deny, deflect, rephrase, mock, challenge, call names. It is either that or admit the inescapable flaws in his system, which he has no intention of ever doing. Most, I would wager, come here with an earnest desire to re-examine important issues. Many have never heard a well thought out counter to the teachings of Calvinism.

          They can benefit from the insights of those who can see scripture from the Calvinist, non-Calvinist and anti-Calvinist perspectives. It is only when the alternatives are made known that people are able to be freed from the confines of a hideous and unsatisfying view of God. That is the beauty of this blog.

          Loading...

      20. Exactly correct!

          Calvin’s institutes of square-circles and married bachelors.
          The system is intrinsically irrational.

          SEMANTIC arguments – equivocations – and duplicitous inferential language is its strong suit.
          What is boldly asserted as TRUE or FALSE with one hand – is later SNUCK BACK with the other hand.
          Double-Think hidden within a smoke-screen of inferential language.

          That’s why Dr. Jerry Walls likens Calvinists to magicians.

          Semantic shell-games are an integral a part of the tradition.
          And the way it chooses to maintain an APPEARANCE of coherence.

          Loading...

      21. br.d:
          “And the way it chooses to maintain an APPEARANCE of coherence.”

          With ‘appearance’ being the key.

          I recall, in my first excursion into examining Calvinism, about 20 years ago, reading that the Calvinist TULIP had a certain internal logic. As long as one accepts the foundational concept of Total Depravity, or Inability, the remaining points are a logical outflow. Indeed, so interdependent are they that to remove even one of the petals is to destroy the illusion of a flower.

          Hence the fierce struggle to fend off the many and sound logical objections to various points. Total Depravity, meaning a walking corpse kind of ‘dead in sin’ is a severe and unjustified reading of scripture. Repeated calls from God to man, commands to righteousness and promises of positive responses from God to our mustard seed faith render such a reading nonsensical.

          The absurdity of the claim that God would deliberately blind and bind his creation to sin, rendering them helpless and hopeless, belittles the marvelous work of grace he undertook to redeem men from such a state. Or leaves him in the belittling state of causing problems so that he can solve them.

          Raised a non-Calvinist, I had never heard such a definition, and I laughed at the absurdity of it from the start. Not to mention my own personal experience with God, which belied such a false theory. My problem was that I did not realize, early on, that I could not toss off whichever tenets of Calvinism I found false and expect what was left to remain on solid ground.

          Even though I had read thousands of pages on Calvinism, I later discovered that the strategy of focusing on Calvinism vs. Arminianism tends to distract from fully investigating and understanding the base claims of the Calvinist system. One can knock down strawmen for decades before discovering they are not real, without getting to the root of the issues. A very clever strategy, that.

          It is literally impossible to speak and live as if Total Depravity, and its stepchild – Determinism – genuinely exist. Not a Calvinist preacher I have ever heard or read speaks as if either really exist. Instead they appeal to men to believe in God (or at least Calvinism), embrace their system, warn of the dangers of straying from it, encourage prayer and sanctification, all as if such things were possible by dead, completely controlled men and women.

          They were forced, in recent times, to invent the oxymoron known as Compatibilism, claiming that God’s predetermination of whatsoever comes to pass and its antithesis, man’s free choice, are at the same time true. Utterly impossible, and yet this is the smoke they must blow to cover the problem of their system making God the author and source of abuse, oppression, injustice and all evil.

          Has any Calvinist pastor honestly spoke as his system demands, asserting, ‘If you are elect, wait and see if God regenerates you so that you can see the glorious truth of what I am saying’? Do any declare, ‘Of course it will change nothing, since God has ordained all things in eternity past, but let us pray together, as God has commanded us to go through this pointless drill’? Do any, when approached by frantic parents, concerned about a particular sin or struggle of their child, assert, ‘There is no use worrying about it; if God wants him to be addicted to pornography, or become a serial killer, that is what will come to pass. We must accept God’s decrees and give him glory for them.’?

          I would assert that not only do pastors not speak as their system logically demands, they do not even think consistently Calvinistically. They somehow do not see the disconnect between what they claim to be true and how they actually think, speak and live every day. I only saw it when I studied the system and tried to understand how to logically, consistently apply it. I saw that it could not be done, without turning God into a monster or me into a lunatic.

          This is why atheists, many of who hold Calvinism as essential Christianity, so loudly guffaw at such a perverse, illogical belief system. This too, I once did not understand. I share their incredulous query, ‘Who could possibly believe such things?’ But, having been on the inside for a number of years, I no longer think many people actually do believe ‘such things’. They either have not examined the system closely, or have embraced, unthinkingly, the non-solutions they have been led to believe make it all possible:

          God is the sole source of whatsoever comes to pass, and man can be justly punished for what he has ordained.

          God both ordains whatsoever comes to pass in eternity past, and man is capable of, and culpable for his own actions as if they were freely chosen.

          God constantly commands men to do his will, obey his commands and turn from unrighteousness, while, unknown to the average man, making this entirely impossible until and unless he does a supernatural magic trick and makes a select few once again able.

          God loves mankind, but deliberately set out to condemn and/or destroy most of them.

          God is good, yet brought evil into existence because he longed for ‘glory’.

          These are a few of the troubling conundrums of Calvinism, which for the most part are ignored, denied or papered over with explanations that do not hold water. But if people really want to believe, for any number of reasons, this is enough to provide plausible cover, particularly when coupled with the charge to trust their ‘authorities’.

          Loading...

      22. TS00,
          Wow. Once again you are laying this out so clearly! Couple of affirmative comments:

          1. Indeed. I have said many times that it all hinges (is founded on) Total Depravity. If you START with TD as a presupposition…. (based on the faulty, presupposed interpretations of “flesh/spirit” or “‘dead’ = incapable,” or “gospel is foolishness”) then you must come up with the other 4 petals.

          2. Indeed. No one lives like determinism is true. We all think that we matter, that we make a difference. A longer time spent with our kids doing homework brings a better outcome. We know that to be true. Resisting evil: A little bad internet indiscretion leads to more, and then to porn, and to addiction and we know that is not God’s will (except for Calvinist-Determinists for whom it is “really must have been God’s sovereign will” to be addicted to porn).

          3. Compatibalism: If they had not come up with that, they would not have been able to fit into the greater evangelical community. I have heard card-carrying Calvinists say the most Arminian things: “strategies for winning the lost,” “prayer will change the outcome,” “how will they hear about Christ if you young people do not rise up and go?” “C’mon people, where is your faith?” etc etc etc. It just goes on and on. This allows them to function in the real world, since speaking like a Determinist (or living their theology) would really put them on the fringe.

          To this point, I have literally heard YRR friends of mine say “I believe, FOH, that it is 100% true that God decreed and decided all things before time, and also that compatibly He gives free will to men and makes them responsible. It is beyond our comprehension, but true.” So theology on the first part, and practical living/ actions/ prayers on the second part. Again, in practicality that makes them absolutely no different than any of us (except for their impugning of God’s character).

          4. Conundrums: To add to the list of conundrums: My Bible reading yesterday included John 20, which includes 20:31.

          “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

          The double conundrum here is
          (1) “These are written that you may believe” along with all the “convince” “reason with” “persuade” and “choose for yourselves this day” verses are all a hideous mockery if Determinism is true. Calvinism makes it looks like God is only pretending to make this offer to people.
          (2) Ironically the verse also says “by believing you may have life” —- but Calvinists’ “regeneration precedes faith” gives life BEFORE believing.

          But….. let it be known…… no matter what we say, we will hear back “you dont understand Calvinism” and “you are just setting up straw men” or “you are a semi-Polynesian” or “you are a universalist” ” or “you have a man-centered Gospel.”

          Same old same old.

          Loading...

      23. Jenai,
          Please take not that even when goaded, I will not respond to RH. Not because I cannot, but because every one of his repetitive, ’round and ’round accusations has been answer many, many times by me and many others on this blog. It is just senseless to let him goad us with the “FOH doesnt have an answer” or “FOH doesnt believe the Scriptures” lines.

          Loading...

      24. FOH
          Jenai,
          Please take not that even when goaded, I will not respond to RH. Not because I cannot, but because every one of his repetitive, ’round and ’round

          br.d
          Correct – goading is part of rhutchin’s dancing boxer routine.
          Its a total waste of time entertaining it.

          Loading...

      25. With that said, I do understand why Jenai has stayed with it (and I have enjoyed her comments!!), because this is a string on her original article.

          Loading...

      26. Yes you are correct!
          I definitely agree – just not to get lured by the “goading” routine.

          Loading...

      27. “OH writes, ” I have said many times that it all hinges (is founded on) Total Depravity. If you START with TD as a presupposition….”
          FOH knows better. TD begins with the Scriptural truth that people are not born with faith and cannot receive faith except through the word. Without faith, a person has zero ability to be saved. In addition, people are without righteousness – there is none righteous, no not one – and until people receive faith, they cannot be made righteous. Thus, people are Totally Depraved (“…the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”) – and would be Utterly Depraved if God did not restrain them. FOH being unable to argue against the Scriptures can only advance his false views by ignoring those Scriptures.”

          JTL,

          A presupposition is, “an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.”

          You have been starting with the assumption that Total Depravity is true (and some other assumptions related to it) in order to argue for its various facets.

          Let’s look at your arguments “for” TD:

          #1 “TD begins with the scriptural proof”
          That’s an assertion, not a proof. TD is “assumed” true because you “assert” it true. That doesn’t make it less of a presupposition.

          #2 “People are not born with faith”
          Granted! But since all Christians believe that, it’s a non-sequitor. You might as well say, “humans are carbon based organisms” or “the sky looks blue” for all the relevance that statement has. It doesn’t follow that because “no one is born with faith” that Total Depravity must be true. Fallacy of the excluded middle is also committed, as TD is again “assumed” to be the only solution to man not being born with faith.

          #3 “People cannot receive faith except through the word”
          This is true in the sense that no one can be persuaded of a truth if that truth is never presented to them, so hearing the word must happen before someone can be persuaded by it (Rom 10:14.) But I am guessing that is not the sense you mean this phrase in – rather, as per your previous posts, you assume this refers to some form of effectual granting of faith to select hearers of the word. That is a presupposition you are reading into the text, not something you have supported through contextual scripture.
          •
          #4 “Without faith, a person has zero ability to be saved”

          True, though this is not because faith gives a physical, mental, or even moral ability for a person to save himself, but because it gives a “legal right” based in the promises of God’s New Covenant, vs. any capacity or merit in the human himself, for God to grant salvation to the person. For a type of this – the blood of the lamb applied to the door post did not confer power to the Israelites to fight or fend off the Angel of Death. Rather, God mercifully ordered the Angel of Death to pass over any household that had blood on the doorframe. It was not their own “ability,” even an acquired one through the blood, but God’s gracious choice that delivered them. Their ‘ability to be delivered’ was a legal ability based in God’s prior promise to deliver those who applied the blood.

          But again, nothing in that demands that the Calvinist theory of Total Depravity be true to the exclusion of other options. Also, since ‘Total Inability’ is the idea man cannot respond to the gospel in faith, not that ‘man has no ability to be saved without faith’, this is not an accurate presentation of the Calvinist theory of Total Depravity to begin with.

          #5 In addition, people are without righteousness – there is none righteous, no not one
          True enough. No one but Christ is righteous. That doesn’t mandate “Total Depravity” though; all that is necessary to be counted as unrighteous is the breaking of a single law.

          #6 – “and until people receive faith, they cannot be made righteous”

          That’s yet another presupposition/assertion. It doesn’t follow from your other points or from scripture.

          Scripture states that it is impossible to please God without faith; that only by faith will God impute the righteousness of Christ to a believer, that one must believe in Christ to have salvation, that one must have faith to receive the Spirit, etc. Scripture nowhere states “until people receive faith they cannot be made righteous.”

          Gal 3 would be a great chapter to read, here. Those who hear with faith receive the Spirit and are justified by God.

          #7, your conclusion, “Thus, people are Totally Depraved”
          This is a circular conclusion, as you assumed total depravity to try to prove Total Depravity to show why Total Depravity was not an assumption….

          #8 (“…the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”)

          That’s a quote from Gen 6:5. In context, mankind has become very evil overall to the point where God regrets even creating man and decides to wipe all mankind and most of the animals out with a flood – minus Noah who, as the passage mentions, is the exception being “righteous and blameless,” and his family.

          How does a period in the history of man, which is implied to be full of evil more than the norm, prove anything about the typical state of mankind? And how does a passage which specifically states that Noah is righteous and blameless prove that all individuals are totally depraved? We see other scripture where humans, despite their fallen condition, can do good things (even if they cannot be good enough to overcome their condemnation as lawbreakers since no amount of righteous deeds overcomes even a single instance of breaking the law (James 2:10.)

          https://ebible.com/questions/18144-can-natural-fallen-man-do-anything-that-is-spiritually-good

          It’s a serious out of context misuse of Gen:5 to try and use it to support the theory of Total Depravity.

          #9 “– and would be Utterly Depraved if God did not restrain them.”

          This, again, is an assertion. Scripture never implies or states that men would be “as evil as possible” or “Utterly Depraved” if God did not restrain them. The tree Adam and Eve ate from was the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” – they would die if they ate it not because they would become “utterly depraved” but because they would physically suffer decay and death, and would morally be condemned to death for disobedience. Once a person “knows” good from evil, they are responsible to that knowledge (Jn 9:41, Rom 7:8-10, Rom 2:14-15, etc.)

          What scripture shows God restraining is not man’s sin (though it is certainly possibly God could interfere to restrain someone’s sin, it is not mandated and certainly not implied that everyone would be as evil as possible without such restraining) but rather God’s own wrath, which He restrains so as not to wipe everyone out immediately every time a sin is committed (Isa 48:9, Psa 78:38, II Pet 3:9, etc.) This is for the sake of His eternal plan of redemption and due to His mercy, wanting all to come to repentance.

          None of that reasoning shows that your belief in TD is not a presupposition. It just shows that you are entering the discussion with multiple presuppositions.

          ***

          Now, to the rest of your statements:

          “Some do live trusting that God has determined all things. Thereby, God’s promises to His elect are certain and sure and every prayer of faith availeth much.”

          Even non-Calvinists believe God’s promises are certain and that prayer in faith avails much – no belief in ‘determinism’ required, just a trust in the revealed character of God wherein He is faithful to keep His promises. Interestingly enough, though, you “every prayer of faith availeth much” does not follow from determinism whatsoever. The determinist cannot believe that the prayer in faith avails anything, since a consistent determinist believes that the faith, the prayer itself, and the final result of the prayer were all determined before the person was even born. The prayer isn’t changing anything of itself, then, it’s just the actor speaking the lines of a pre-scripted drama. The ‘audience’ might see change and think it is due to the prayer, but the script was already written on all points and the actor has no ability to ad-lib. The lines “change” nothing, they are merely the determined actualization of the script.
          “FOH knows that the only strategy for winning the lost is to obey Christ – ““Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.” – and from whence does success come? “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.” So, young people are to be exhorted to go out and preach the gospel knowing that God is using them to call His elect.”

          First, under a determinist worldview evangelism is “strategy” in surface appearance only, like the lines of a play or the method the scriptwriter puts in for a character to change their mind. Evangelism is not seen as having the effectual power to truly change anything, since God already determined who would get faith and who would not get faith and who would hear and who would not hear and how they would hear and who they would hear by and who would go to share the gospel and who would stay, etc. Only the characters determined to evangelize would do so; if someone did not, God did not determine them to share the gospel. Only the characters predetermined by the script to believe would do so. Etc.

          Second, God calls everyone (in the sense of invitation, since the Greek word can mean either invites or names, and context is important as to which sense is meant.) But only some respond to the invitation, come to the feast, and put on the Wedding garments. God chooses those people, as opposed to everyone invited, to partake of the wedding feast (Matt 22.) God’s election, His ‘choice’ is that THOSE people, those who believe, are then called by His name and inherit the promises. God doesn’t call a predetermined elect group, rather He elected before time that all those in Christ (believers) will be made Holy, and predestined that those in Christ (believers; the faithful in Christ Jesus) would be adopted as Sons, etc. (Eph 1) God invites everyone. Those who accept become the elect.
          https://ebible.com/questions/3697-are-we-predestined-to-know-christ
          “Then, “I have literally heard YRR friends of mine say “I believe, FOH, that it is 100% true that God decreed and decided all things before time, and also that compatibly He gives free will to men and makes them responsible. It is beyond our comprehension, but true.””
          Such is the knowledge and power of God to decreed all things without denying the will of man in decisions. FOH denies God the ability to be God and appears to ridicule Him.”

          No, FOH just realizes as many of us do that claiming a contradiction is not a contradiction doesn’t make it less of a contradiction.
          https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/70/Conflicting-Conditions

          “A and not A” is a contradictory statement. Man’s will is both “bound (by God)” and “not bound (by God)” is a contradictory belief.

          There is also a circular form of contradiction at work in the idea that both God AND man decide for a given sin to occur but only man is responsible. While it is logically possible for a decision to be shared (Such as, “A and B both decided together to do action C” or “Jesus decided to die on the cross out of free submission to the Father’s will”) but that is not what compatibilism holds. For compatibilism, the decision to sin is both viewed as “completely God” and “completely man” – often illustrated with the idea of a man walking through a door that says “I choose God” only to find that on the other side is written “I chose you” – then applying that down to the level of every sin the person ever commits. Technically speaking, compatibilism doesn’t actually hold to libertarian free will, but rather that man voluntarily does what his own nature desires which is always what God irresistibly determines and decrees for man to do.
          https://www.monergism.com/topics/free-will/compatibilism

          Now, it doesn’t seem possible that two agents both separately and completely decide a thing. But even if it were possible, and we were to assume the deterministic muddle that man voluntarily does what God decides for him to do true, this would only highlight the illogic of only holding man responsible for whatever sin he commits and not God, since there is no logical reason that God, as also deciding what man thinks and does, would bear no responsibility but the human would.

          “Then, “The double conundrum here is
          (1) “These are written that you may believe” along with all the “convince” “reason with” “persuade” and “choose for yourselves this day” verses are all a hideous mockery if Determinism is true. Calvinism makes it looks like God is only pretending to make this offer to people.”
          Yet, will FOH deny that faith is a prerequisite for anyone to avail himself of God’s promises? Will FOH deny that faith comes form hearing the word? Will FOH deny that it is the HOLY Spirit that illumines the spirit of a man through faith? He appears to do so, but even he cannot deny the Scriptures. FOH is perfectly aware of all this but purposely seems to ignore them wanting to convince people that the Scriptures are not true.”

          You aren’t even addressing what FOH is saying, let alone proving to anyone that FOH is somehow ignoring scripture by referencing scripture.

          FOHs argument, to break down his linguistic prose into a logical sequence, is:

          P1: Scripture uses terms A, B, C, D, and E.
          P2: Terms A, B, C, D, and E heavily imply, if not outright mandate, libertarian free will to be sensible.
          P3: Determinism does not allow for libertarian free will
          C: Determinism makes nonsense of scripture

          Your reply doesn’t even reference FOH’s premises or reasoning. Instead, it’s:

          Q: Will FOH deny this thing that every Christian believes? (No, obviously)
          Q2: Will FOH deny this other thing all Christians believe? (No, though you might interpret what ‘faith comes by hearing’ differently than he does since you seem to think the hearing itself effectually grants faith for some, when the contextual interpretation is that no one can believe something they have never heard about, hence faith comes by hearing.)
          Q3: Will FOH deny this other-other thing that Christians believe? (No, though again he might interpret things differently. I would guess FOH sees the indwelling Holy Spirit illuminating deep spiritual truths to a believer, wheras you might interpret it as the Holy Spirit illuminating a non-believers Spirit by granting him faith. [Side note: John 1 shows how Christ is the illuminating light for all men, not just believers. Lack of light isn’t the problem – love of darkness is.]
          P1: FOH does know/agree with all those things.
          P2: FOH ignores/denies these things
          C; FOH wants to convince people that the scriptures aren’t true.

          ????????????

          With all due respect, that isn’t logic or reasoning or even general good faith discussion. It’s deflecting from the need to support your own view with scripture to instead launch character attacks at other people, or pretend that their disbelief in a man-made theory is akin to denying fundamentals of the faith, or pretend that their defining a term or concept differently than you is akin to denying what scripture states on a topic.

          “Certainly, FOH knows Calvinism. That is why he continually ignores the Scriptures on which Calvinism is built.”

          No one is “ignoring” them by pointing out that none of the support verses given for the Calvinist/Arminian starting point of Total Depravity actually mandate what the theory claims when taken in their actual text and context. Pointing out that the interpretation of scripture is flawed, or that a line of reasoning is fallacious or contradictory, is not “ignoring scripture.”

          Here again, you resort to character aspersion rather than confront what people are actually claiming or talking about.

          Again, though, I’ve spent way too much time replying! I’ll have to exit for now unless any new development comes up (as in actual contextual scripture is put forward that has not been considered.) Try to stay friendly 😉 Always assume the best of the people you debate with (Spiritually, logically, intellectually, ethically, etc.) and you will find that you will engage in character attacks a lot less and stay on topic more.

          Loading...

      28. I must tell you Jenai how happy I am to have you commenting here! I have appreciated your research and layout of idea.

          You said you need stop here unless “any new development comes up (as in actual contextual scripture is put forward that has not been considered.)” Oh….that will not be happening from the resident Calvinists.

          Just repeating the same ‘ol talking points (learned from monergism.com), then accusing us of never answering them, then a name-calling here and there.

          I will continue to work my way through the Bible, and if God grants me strength and time, will post my readings/thoughts to show that the message of the Bible is surely not the same as the message I learned from Calvinistic books (I learned from Van Til, Boettner, and Pink before the Internet).

          Loading...

      29. JR writes:
          “pretend that their disbelief in a man-made theory is akin to denying fundamentals of the faith, or pretend that their defining a term or concept differently than you is akin to denying what scripture states on a topic”

          These are the tactics that ultimately revealed the unsupportable foundations of Calvinism to me. My Calvi-pastor repeatedly mocked or condemned all who challenged the ‘Doctrines of Grace’ rather than setting forth logical premises to support them. All who dared to interpret scripture differently from him (‘When I speak from the pulpit, I speak for God’) however qualified and well-supported their interpretation, were automatically rejected as godless heretics. I had to laugh at the number of Calvinist scholars, like Doug Moo, declared heretics under such rubrics.

          I have only a layman’s grasp of logic, but enough to recognize when it is being abused. When logic is not on your side presumption, irrelevant appeals and equivocation are your only options.

          Loading...

      30. TS00
          There is another thing going on too.

          Calvinist demonize non-Calvinists so much (calling them universalists, heretics, and semi-Polynesians) that later—- even when they see the arguments from Scripture point away from Calvinism— they are loathe to switch (ay ay ay, they would become a semi-Polynesian!!)

          Loading...

      31. Jenai,
          One more thing about that good post of yours. Yes, Calvinists will quote (out of context) the Genesis verse about “men doing evil”. You did a good job rebutting that with the ebible article.

          Even a child would know that this statement is not to be taken out of context, literally….and worse…. applied to all humanity at all times.

          Obviously there were some non-evil things happening (mothers giving their breasts to their babies; mothers feeding their infants, men sharing their hunted or gathered food with the family, etc) or they would have killed themselves off in 15 minutes.

          It is unbiblical, illogical, and just plain childish to take that half-verse and extrapolate it out to prove Total Depravity (all unredeemed men of all times have only done all-evil, all the time).

          RH proposing such an idea indicates to what level he is bringing that man-made idea to the table as a “given” and presupposition. There is not much you can say if a person is willing to take a half verse and extrapolate it out as the founding doctrine for TULIP.

          Loading...

      32. JR: “You have been starting with the assumption that Total Depravity is true (and some other assumptions related to it) in order to argue for its various facets.”

          Two presuppositions here: (1) a person is born without faith; (2) people are born unrighteous. I assert (1) and (2) to be true. As a shorthand, this is labelled TD. You agree on (1). On (2), you say, “all that is necessary to be counted as unrighteous is the breaking of a single law.” If your position is thta people are born righteous and become unrighteous when they sin, then you disagree with TD – and that means that you understand what the Calvinist means by TD. I disagree where you say, “This is a circular conclusion, as you assumed total depravity to try to prove Total Depravity to show why Total Depravity was not an assumption….”

          Then, “#6 – “and until people receive faith, they cannot be made righteous”
          That’s yet another presupposition/assertion. It doesn’t follow from your other points or from scripture.”

          This is based on Romans 5, “having been justified by faith,” where being justified is being made righteous. Thus, I agree where you say, “Gal 3 would be a great chapter to read, here. Those who hear with faith receive the Spirit and are justified by God.”

          Then, “It’s a serious out of context misuse of Gen:5 to try and use it to support the theory of Total Depravity.”

          Genesis 5 is an example to illustrate TD. That Noah was righteous requires that Noah have had faith and the source of faith would have been God through His word to Noah.

          Loading...

      33. rhutchin
          (1) a person is born without faith;

          br.d
          FIRSTLY:
          When a Calvinist says “a person is born without faith” he does not mean that person is born without EXERCISING faith.

          People are born without a college education – for example.
          In such case a college education is defined as a COMMODITY that must be given to a person.

          The Calvinist is firstly taught to conceive of faith (unto salvation) as a COMMODITY which people are not born with.
          And it therefore must be given from an external (i.e. divine) source.

          SECONDLY:
          When Calvinists use the term “faith” they are careful to avoid QUALIFYING it – which strategically adds confusion to a conversation

          People in the Gospels for example do EXERCISE faith for the regeneration of their bodies – in the process of being healed by Jesus or disciples. Jesus EXPECTS people to EXERCISE faith for this process – as a condition of their healing.
          And there is nothing in the N.T. narratives that indicates people were not born with faith QUALIFIED in that sense.

          So the “faith” that the Calvinist is referring – he QUALIFIES as a DIFFERENT faith – in that it is not that faith Jesus EXPECTS people to EXERCISE for physical regeneration.

          Jesus can be found expressing marvel that certain people have certain degrees of faith
          Which LOGICALLY shows that Jesus is not anticipating faith as a COMMODITY which is divinely given for specific purposes.
          If he was anticipating that – it would be IRRATIONAL for him to marvel when people expressed it.

          Bottom Line:
          The N.T. never EXPLICITLY treats faith as a COMMODITY which must be given to a person.
          The Calvinist must EXTRAPOLATE that concept by data-mining verses looking for proof-texts.

          So the Calvinist starts with an extra-biblical presupposition – which he SUPERIMPOSES onto verses in scripture that he can use as proof-texts.

          And the fact that the Calvinist treats faith (unto salvation) as a COMMODITY is why they avoid QUALIFYING the term

          Loading...

      34. So true br.d,

          Here’s another example.

          A person is a “practicing” Jew (Catholic, Mormon, etc). They are exercising faith. This faith is in the wrong person (not Christ) but faith. They are alive and active and practicing. They have faith.

          Now, a believer in Christ befriends them and slowly starts a Bible study. Gently, weekly for 4 years they meet and slowly the non-believer (with faith in something else) is “convinced” “persuaded” and “reasoned with” (I’m just quoting Paul here).

          Then that person of faith comes to faith in Christ.

          Now….somehow —-and because of big Greek presuppositions— Calvinist want to teach us that in a nanosecond that person is given faith and then calls on (ooops, irresistibly calls on) Christ. Sproul says it is instantaneous.

          So…. all those years of faith in a false person (Judaism, Catholicism, etc) and all those 4 years of “seeking the Lord” in Bible study and earnest discussion and prayer….. are zero, nothing, zilch, nada. That person was “too-dead” (TD) and is ONLY alive when “regenerated” and given faith which is nanoseconds before he then calls on Christ. Prior to that given-faith moment he is a “too-dead” God-hater.

          I have no idea how they put all this together—– Let’s go back to Mary-worshiping Augustine to get a hint.

          Loading...

      35. FOH
          I have no idea how they put all this together—– Let’s go back to Mary-worshiping Augustine to get a hint.

          br.d
          Exactly!

          The Calvinist conception of faith as a COMMODITY – evolved from Calvin’s adaptation of Augustine’s THEORY that sacramental baptism produces regeneration. Every infant is subject to eternal death unless baptized.

          Loading...

      36. Yes…. that is what Mary-worshiping Augustine taught (and he is still the hero to most Reformed people)….but most are backing away from that.

          A few quotes from Kevin DeYoung a rock star in the YRR movement (who baptizes babies)…..

          https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/a-brief-defense-of-infant-baptism/

          “One of the best things I get to do as a pastor is to administer the sacrament of infant baptism to the covenant children in my congregation….”

          “We do not presume that this child is regenerate (though he may be)….. We baptize infants because they are covenant children and should receive the sign of the covenant.”
          ———–

          So they baptize potentially “unregenerate,” “reprobate,” “created for destruction,” “intentionally created to receive God’s wrath,” children because they are “covenant children.”

          In what way are they “covenant children” if they are (as he said) also the ones God plans to be the “reprobate”?

          That’s a very weird covenant to me.

          They can’t even hear themselves.

          Loading...

      37. FOH

          Kevin DeYoung
          -quote
          “One of the best things I get to do as a pastor is to administer the sacrament of infant baptism to the covenant children in my congregation….”

          In what way are they “covenant children” if they are (as he said) also the ones God plans to be the “reprobate”?
          That’s a very weird covenant to me.
          They can’t even hear themselves.

          br.d
          Yeh!
          It would be a SUPERFICIAL covenant wouldn’t it.

          Pretty obvious – that is an adaptation of Augustine’s THEORY that infants are ZAPPED with salvation during a baptism ritual
          But for Augustine that ritual – along with the ritual transubstantiation – had to be performed by an RC priest – or the HOCUS POCUS would not happen. Luther adopted this as well

          The RC church of Augustine’s day was very superstitious – incorporating various occult principles.

          Loading...

      38. Wow…. have a look at what Lutherans believe! Looks like they are not Calvinist after all since the baptizing parent is the one who initiates salvation:

          “The Sacrament of Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which one is initiated into the Christian faith. Lutherans teach that at baptism, they receive God’s promise of salvation. At the same time, they receive the faith they need to be open to God’s grace. Lutherans baptize by sprinkling or pouring water on the head of the person (or infant) as the Trinitarian formula is spoken. Lutherans teach baptism to be necessary, but not absolutely necessary, for salvation. That means that although baptism is indeed necessary for salvation, it is, as Luther said, contempt for the sacraments that condemns, not lack of the sacraments. Therefore, one is not denied salvation merely because one may have never had the opportunity to be baptized. This is what is meant by saying that baptism is necessary—but not absolutely necessary—to salvation.”

          Loading...

      39. Interesting!

          Looks like the Lutherans are similar to the Calvinists in how inventive they are in getting around biblical inconsistencies. :-]

          Loading...

      40. I absolutely agree that one of the huge errors within Calvinism is proclaiming faith a commodity. It completely throws off the meaning of scripture when it is distorted thusly.

          God does not look down upon people and say, “Hmmm, the problem with these people is that they are lacking the commodity of faith, which is the magic commodity that allows them into heaven. I will choose a select few and mystically give them this missing commodity. Then, when I look down upon men, I will see some with faith and be pleased with them. Those who I have so gifted I will now give new life and all of the blessings that I have to offer.”

          Rather, God knows that Satan has deceived men into believing that we have a contractual relationship with God, and we are missing the necessary means to keep up our end of the contract, which is a perfect keeping of the law. Being angry and desiring to punish all who do not keep perfectly the law, God sends his own Son to do it in the stead of [some] men. This propitiatory atonement theory of Calvinism – which has filtered into all of Protestantism – is tied together with the false ‘commodity of faith’ thinking.

          Together, they create the picture of an angry, punitive God who must get his ounce of flesh. This is Calvinism’s (and much of Protestantism’s) God. I am trending away from that thinking. Rather than seeing faith as a commodity one must have in order to be approved, I see it as the route through which one receives the freely offered love and grace of God. It is a fine distinction, but I would leave out the additional step of God giving faith, then giving regeneration which allows belief.

          Instead, I would suggest that when we believe the gospel message, our eyes are opened to what has been made available, and we are reborn as a result. This leaves out the rather clunky picture of God standing with a clipboard checking off who is in and who is barred. Rather, salvation has been made available by the death and resurrection of Jesus, and all who believe this, immediately receive the blessings thereof.

          It is similar to believing that a sign in a shop offering free ice cream is genuine. The store owner does not give it or not give it based on his judgment of how sincere the faith of the people who come in seeking it is; rather, he put the sign in the window, and all who come in believing in the offer will receive the free gift. All who read it and say, ‘Right, nothing is free in this world’ and walk on by will never receive what was genuinely, freely offered.

          I believe that many of our perceptions of God have been faulty for many, many years (at least since the 16th century, and probably much longer), and Gnosticism has pretty much subtly reigned within Protestantism and evangelicalism. By creating the faulty version of faith as a commodity, Calvin et. al were able to condemn it as a ‘work’ and introduce their solution as TD and Predestination via Divine Determinism. I would tend to agree with Calvinism that the typical perception of faith is based on viewing it as a commodity (making it a work). Discarding the false dichotomy, I see faith as ‘how’ we receive the gift of salvation, not ‘why’.

          Loading...

      41. br.d writes, “The Calvinist is firstly taught to conceive of faith (unto salvation) as a COMMODITY which people are not born with.”

          The Calvinist is taught to define faith according to Hebrews 11. Faith is assurance and conviction derived from the gospel. Whether one describes faith as a commodity seems irrelevant to the position of Calvinism that people are not born with Faith – or not born with assurance and conviction.

          When Hebrews says, “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him,” we are to understand that the presence of assurance and conviction manifests as belief that God is and that God is a rewarder of those who seek Him. We also see how many people in the OT could be seen to have faith. In Romans 5, we see the effect of faith in the NT, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”

          Loading...

      42. br.d
          The Calvinist is firstly taught to conceive of faith (unto salvation) as a COMMODITY which people are not born with.”

          rhutchin
          The Calvinist is taught to define faith according to Hebrews 11. Faith is assurance and conviction derived from the gospel.

          br.d
          FIRSTLY:
          The JW’s also *CLAIM* their doctrines come directly from scripture – so everyone should be smart enough not to fall for that.

          SECONDLY:
          Statements like “derived from the gospel” are too ambiguous to be trustworthy.

          rhutchin
          Whether one describes faith as a commodity seems irrelevant to the position of Calvinism that people are not born with Faith – or not born with assurance and conviction.

          br.d
          The term COMMODITY is used to more precisely QUALIFY the conception of faith (unto salvation) that Calvinist has – when he asserts that “people are not born with it”. And therefore it must be given from a source external to the person.

          Obviously people are born with some kind of faith. A baby is born with faith sufficient to believe its mother will come when it cries.
          But for the Calvinist – the faith that baby is born with does not QUALIFY as the faith they are conceiving of.

          Loading...

      43. “Obviously people are born with some kind of faith. A baby is born with faith sufficient to believe its mother will come when it cries.
          But for the Calvinist – the faith that baby is born with does not QUALIFY as the faith they are conceiving of.”

          Great point! I was thinking faith in Christ, but yes, even a baby is born with faith in some things (like that mommy is “safe” or that mommy has food) and the ability to trust.

          I heard a harrowing story from a missionary who works in a couple countries in Africa and has visited hundreds of orphanages on her various visits. She said that unlike nurseries in the U.S., the orphanages there are for the most part deathly silent with no babies crying. When she asked the workers about it they would say that new children coming in cry for about a week, then not much after that: they’ve given up. There is no one to come when they cry, so they no longer bother crying. The babies lost their faith that help would come when they called.

          I have three little girls – 3, 1, and 4 months. Some great advice I got before my first was, no matter how hard it got, always come when they cry the first couple of weeks. That way, trust is built that when they have a need, mommy will meet it, and they will save crying for real needs later on. And it worked! All three of my girls have been pretty happy tempered babies who only really cried with a need. My second even didn’t really “cry” much as a young infant at all past those first few weeks – she would just give a cute little “I protest” or “I need something” squeak to let me know and then would entertain herself until I came. It’s a bit overwhelming how easily and completely they trust, which is likely why Jesus said that “faith like a child” is how we should come to God

          My eldest toddler is now at the age where she ‘cries’ if I give her the wrong color cup, but she still has faith that I will feed her and protect her, and she has endless (albeit misplaced) faith that there will be chocolate ice-cream in the freezer if she just asks enough times.

          Which all does relate to the Calvinist position since TD holds that man is ‘unable’ to have faith in Christ, as if putting trust in Christ’s work and the evidence of it was far beyond the capability of man even though humans trust/put faith in things (both reasonable and unreasonable) all the time. Some people put faith in impossible things (flat Earth, reincarnation on an endless wheel/cycle of life, various gods and goddesses, karma, etc.,) so why is faith in a possible and very true thing impossible?

          Loading...

      44. wonderful post Jenai!

          Yes – and Jesus fully expected people would exercise faith for their physical hearings.
          As a matter of fact there is a continued pattern throughout the O.T. and the N.T. that divine miracles are preceded by a divine command. Israel is commanded to put blood on the doorpost. Moses is commanded to raise his rod before the red-sea.
          Jesus commands the 10 lepers to go show themselves to the priest. A man is commanded to take up his bed and walk.
          All miracles preceded by a command which Jesus expected people to obey.

          And no indications in the text ever that people didn’t already have at least some degree of the faith God expected them to exercise.

          Augustine believed that salvation was miraculously given to a baby during the sacrament of baptism.
          There is a conception of salvation given as if it were a COMMODITY.

          I suppose some Calvinists will claim Augustine derived that doctrine from scripture – the same way they claim all of their doctrines are derived from it.

          Loading...

      45. Nice post Jenai:

          On a similar note (and different string on this site) I responded to GA

          GA: All people have faith/belief/trust it is simply the object of their faith that is different.”

          FOH: Right! (Calvinist) James White debates Mormons, Muslims etc all the time. He is challenging their FAITH in that thing. It is amazing that Calvinists preach that man has no faith until God gives it to him. Of course they do!

          On the “foolishness” note (they get a lot of bad-hermeneutic miles out of that verse!!)….. of course the Gospel is foolishness when you first hear it. Until it’s not! (Even the “elect” would say it was foolishness when they first heard it —so that proves nothing.)

          Loading...

      46. FOH:
          Right! (Calvinist) James White debates Mormons, Muslims etc all the time. He is challenging their FAITH in that thing. It is amazing that Calvinists preach that man has no faith until God gives it to him…..

          br.d
          Excellent point FOH!
          Here is just one more Calvinist self-contradiction. Why would a Calvinist challenge a Muslim to question THE OBJECT of his faith – if that Calvinist believes people aren’t born with any faith!

          Calvinists often remind me of a statue with two faces.

          In this example:
          Out of face-#1 the statue asserts people are not born with faith – and therefore don’t have it.
          Out of face-#2 the statue challenges THE OBJECT of people’s faith *AS-IF* they WERE born with it.

          Loading...

      47. FOH writes, “On the “foolishness” note (they get a lot of bad-hermeneutic miles out of that verse!!)….. of course the Gospel is foolishness when you first hear it. Until it’s not! (Even the “elect” would say it was foolishness when they first heard it —so that proves nothing.)”

          So, what changes? Faith comes by hearing. Thus, faith accounts for the change.

          Loading...

      48. I would like to make another comment on the “foolishness” idea.

          As I said, even the “elect” would say it was foolishness —-until it wasnt.

          Now….Calvinists would have us believe that it is foisted-faith that makes the difference, yet we see NOT one example of that.

          Paul would have us think it was Foolishness-first….then being “persuaded,” “convinced,” and “reasoned with” (all his words).

          Sergius Paulus would have us think it was Foolishness-first….then amazement at miracles.

          John would have us think it was Foolishness-first….then signs and wonders… 2:23 “While He was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the signs He was doing and believed in His name.” 20:31 “these things were written that you might believe.”

          Exodus tells us of the Foolishness-first words of Aaron ….. then signs to convince: “Aaron spoke all the words which the LORD had spoken to Moses. He then performed the signs in the sight of the people. So the people believed.” [Not foisted-faith…. just foolishness-seeing-believing.]

          Jesus would have us think it was Foolishness-first…. then “Because you have seen Me, you have believed….”

          Matthew, Mark, and Luke would have Jesus telling a woman about “her” faith “‘Daughter, take courage; your faith has made you well.’ At once the woman was made well.”

          So….
          Calvinist example of foisted-faith = 0
          Biblical examples of human faith = Many!

          Loading...

      49. rh writes:
          “So, what changes? Faith comes by hearing. Thus, faith accounts for the change.”

          There are many things I now hold to be true, which I once viewed as foolishness. What changed?

          The answers are many and varied. The fact is, when you reject something as true, you consider it ‘foolishness’. If you later – for whatever reason – come to believe it, it is no longer foolishness to you. This does not require any mystical, supernatural intervention, no transformation of your being from death to life. All it might take is new information, more maturity, greater humility, or a willingness to let go of old presuppositions.

          Loading...

      50. rhutchin writes:
          “So, what changes? Faith comes by hearing. Thus, faith accounts for the change.”

          br.d
          I am again reminded that Calvinists consistently speak *AS-IF* “mere” permission exists in Calvinism when it doesn’t

          Take rhutchin’s statement above. “so what changes?”

          Well LOGICALLY – it would have to be what Calvin’s god changes.

          If a person cannot hear – it is because Calvin’s god does not PERMIT that.
          if a person cannot express faith unto salvation – it is because Calvin’s god does not PERMIT that.

          So what REALLY changes?
          What Calvin’s god does – is what changes.

          Therefore in Calvinism – it is LESS TRUTHFUL to say that faith accounts for the change – and MORE TRUTHFUL to say Calvin’s god accounts for the change.

          I think it is a RED-FLAG that Calvinists consistently choose the LESS TRUTHFUL statements.

          Something I have learned over time – Calvinist language is not a TRUTH-TELLING language – it is a COSMETIC language
          Its designed to present a controlled image.

          Loading...

      51. TS00 writes, “If you later – for whatever reason – come to believe it, it is no longer foolishness to you.”

          The key term, “– for whatever reason” The answer to your question, “There are many things I now hold to be true, which I once viewed as foolishness. What changed? ” With respect to your salvation, you received faith and that which before was foolishness became assurance and conviction.

          Loading...

      52. rhutchin
          you received faith

          br.d
          He took out the TOTAL DEPRAVITY floppy drive and replaced it with the ELECT floppy drive.
          What changed was the programming! :-]

          Loading...

      53. That is such an accurate depiction of what they assert. If they could but see it, few would embrace it.

          Loading...

      54. TS00
          That is such an accurate depiction of what they assert. If they could but see it, few would embrace it.

          br.d
          Yes TSOO I agree –
          But first they have to be delivered from the state of DOUBLE-THINK – which the doctrine conditions their minds to embrace.
          We humans can’t see what the mind does not allow us to see.
          And we have to factor in spiritual pride as well.

          Loading...

      55. TS00 writes:
          “If you later – for whatever reason – come to believe it, it is no longer foolishness to you.”

          Rh writes:
          The key term, “– for whatever reason” The answer to your question, “There are many things I now hold to be true, which I once viewed as foolishness. What changed? ” With respect to your salvation, you received faith and that which before was foolishness became assurance and conviction.”

          This, obviously, is your personal interpretation. I would assert that I was confronted with the reality of the love of God, and believed it. In other words through having faith, not because of being given imported faith, I became a child of God, reborn and endowed with the Holy Spirit.

          I reject your theory that I was lacking some commodity, which God had to then supply, before I had the ability to believe in God. As you well know, I reject the mechanical, robotic, God-pulling-the-strings theology of Calvinism.

          To the contrary, I believe all men have the ability to believe or disbelieve in anything, (just as I believe this and you do not) and it is their choices that make them what they become. Thus, one who chooses to believe in God’s promises, becomes his child. One who rejects them, and the God who made them, hardens his heart and, minus a change, makes himself an object of wrath. Faith, as a mustard seed, leads to life. Disbelief (non-faith) leads to destruction.

          Loading...

      56. TS00 writes, “In other words through having faith, not because of being given imported faith,”

          Then everyone should be just like you because you are not really different from anyone else. However, that is not what we observe, is it? What or who accounts for you being somewhat different – God is one option. If you have another, let’s hear it.

          Then, “To the contrary, I believe all men have the ability to believe or disbelieve in anything,…”

          That’s your personal opinion. Surely you recognize the role of faith in decisions about salvation and the specific information in Romans – faith comes from hearing the gospel and no other source is ever given. You need to bring your beliefs in line with the Scriptures.

          Loading...

      57. rhutchin
          You need to bring your beliefs in line with the Scriptures.

          br.d
          FIRSTLY:
          What this REALLY MEANS is “you need to bring your beliefs in line with MY INTERPRETATION of scripture”

          SECONDLY:
          We have a good example of DOUBLE-THINK here.
          Since Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse – and thus Calvin’s god DIRECTLY MAKES/CONTROLS what the creature thinks/believes – there is no thing as a creature bringing his own beliefs anywhere.

          Loading...

      58. “Then everyone should be just like you because you are not really different from anyone else. However, that is not what we observe, is it? What or who accounts for you being somewhat different – God is one option. If you have another, let’s hear it.”

          This philosophical stumbling block seems to be at the heart of Calvinism. The contention seems to be that there can’t be any human-rooted reason that some welcome the gospel and others reject it without making the people who accept the gospel intrinsically “better” in some way. Spurgeon’s ‘Prayer of an Arminian’ is based on this strange philosophy that for people to have free will it would mean that humans could just use ‘willpower’ to get faith or faith would be somehow based in merit.

          But this is a false philosophy, since it doesn’t understand that faith is in every way contrasted with boasting. Faith is rooted in humility and a right perception of oneself before God as a sinner deserving of death. It isn’t a work of personal “merit” or based in some intrinsic “superiority” that makes one respond to the gospel while another rejects it.

          It is personal recognition that one is flawed, sick, helpless, and that Christ is literally one’s only hope in the world of reconciliation with God. That isn’t something humans can ‘boast in’ without completely redefining what boasting is.

          To see the illogic of the Calvinist claim that if people we able to respond in faith it would mean those who responded in faith were intrinsically “better” somehow, or that because faith is something good that God requires us to do that it would mean a believer would get partial “credit” for salvation unless God accomplished the faith itself, we need only look at Christ’s own words:

          “And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”” Mark 2:!7

          Is a sick person intrinsically “better” than a healthy person because they agree with the doctor’s revealed diagnosis and accept treatment? Would admitting one’s brokenness mean one was less broken than another person? It only would if some were ABLE to admit brokeness while others were completely INABLE – such as in the Calvinist view.

          Loading...

      59. Excellent Jenai.

          You said “But this is a false philosophy, since it doesn’t understand that faith is in every way contrasted with boasting.”

          1. They tell us that it will lead to boasting if we think we had faith on our own. Really? I dont see anyone doing that.

          2. They say that our version of human faith is really a “work”…. but Paul handles this pretty clearly in Romans 4 juxtaposing faith and works. What a great opportunity for him to say “God-given-faith,” or “not by works but faith that God gives the elect” or any such formula. But NO… NEVER…. He never comes close to that….. just always talking about faith the way everyone (but Calvinist) understands it.

          They have to compose their philosophy based on:

          A. An Aristotelian idea of God (controlling of all things, or controlling of nothing)
          B. Imposed idea of TD/TI (no where in the Bible)
          C. Clear mis-reading of Ephesian 2:8-9 (making faith the gift, not salvation).

          Then they set up straw men, take the “moral high ground” and try to bully people in.

          Loading...

      60. “They have to compose their philosophy based on:

          A. An Aristotelian idea of God (controlling of all things, or controlling of nothing)
          B. Imposed idea of TD/TI (no where in the Bible)
          C. Clear mis-reading of Ephesian 2:8-9 (making faith the gift, not salvation).

          Then they set up straw men, take the “moral high ground” and try to bully people in.”

          Very true! When I first started studying Calvinism, I was focused more on the basic systematized points of TULIP as a starting point. But as I went further I realized that TULIP’s surface level initial appearance of cohesion is the mere glue of philosophical claims, presuppositions, re-definitions, and deliberate misinterpretations, without which the fake petals would quickly float apart. And many of the people who spread the fake blooms cry, “Bask in awe of the beautiful tulip of God’s sovereignty! Breathe deep the scent of the gospel! If you doubt this is real, you are a heretic and questioning God Himself! Only the foolish and unregenerate would dare refuse to embrace and plant these flowers! Will you take this flower and care for it, crafting a duplicate flower of your own to spread to others, or will you show yourself to be a fool, or worse, a reprobate, rejecting the doctrines of grace which contain the gospel of God?”

          Never mind that it makes little sense under the theory, as disbelief of Calvinism and even the individual mindset and arguments of those who disagree have been decreed by God….

          It reminds me a bit of “The Emperor has no Clothes” – only if instead of the town sighing with relief that the kid proclaimed the obvious, they went and browbeat the child into thinking he really was stupid and potentially evil and ‘questioning the emperor’ for not being able to see the clothes.

          Loading...

      61. JR: “When I first started studying Calvinism, I was focused more on the basic systematized points of TULIP as a starting point.”

          You should have started with God and His attributes, such as omniscience. Once comfortable with God, you could then have moved on to man.

          Then, “Never mind that it makes little sense under the theory, as disbelief of Calvinism and even the individual mindset and arguments of those who disagree have been decreed by God….”

          Well, it is God who gives faith to whom He will. Isn’t it?

          Loading...

      62. JR: “The contention seems to be that there can’t be any human-rooted reason that some welcome the gospel and others reject it…”

          Yes. this because of the presence or absence of faith (among other things, like regeneration), but let’s get faith squared away first..

          Then, “Spurgeon’s ‘Prayer of an Arminian’ is based on this strange philosophy that for people to have free will it would mean that humans could just use ‘willpower’ to get faith or faith would be somehow based in merit.”

          Yes, Why because people are slaves to sin and that slavery precludes faith until one has been freed from that slavery.

          Then, “But this is a false philosophy, since it doesn’t understand that faith is in every way contrasted with boasting. Faith is rooted in humility and a right perception of oneself before God as a sinner deserving of death.”

          Wrong. Faith is assurance in things hoped for; conviction of things not seen – in other words, eternal life. That’s the root of faith. Then, comes belief per John 3, “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Faith is what moves a person to respond positively by believing tin Christ.

          Then, “It only would if some were ABLE to admit brokeness while others were completely INABLE – such as in the Calvinist view.”

          Yes. Those with faith (assurance and conviction) are ABLE to admit brokeness while others, having no faith, are completely INABLE

          Loading...

      63. TS00,

          That’s right. Kinda like this:

          Mr X has faith in something (Evolutionary accidents, Islam, Mormonism, Catholicism, etc).

          Johnny Baptist presents the Gospel to him (which includes the line “Christ died for you” —- included everywhere by MacArthur and Piper).

          Mr X says ….. that is stupid and foolishness.

          Mrs X (always the wiser gender!) says “Let’s just go with Johnny and Ethel Baptist to church next week on Father’s Day.”

          Mr X sits in the pew and say this is foolishness.

          Two guys he knows from his bowling league see him and ask him to a Dudes’ Night Bowl Bible Study.

          Mr X attends and bowls and hears a little bit of Bible study, which is foolishness (but he does know the cool dude teaching the study….so… he’s curious why he would believe this foolishness).

          Mr X attends the Dudes’ Bowl Study for 4 years. Cool leader explains the Gospel (including Christ took your place— which is said to everyone there).

          During these same 4 years Mrs X is going to church regularly… and goes also to MOPS, and several ladies’ retreats (she got to keep the lovely center-piece at her table!).

          During these 4 years Mr Cool is “persuading” Mr X (2 Cor 5:11). Mr Cool “reasons with” Mr X (Acts 17:2). Mr Cool “convinces” Mr X (Acts 28:23).

          After 4 and a half years, Mr and Mrs X make a public profession of faith and get baptized, having gone from “foolishness to being convinced.”

          They give their testimony in front of the whole church before being baptized and it is filled with the word “foolishness” “convincing” “persuading”….. and since this is a non-Calvinist church everyone says amen and claps.

          Everyone…. except three visiting, bearded, tattooed, young, white, male, college guys in the back. They are grieved that people would be allowed to “rob God of his glory.” At the coffee hour after the service they, in a snarky manner, insist that Mr X was actually “dead” and the Gospel was “foolishness” and he was given that faith.

          Mr X asks the angry-sounding YRR guys “When did He give me faith? Was I dead all those 4 years of Bible study and consistent searching of the Scriptures in discussion with friends and my wife? When—- at what point was I Calvinistically ‘regenerated’ and ‘made alive’ so I could then ‘freely choose’?”

          The angry young men quickly use their phones to go to Sproul’s site (one of the young men) and monergism.com (the 2 others).

          They say to Mr X….. “Your were regenerated nanoseconds before you believed and made the public profession.”

          Mr X, scratches his head (cuz he was actually present during the whole process) and asks, “What was I during those 4 years of Bible study, prayer, and seeking answers?”

          Angry young man #1 (the one with his left arm in full sleeve-tattoos, plus one tiny tat-cross on his neck) says to him with conviction and vigor….”You were ‘dead’ and a God-hater.”

          Mr X responds simply, “That’s Good News alright!”

          ……………… then after a moment of reflection…… Mr X adds, “Yep…. your ‘gospel’ is indeed foolishness!”

          Loading...

      64. FOH writes, “After 4 and a half years, Mr and Mrs X make a public profession of faith and get baptized, having gone from “foolishness to being convinced.””

          I think Saul of Tarsus would make a better example. here’s a guy who studies the Scriptures pretty much all his life even studying under the great teach Gamalieland by his testimony he was, “taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.” He even got his PhD in Bible. He then went on to persecute the new Sect of “Christians” throwing them in jail and voting to kill some. Why? Because it was foolishness to him and this Christ was a stumbling block. But one day, on the road to Damascus, that all changed. Can anyone guess what happened that caused Saul of Tarsus to go from foolishness to being convinced?? I bet even FOH knows.

          Loading...

      65. Rhutchin,

          Again, Paul is a unique case. God chose him for a specific service, to minister to the Gentiles, and influenced his life in a way God knew would bring him to his knees in repentance and belief. Paul’s conversion was noteworthy because it was *unusual* and out of the ordinary. When you trusted in Christ, was it because you saw a vision and God called out to you audibly from heaven? Doubtfully. Most people do not experience miraculous visions or have Jesus directly tell them who He is.

          Trying to over-extrapolate from unique cases like prophets or Apostles to claim that *every* believer everywhere has experienced a supernatural vision or been directly given overwhelming irresistible proof is nonsensical. It’s like claiming id a book says, “Timmy bit the apple and there was a worm inside” that the book must be telling us that every apply which Timmy might potentially bite into has a worm. It just doesn’t follow. The exception is not the rule. Paul’s conversion only highlights the difference from the norm, it isn’t setting up the norm.

          And as Jesus states elsewhere, even someone rising from the dead or amazing miracles won’t convince some people, while still others are willing to just come trusting as little children on faith with no visible ‘proof.’

          I trusted in the gospel of Christ when I was three at some point. I don’t remember much of my life from that time at all, but interestingly enough I do remember the reasoning that persuaded me to trust. #1 The world was unfair (I saw this day to day) #2 The world was broken #3 I didn’t always do what was right #4 Others didn’t always do what was right #5 God was fair and just (as I’d learned and trusted from my local church and from Bible story books that talked about King Solomon, David, the Exodus, etc. So a few weeks after I’d been presented with the gospel and considering Jesus’ sacrifice in light of what I already believed about God’s character and the need for healing in the world, I accepted Christ. It wasn’t a rush of overwhelming assurance that Jesus was Messiah or the heavens opening and doves singing or anything like that; I wasn’t “given faith” from without.

          And various friends I have that converted as adults can also explain what brought them to the feet of God, even though for some it took many years of fighting against God first. Things like God’s power, beauty in the natural world, God’s love, God’s mercy, etc. These are all graces from God drawing people to come to Christ! But they are not the same as God effectually granting trust in Christ Himself to a select few.

          Loading...

      66. Jenai:
          You are too sweet! We may have warned your about RH…but since this is originally your post, perhaps you are being tenacious.

          You may have noticed that I did not respond to him (same old nonsense).

          You may also have noticed that he did not in any way deal with the question (he NEVER has) of when an “obviously seeking person” is “Calvinistically regenerated” in the process. Nope. They have no answer for this. Pagan Sergius Paulus asks to hear the Word of God. God-fearing Cornelius seeks. God-worshiping Lydia is in the place of prayer to hear the Word.

          On an on… including this very realistic example I gave.

          Any dealing with the obvious Calvinist-busting question of how can a “dead” man seek Christ for 4 years and then be “convinced” to come to faith?? Nope.

          Just the same old smoke screen of extraordinary Paul conversion. Besides…. the text never even tells us when Paul came to faith….and it CERTAINLY does NOT say Paul was given faith.

          But again….we expect nothing different from RH but to skirt the real question

          Loading...

      67. I am a bit tenacious as this is my original post, yes 😉

          But I also want to write a book on salvation at some point, and one of the sections will be going through verses commonly used in support of Calvinism. Another section will be addressing common philosophical questions/errors that people come to believe with certain soteriological views. So I do want to understand where that all is coming from as much as possible, not so much in hopes that I can convince any Calvinist a change of mind but for the sake of any Christians who are being wooed by Calvinists with those errant philosophies. And I don’t like strawman arguments, so I am trying to make sense of the nonsense as much as I can so I can address them fairly.

          Loading...

      68. Well I will be first in line to buy your book!

          You wont get much help from RH though since he only has a few verses: Isaiah 10, John 6, (mis-interpretation of) Eph 2:8-9, etc. Rinse. Repeat.

          Piper has a huge list of contradictions on his site…. and in the books “Dont Waste Your Life” and “Not By Sight” (by his colleague Jon Bloom and about 35 biblical stories of human faith —–never ONE TIME saying God gives faith).

          Loading...

      69. Then there is always the sly pretense that faith in Christ is different from belief in Christ. Believing in Christ – as the manifestation of God’s love and promises – is having faith in God’s love and promises. Faith and belief are one and the same. It is absurd to claim that one must have faith in order to believe. It is the same as saying ‘One must be given faith in order to have faith’ or ‘One must be given belief in order to believe’. It is nonsense, but required by the faulty flower.

          Loading...

      70. JR: “I also want to write a book on salvation at some point, and one of the sections will be going through verses commonly used in support of Calvinism. ”

          I am willing to help you with this.

          Loading...

      71. Jenai:
          You are too sweet! We may have warned your about RH…but since this is originally your post, perhaps you are being tenacious.

          You may have noticed that I did not respond to him (same old nonsense).

          You may also have noticed that he did not in any way deal with the question (he NEVER has) of when an “obviously seeking person” is “Calvinistically regenerated” in the process. Nope. They have no answer for this. Pagan Sergius Paulus asks to hear the Word of God. God-fearing Cornelius seeks. God-worshiping Lydia is in the place of prayer to hear the Word.

          On an on… including this very realistic example I gave.

          Any dealing with the obvious Calvinist-busting question of how can a “dead” man seek Christ for 4 years and then be “convinced” to come to faith?? Nope.

          Just the same old smoke screen of extraordinary Paul conversion. Besides…. the text never even tells us when Paul came to faith….and it CERTAINLY does NOT say Paul was given faith.

          But again….we expect nothing different from RH but to skirt the real question.

          Loading...

      72. JR: “When you trusted in Christ, was it because you saw a vision and God called out to you audibly from heaven? Doubtfully. ”

          I still had to be drawn by God in order to come to Christ. That was miraculous. Not as dramatic as with Paul, but still impressive.

          Then, “as Jesus states elsewhere, even someone rising from the dead or amazing miracles won’t convince some people, while still others are willing to just come trusting as little children on faith with no visible ‘proof.’”

          The difference between God’s drawing of one and not the other. (That’s one explanation.)

          Then, “I do remember the reasoning that persuaded me to trust….So a few weeks after I’d been presented with the gospel…”

          So, the order was: (1) hear the gospel, then (2) be persuaded. But you say, “I wasn’t “given faith” from without.” Guess you will be surprised when you get to heaven and learn what really happened.

          Then, “various friends I have that converted as adults can also explain what brought them to the feet of God,”

          It’s like Christ said, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” My suspicion is that they could not explain everything that happened to them.

          Loading...

      73. Jenai:
          You mentioned seeing people rise from the dead and miracles ….and some people still not believing.

          The response to that from Calvinists is : “The difference between God’s drawing of one and not the other.”

          What is amazing is people are constantly “being scolded” in Scripture for not responding to the miracles. Christ sometime even “marvels” that they do not have faith.

          We are told the answer to that is “God’s drawing of one and not the other.”

          How ridiculous is that!?

          Calvinism: Christ purposely does not draw them …. and KNOWS that He “has not given them faith” and yet marvels that they dont have faith…. and says “if you only had faith” and “oh you of little faith…”

          There is just no biblical sense to this idea.

          Loading...

      74. FOH, it would also be exceedingly cruel if Jesus mocked or condemned people for not having any faith, when they were not ‘chosen’ to be given such a dear gift, and there was absolutely nothing they could do about it. And it would be disingenuous, if not downright silly, to pretend to be amazed that such and such had faith, when it was clearly given to them by the whim of God. Maybe he and God weren’t talking that day.

          Loading...

      75. TS00,
          Why are you worried about “exceedingly cruel”? Calvin mastered that pretty well with no problem. It fits the narrative.

          Loading...

      76. FOH writes, “Calvinism: Christ purposely does not draw them …”

          John 6, ““No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;”

          So, Calvinism: God purposely does not draw them … But you know this from your former involvement in Calvinism. So, why do you distort this point. Purposeful?

          Loading...

      77. rhutchin
          So, Calvinism: God purposely does not draw them … But you know this from your former involvement in Calvinism. So, why do you distort this point. Purposeful?

          br.d
          No distortion for the vast majority of humans on planet earth – whom Calvin’s god designed for eternal torment in the lake of fire.

          By I suppose a sly Calvinist could invent some semantic-trick.
          Perhaps calling it a special kind of “NON-SALVIFIC” drawing. :-]

          Loading...

      78. Oh you are so right br.d!

          Just put “non-salvific’ in front of anything….

          Piper says “Christ died for everyone in a ‘certain way.'”

          MacArthur say “God loves everyone in a ‘certain way.'”

          You even caught RH red-handed saying that “God offers salvation to everyone.”

          Numerous people jumped on the “That is not what ‘Limited Atonement’ means! There is no offer there since the Atonement was “Limited”.

          But…..who bothers with all that….. just add “non-Salvifically” on the end of anything you want. Take those sentences above and just add….. “wink wink….. but non-salvifically.”

          Good News!

          Loading...

      79. FOH writes, “You even caught RH red-handed saying that “God offers salvation to everyone.”

          When Christ commanded, ““Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” we know that the gospel was preached to “every creature.” We also know that no one could be saved absent faith and not all people who heard the gospel received faith. Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” so those given by God to Christ are saved. There is nothing wrong with the statement I made.

          Loading...

      80. FOH writes, “You even caught RH red-handed saying that “God offers salvation to everyone.”

          Rh writes:
          “When Christ commanded, ““Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” we know that the gospel was preached to “every creature.” We also know that no one could be saved absent faith and not all people who heard the gospel received faith. Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” so those given by God to Christ are saved. There is nothing wrong with the statement I made.”

          No, there is nothing wrong with the statement that God offers salvation to everyone . . . but, of course, it is utterly contrary to Calvinism. Not even the cleverest of wordsmiths can make ‘Limited atonement’ align with ‘God offers salvation to everyone’. Calvi-god could NOT offer a salvation that was never provided, without being a liar and deceiver; but then, it often appears that he is.

          Loading...

      81. FOH
          “You even caught RH red-handed saying that “God offers salvation to everyone.”

          br.d
          Calvinism is 99% SEMANTIC shell-games! :-]

          Loading...

      82. TS00 writes, “Not even the cleverest of wordsmiths can make ‘Limited atonement’ align with ‘God offers salvation to everyone’. ”

          Limited atonement refers to God’s intent to save His elect – thus God sent Christ to the cross to gain the salvation of His elect. God passes over the rest, doing nothing to bring them to salvation, and leaving them to do as they desire.

          Loading...

      83. rhutchin
          Limited atonement refers to God’s intent to save His elect – thus God sent Christ to the cross to gain the salvation of His elect. God passes over the rest, doing nothing to bring them to salvation, and leaving them to do as they desire.

          br,d
          Limited Atonement simply means:
          Calvin’s god designs the MANY for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
          And atonement is thus LIMITED to a select FEW who are not so designed.
          BTW: *ALL* desires are also designed.

          Loading...

      84. As you well know, it is far simpler for Calvinists to list what God has not meticulously ordained, decreed, controlled or by whatever means imaginable brought to pass, straight from his own originating ‘mind’: [ ].

          Loading...

      85. TS00
          As you well know, it is far simpler for Calvinists to list what God has not meticulously ordained, decreed, controlled or by whatever means imaginable brought to pass, straight from his own originating ‘mind’

          br.d
          Yup! And Calvinists – in order to retain a sense of biblical NORMALCY – practice *AS-IF* thinking.

          John Calvin
          -quote
          “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is pre-determined [by the THEOS] in any part”

          In other words:
          The SACRED TRUTH of Calvinism is that everything is pre-determined by the THEOS – and in every part
          But you go about your office *AS-IF* the SACRED-TRUTH is FALSE.

          Calvin teaches DOUBLE-THINK in order for the Calvinist to APPEAR to be aligned with scripture.

          Loading...

      86. FOH
          You even caught RH red-handed saying that “God offers salvation to everyone.”

          rhutchin
          There is nothing wrong with the statement I made.

          br.d
          Calvin’s god looks down at the vast majority of the human race he has designed specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire:

          Look I’m offering you salvation – NOT! :-]

          Loading...

      87. TS00,
          That’s right. Kinda like this:

          Mr X has faith in something (Evolutionary accidents, Islam, Mormonism, Catholicism, etc).

          Johnny Baptist presents the Gospel to him (which includes the line “Christ died for you” —- included everywhere by MacArthur and Piper).

          Mr X says ….. that is stupid and foolishness.

          Mrs X (always the wiser gender!) says “Let’s just go with Johnny and Ethel Baptist to church next week on Father’s Day.”

          Mr X sits in the pew and say this is foolishness.

          Two guys he knows from his bowling league see him and ask him to a Dudes’ Night Bowl Bible Study.

          Mr X attends and bowls and hears a little bit of Bible study, which is foolishness (but he does know the cool dude teaching the study….so… he’s curious why he would believe this foolishness).

          Mr X attends the Dudes’ Bowl Study for 4 years. Cool leader explains the Gospel (including Christ took your place— which is said to everyone there).

          During these same 4 years Mrs X is going to church regularly… and goes also to MOPS, and several ladies’ retreats (she got to keep the lovely center-piece at her table!).

          During these 4 years Mr Cool is “persuading” Mr X (2 Cor 5:11). Mr Cool “reasons with” Mr X (Acts 17:2). Mr Cool “convinces” Mr X (Acts 28:23).

          After 4 and a half years, Mr and Mrs X make a public profession of faith and get baptized, having gone from “foolishness to being convinced.”

          They give their testimony in front of the whole church before being baptized and it is filled with the word “foolishness” “convincing” “persuading”….. and since this is a non-Calvinist church everyone says amen and claps.

          Everyone…. except three visiting, bearded, tattooed, young, white, male, college guys in the back. They are grieved that people would be allowed to “rob God of his glory.” At the coffee hour after the service they, in a snarky manner, insist that Mr X was actually “dead” and the Gospel was “foolishness” and he was given that faith.

          Mr X asks the angry-sounding YRR guys “When did He give me faith? Was I dead all those 4 years of Bible study and consistent searching of the Scriptures in discussion with friends and my wife? When—- at what point was I Calvinistically ‘regenerated’ and ‘made alive’ so I could then ‘freely choose’?”

          The angry young men quickly use their phones to go to Sproul’s site (one of the young men) and monergism.com (the 2 others).

          They say to Mr X….. “Your were regenerated nanoseconds before you believed and made the public profession.”

          Mr X, scratches his head (cuz he was actually present during the whole process) and asks, “What was I during those 4 years of Bible study, prayer, and seeking answers?”

          Angry young man #1 (the one with his left arm in full sleeve-tattoos, plus one tiny tat-cross on his neck) says to him with conviction and vigor….”You were ‘dead’ and a God-hater.”

          Mr X responds simply, “That’s Good News alright!”

          ……………… then after a moment of reflection…… Mr X adds, “Yep…. your ‘gospel’ is indeed foolishness!”

          Loading...

      88. Sorry if this posts twice. It says I posted…but I cannot find it.
          ——————————————–
          TS00,
          That’s right. Kinda like this:

          Mr X has faith in something (Evolutionary accidents, Islam, Mormonism, Catholicism, etc).

          Johnny Baptist presents the Gospel to him (which includes the line “Christ died for you” —- included everywhere by MacArthur and Piper).

          Mr X says ….. that is stupid and foolishness.

          Mrs X (always the wiser gender!) says “Let’s just go with Johnny and Ethel Baptist to church next week on Father’s Day.”

          Mr X sits in the pew and say this is foolishness.

          Two guys he knows from his bowling league see him and ask him to a Dudes’ Night Bowl Bible Study.

          Mr X attends and bowls and hears a little bit of Bible study, which is foolishness (but he does know the cool dude teaching the study….so… he’s curious why he would believe this foolishness).

          Mr X attends the Dudes’ Bowl Study for 4 years. Cool leader explains the Gospel (including Christ took your place— which is said to everyone there).

          During these same 4 years Mrs X is going to church regularly… and goes also to MOPS, and several ladies’ retreats (she got to keep the lovely center-piece at her table!).

          During these 4 years Mr Cool is “persuading” Mr X (2 Cor 5:11). Mr Cool “reasons with” Mr X (Acts 17:2). Mr Cool “convinces” Mr X (Acts 28:23).

          After 4 and a half years, Mr and Mrs X make a public profession of faith and get baptized, having gone from “foolishness to being convinced.”

          They give their testimony in front of the whole church before being baptized and it is filled with the word “foolishness” “convincing” “persuading”….. and since this is a non-Calvinist church everyone says amen and claps.

          Everyone…. except three visiting, bearded, tattooed, young, white, male, college guys in the back. They are grieved that people would be allowed to “rob God of his glory.” At the coffee hour after the service they, in a snarky manner, insist that Mr X was actually “dead” and the Gospel was “foolishness” and he was given that faith.

          Mr X asks the angry-sounding YRR guys “When did He give me faith? Was I dead all those 4 years of Bible study and consistent searching of the Scriptures in discussion with friends and my wife? When—- at what point was I Calvinistically ‘regenerated’ and ‘made alive’ so I could then ‘freely choose’?”

          The angry young men quickly use their phones to go to Sproul’s site (one of the young men) and monergism.com (the 2 others).

          They say to Mr X….. “Your were regenerated nanoseconds before you believed and made the public profession.”

          Mr X, scratches his head (cuz he was actually present during the whole process) and asks, “What was I during those 4 years of Bible study, prayer, and seeking answers?”

          Angry young man #1 says to him with conviction and vigor….”You were ‘dead’ and a God-hater.”

          Mr X responds simply, “That’s Good News alright!”

          ……………… then after a moment of reflection…… Mr X adds, “Yep…. your ‘gospel’ is indeed foolishness!”

          Loading...

      89. FOH
          Sorry if this posts twice. It says I posted…but I cannot find it.

          Yes – I saw it posted with date-time stamp June 22, 2019 11:33 AM
          But I also don’t find it when I text search for it on the sight.
          I might have to dig a little to find out why this happens.

          br.d

          Loading...

      90. “So, what changes? Faith comes by hearing. Thus, faith accounts for the change.”

          How does that make logical or grammatical sense? Remember, the Greek preposition here is ‘ek’ (translated ‘comes from’) – which means ‘out from [and] to’ or ‘out from within.’

          So *from* hearing [the gospel] *to* faith in the gospel.

          Faith (noun) cannot “account” for the change since it is the end result.

          That would be like saying, “Steam comes from water, therefore steam accounts for the change.” No, the heat applied to the water caused the production of steam. Steam was not ‘given’ to the water so it could boil.

          You are taking the end result of a change in state and applying it as necessary for the change to happen!

          Trusting in the gospel (putting faith in, being persuaded, etc.) accounts for the change from simple hearing to faith. Without the hearing/presentation, faith in the gospel cannot happen. Without believing (verb) the gospel, faith (noun) cannot happen.

          Nor does the gospel itself ‘make’ some trust in it by somehow conferring trust/faith itself. The gospel speaks of the promises of God and gives evidence for those promises. Humans are either persuaded or they are not at that time – some may change their minds later. The reasons they respond in trust or reject the guarantee are myriad (love of sin and self can make one not *want* to trust, for example; and trust may be simple like a child embracing a father or one might trust after reasoned consideration of all the evidences and testimonies, etc. The heart’s of people are like different types of soil with different levels of preparation/readiness. Some are ready to welcome the word with joy, but others are poised to reject any hint of there being a sovereign God who judges sin.

          Loading...

      91. JR: “That would be like saying, “Steam comes from water, therefore steam accounts for the change.””

          Steam comes from water and steam pushes the piston.
          Faith comes by hearing and faith pushes one to belief.

          Otherwise, I don’t understand the analogy you were setting up. What change did you have in mind?

          Then, “Without the hearing/presentation, faith in the gospel cannot happen. Without believing (verb) the gospel, faith (noun) cannot happen.”

          Agreed on the first statement. The second should be, “Without faith (noun) the gospel, belief (verb) cannot happen.”

          Then, “Nor does the gospel itself ‘make’ some trust in it by somehow conferring trust/faith itself.”

          Sure it does. The gospel conveys assurance and conviction (i.e., faith) thus trust, and because of that faith, one believes.

          The reasons they respond in trust or reject the guarantee are myriad but everything begins with a lack of faith. Had faith (assurance and conviction) been present, there would have been no rejection of the gospel.

          I read your comment a couple of times and still couldn’t put together your argument. Maybe someone else can distill it down to my level.

          Loading...

      92. rh writes:
          “I read your comment a couple of times and still couldn’t put together your argument. Maybe someone else can distill it down to my level.”

          Can’t happen. Not because you do not have the ‘ability’ to understand, but because you love your presuppositions (darkness), you do not want to ‘hear’ anything else. You do not ‘see’ because you do not want to see. You exchange what is said for your beloved presuppositions, thus you continue on your path. Just like anyone who rejects the gospel, because they love their sin.

          Loading...

      93. JR: “Which all does relate to the Calvinist position since TD holds that man is ‘unable’ to have faith in Christ,…so why is faith in a possible and very true thing impossible?”

          TD holds that man “DOES NOT” have faith (thus, UNABLE to accept salvation) in Christ and that such faith comes only through hearing the gospel. Faith is impossible until one hears the gospel and receives that faith we find described in Hebrews 11. We read of the importance of this faith in Hebrews, “For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.” If a person hears the gospel but does not receive faith, it is impossible for the person to be saved. Who determines that one person receives faith and another does not? God does. IF you can suggest other reasons to explain this, let’s hear them.

          Loading...

      94. rhutchin
          TD holds that man “DOES NOT” have faith (thus, UNABLE to accept salvation)

          br.d
          In Calvinism Total Depravity – (as with everything) – is the DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of Calvin’s god’s will.

          Loading...

      95. Jenai:

          Notice that in Calvinism what is a presupposition is the “faith is given”. Of course that is not said or even hinted at in the Bible, but a “given” for Calvinists. Once you have the idea of “foisted-faith” strong fixed in your brain, you cannot even hear what other people say.

          Despite years of posts and hundreds of verses provided, RH continues to talk about “foisted-faith” as if it is biblical and as if we all agree with that. Incredible. He cannot even hear the Word speaking….

          Paul tells us that faith comes by being “persuaded,” “convinced,” and “reasoned with” (all his words).

          Sergius Paulus would tell us it came from seeing amazing miracles.

          John mentions theses signs and wonders… 2:23 “While He was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the signs He was doing and believed in His name.” 20:31 “these things were written that you might believe.”

          Exodus does too: “Aaron spoke all the words which the LORD had spoken to Moses. He then performed the signs in the sight of the people. So the people believed.” [Not foisted-faith…. just seeing and believing.]

          Jesus said it too “Because you have seen Me, you have believed….” [Not “Because I gave you faith you have believed.”].

          Matthew, Mark, and Luke show Jesus telling a woman about “her” faith “‘Daughter, take courage; your faith has made you well.’ At once the woman was made well.”

          The Gospels even record Jesus “marveling” at people’s faith and “marveling” at their lack of faith. [Hard to imagine if He is the One who foisted that faith on them??]

          Despite this (and hundreds more)…. Calvinists have such an ingrained concept of given faith (given to them by Mary-worshiping Augustine) that none of these verses say ANYTHING to them.

          They bring to the Scriptures that one must be “given” faith….even though most people would say that contradicts that idea of what faith means. I doubt that any people in the world (but Calvinists) see the idea of faith as “foisted-forced-absoluteness”.

          But again….. presuppositions are hard to give up.

          Loading...

      96. Rhutchin claims that we are born without faith. And, yet, a child believes in Santa Claus. A child believes in the Easter Bunny. A child believes in the Tooth Fairy. A child believes in the Bogeyman. These are perfect examples of someone believing (or having faith) in someone unseen (Hebrews 11:1). Of course, they can only believe in these things once they hear about them. So it is with Christ thru the spoken word (Romans 10:17). Everyone possess the ability to believe.

          Then…

          John 11:45-46 (NKJV)….
          Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him. But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did.

          John 12:17-19 (NKJV)….
          Therefore the people, who were with Him when He called Lazarus out of his tomb and raised him from the dead, bore witness. For this reason the people also met Him, because they heard that He had done this sign. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, “You see that you are accomplishing nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him!”

          Just a casual reading of the book of John shows that as the evidence grew (from Jesus turning the water into wine, to the raising up of Lazarus), more and more were coming to Christ. The Pharisees knew that had get rid of the evidence, which is why they wanted to kill both Jesus and Lazarus.

          John 12:10-11 (NKJV)…
          But the chief priests plotted to put Lazarus to death also, because on account of him many of the Jews went away and believed in Jesus.

          Loading...

      97. Wait, you mean they had faith because of the miracles – as in, that’s why Jesus performed them, and questioned why any would not believe after the miracles he had given them? Even if the Calvinist tries to come back with ‘Those were just the means’, it makes no sense – did the miracles impart that magic, missing faith commodity in the select few? Then why did Jesus reprove those who did not accept the testimony of his works? In reality, did some believed what they saw wonderingly with their own eyes, or heard about, while others, not wanting to believe, brushed them off as nonsense. Just as they do still.

          Loading...

      98. Exactly TS00.

          RH often asks “Who would not accept a deal like that?” or say, “No one would turn down an offer like that.”

          This is why I have said that he must not have children. Man…. we constantly have the same batch of kids hearing the same offer (or threat!) and reacting differently. And that is kids raised the same way in the same family!

          I think that Thomas is a good example.

          He was a disciple. Followed Christ for 3 years. Should have been a good candidate for “given faith”. But no….. he insisted on touching and seeing. Then of course he believed. Obviously he was not “given faith”.

          What a silly idea.

          Christ did not “give him faith.” He invited him to touch Him so that Thomas could be “convinced” (that’s how Paul puts it— convincing people).

          Loading...

      99. phillip writes, “Of course, they can only believe in these things once they hear about them.”

          That;s what I said, If they can only believe after hearing, then they were not born with it. So, we agree??

          Loading...

      100. rhutchin
           That;s what I said, If they can only believe after hearing, then they were not born with it. So, we agree??

           br.d
           If Calvin’s god doesn’t one to be ELECT
           Then Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT one to hear
           And Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT one to believe.
           Its just that simple.

           Loading...

      101. “JR: “You have been starting with the assumption that Total Depravity is true (and some other assumptions related to it) in order to argue for its various facets.”

           RH: Two presuppositions here: (1) a person is born without faith; (2) people are born unrighteous. I assert (1) and (2) to be true. As a shorthand, this is labelled TD.”

           #1 is fine, since obviously no one is born with faith, as no human has the mental capacity to even understand basic words as a newborn let alone trust in a gospel presentation. I doubt anyone will argue with you on that.

           I would also agree with #2. Since no one is born having done any good deeds yet, nor have they received the imputed righteousness of Christ, nor have they been taken to a court of law as a defendant and won their case so as to be declared just/righteous by the court, nor have they interacted with society in ethical ways yet, it can easily be claimed and agreed that no one is ‘born righteous.’ The baby has also touched human uncleanness, so would be ‘unclean.’

           [It is possible Jesus’ sacrifice can cover the sins of the unborn and very young, however, which in a sense would make babies born with *imputed* righteousness until old enough to be aware of their sin, but not a righteousness of themselves.]

           But those two premises are not “shorthand for TD!” No Calvinist simply means those two premises by TD; to claim so is either very disingenuous or you do not understand the theory of Total Depravity. All Christians agree that all men (save Christ when on Earth) sin (Rom 3:10-23), that sin corrupts every aspect of our being, such as flesh, heart, mind, etc, (Mark 7:21-23), and that man cannot save himself (Psalm 60:10-12, Isa 63:5-6). All Christians would agree that humans are not “born” with faith or righteousness of themselves.

           But the theory of TD/TI carries the further premise that man is so tainted by sin that he cannot even accept the offer of Christ’s salvation: he is “unable” to respond to the gospel in faith so as to be graciously granted Christ’s deliverance from sin (contrary to scripture, which asks us to believe: Rom 10:9-13, John 3:14-21, Luke 11:5-13, Heb 11:13-16, Gal 3:24, Deut 30:11-14, etc).

           And because of that presupposition that man is “inable/unable” to respond in faith, Calvinists have to solve why anyone believes at all, such as holding that spiritual regeneration must occur *before* one believes to allow the person to believe (contrary to scripture which states we receive the Holy Spirit after we believe, not before: Gal 3:2-3, Gal 3:10-14, Eph 1:11-14, II Cor 5:17, etc).

           “You agree on (1). On (2), you say, “all that is necessary to be counted as unrighteous is the breaking of a single law.” If your position is thta people are born righteous and become unrighteous when they sin, then you disagree with TD – and that means that you understand what the Calvinist means by TD.”

           I think you misunderstand my point, there. A court declaring someone unrighteous means it was determined by the court to be a law-breaker. That doesn’t mean they were ‘born righteous’ – the court only needs to make a judgement when someone is accused of a crime. But my term could have been clearer: “lawbreaker” is better such as in James 2:11.

           [Righteousness is a broad term that can be used to refer to several different things in scripture (serving God, having the imputed righteousness of Christ, under no penalty of law, obeying God, blameless, innocent, approved by God, upright virtuous, morally correct acts, ethical conduct, solicitude for the weak/helpless, just, merciful, doing what is right, etc.) You can get a taste of how broad it is here:
           https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6662.htm
           https://biblehub.com/greek/1342.htm
           http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12758-right-and-righteousness

           This broad range for the word, especially it’s subtle changes in general meaning/application over the writing of the Bible, can easily lead to some things looking like contradictions when God says ‘no one is righteous’ in one place but then talks about righteous (ethical) people in others, when really it’s just the term is being used in different ways (e.g. declared fully just by God vs. an ethical/upright person or vs. a person who believes the promise and God credits with righteousness)]

           ” I disagree where you say, “This is a circular conclusion, as you assumed total depravity to try to prove Total Depravity to show why Total Depravity was not an assumption….”

           Disagreeing that something is circular reasoning doesn’t make it not circular reasoning. Many people who employ circular reason don’t actually realize the fallacy they are engaging in – if they did, they would hopefully avoid it or go back to the drawing board to strengthen the argument.
           https://www.thoughtco.com/circular-reasoning-petitio-principii-1689842

           “JR: Then, “#6 – “and until people receive faith, they cannot be made righteous”
           That’s yet another presupposition/assertion. It doesn’t follow from your other points or from scripture.”

           RH: This is based on Romans 5, “having been justified by faith,” where being justified is being made righteous. Thus, I agree where you say, “Gal 3 would be a great chapter to read, here. Those who hear with faith receive the Spirit and are justified by God.”

           Rom 5 says we are justified by faith, yes. I agree with the verse. I agree with Gal 3 as well. But does ‘justified by faith’ mean the same thing as ‘God must give a person faith?’ vs. the alternative of someone having faith because they responded to the gospel in trust? Note that you are reading your presupposition into the verse to prove your presupposition – circular reasoning.

           Read Rom 4! There is no chapter break in the original. Our justification in faith comes directly after this passage:

           “As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the presence of God, in whom he believed, the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not yet exist. Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.”Without weakening in his faith, he acknowledged the decrepitness of his body (since he was about a hundred years old) and the lifelessness of Sarah’s womb. Yet he did not waver through disbelief in the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God was able to do what He had promised. That is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”Now the words “it was credited to him” were written not only for Abraham, but also for us, to whom righteousness will be credited—for us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our trespasses and was raised to life for our justification.
           *Therefore,* since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.”

           Does anything in that passage say “Abraham was given believe by God” or “strengthened in the faith God gave him” or “Did not waver because such a thing was impossible because the belief was effectually given by God” or “fully persuaded because God gave him the actual effectual persuasion” or imply such a reading? No! Does Gal 3 say people hear with faith because God effectually gives them the faith when they here? No!

           One must have faith for God to declare them righteous (or be perfectly sinless like Jesus, but humans can’t take that route) – and God only declares them righteous because He graciously grants believers the imputed righteousness of Christ, not because the faith itself is a meritorious work of righteousness that somehow overcomes in a karmic manner all the sins one has committed previously.)

           “JR: Then, “It’s a serious out of context misuse of Gen:5 to try and use it to support the theory of Total Depravity.”
           RH: Genesis 5 is an example to illustrate TD. That Noah was righteous requires that Noah have had faith and the source of faith would have been God through His word to Noah.”

           You are bringing your presupposition about what it takes to be righteous (being effectually given faith by God) into the text, so claiming it means that Noah being called righteous means he had been given faith by God. You are then using that verse as a support text for TD as to “why” man has to be given faith by God and cannot respond in faith on his own. That is classic circular reasoning.

           Righteousness is a broad term, as already mentioned. Righteousness in all it’s uses in the OT does not automatically carry “having faith in Christ” or “having the imputed righteousness of Christ” or “believing the promise” – sometimes it just means upright living or ethical behavior or followers of God in general, such as the Israelites; and nowhere does scripture use it in the sense of “having been given faith by God!”

           Let’s look at a part of Gen 6 “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time….But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God”

           Noah was just/ethical; his contemporaries had nothing to blame him about (e.g. legally or socially. No murder, gossip, theft, etc.); he’s contrasted with the “wicked;” he walked faithfully with God.

           We can assume that the reason he tried to walk in an upright manner was his knowledge of right/wrong from God and his relationship with God, sure. He also certainly was obedient to God’s command to build the ark. God was in that way the source of his behavior, yes, but because Noah chose to submit to God’s revealed desires and to follow God. Imagine God’s commands as fresh spring water which Noah saw and chose to drink of, while everyone else was busy digging their own muddy wells or stealing from their neighbor’s muddy well to drink.

           God was not the source in the sense of effectually giving Noah faith or somehow irresistibly making Noah follow him, such as forcing the water down Noah’s throat while he was asleep. Where in the passage do you see it saying “God gave Noah faith; Noah was blameless because God made him blameless; God effectually made Noah walk by his side; God effectually made Noah to trust in his command to build his ark,” etc.

           The wicked in the passage were not effectually made to be wicked; Noah was not effectually made to follow God. He wasn’t effectually “given” faith.

           Loading...

      102. TS00 writes, “As long as one accepts the foundational concept of Total Depravity, or Inability,…”

           …that central concept being that no person is born with faith and cannot receive faith except through the hearing of the word. Until the non-Calvinist can undo that central doctrine, Calvinism will prevail and the empty arguments of TS00 will accomplish nothing lasting.

           Then, “Total Depravity, meaning a walking corpse kind of ‘dead in sin’ is a severe and unjustified reading of scripture.”

           Here, TSOO, knowing that TD is built on a faithless humanity and by corollary attributes spiritual deadness to a faithless humanity seeks to ridicule the clear truth of Scripture. Why doesn’t he just address the real issue – the necessity of faith both to both salvation and godly living.

           Loading...

      103. Total Ignoring of the countless explanations ml pthat faith is not a ‘thing’ (noun) that one receives but the noun referent to the verb ‘believe’, which is a chosen response to the presentation of alleged truth.

           He who hears God’s revelation of who he is and what he promises has a choice: he will either believe and receive the declared revelation, or he will deny and reject its veracity.

           Loading...

      104. “…faith is not a ‘thing’ (noun) that one receives but the noun referent to the verb ‘believe’, which is a chosen response to the presentation of alleged truth.”

           That’s a great way of putting it.

           If faith were a physical object, then one might could claim something like A is needed for B: “One needs a snorkel to then go snorkeling.” But faith is a concept, specifically, the persuasion that something is true, assured, or guaranteed. Saying “the persuasion is that something is true is necessary to be persuaded that something is true” doesn’t make sense if one is using it in terms of sequence or precedence. At best it is a tautology, like “love is necessary to love.” It is not of the form “A is necessary to then get A” or “Object A is necessary for action B.” Believes in Jn 3:16 and elsewhere just means to “hold (verb) faith (noun).” In Greek that is combined into one verb; pisteuó; to be persuaded of/place confidence in/believe, etc. “Believing” is often the translator’s choice for holding faith, since “holding faith” sounds a bit clunky in English.

           Unlike a snorkel which is a physical object necessary to then do the action of snorkeling, if one wanted, faith (noun) and faith (verb) automatically go together with no sequence of time or logic precedence. Believing is just the state of having faith. If one has the persuasion that something is true, one believes it. If one feels love (noun) for another person, they love (verb) that person. If one has mental activity, then one is thinking. If one is thinking, that one has mental activity. Etc.

           [Now, faith as a noun is not always used in scripture of personal faith, but is sometimes used as a generic reference to Christian belief or the gospel message as a whole. Context and sometimes grammar generally make clear whether personal faith or “The Faith” is meant.]

           We receive the promises of God, such as the indwelling Spirit, imputed righteousness, eternal life, etc. by faith (Gal 3, etc.) It is not faith itself that we effectually receive from without.

           [I do realize that II Pet 1:1 is often translated “received a faith” – but this is not the typical Greek word for receive used elsewhere in scripture when talking about receiving righteousness or the Spirit by faith. The connotations are not those of accepting/taking a gift or having something irresistibly forced/given, but “to be allotted” or determined by lot, in context showing that the Gentiles, not just the Jews, had been determined by God to have a share in salvation and for believing Gentiles to receive the Holy Spirit, and that Jewish believers were not superior to the Gentiles, and possibly a sense that the ministry to/of Gentile believers was as important as that of the first believers. See Acts 11:17, Acts 15:8, Acts 1:17, I Pet 1:7, etc. in their various contexts.

           Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
           “It was in and by the righteousness of God, the absence in Him of any “respect of persons,” that Jew and Gentile had been placed on an equality. So taken the words present a suggestive parallel with Acts 10:34; Acts 15:8-9.”]

           Loading...

      105. JR, responding to TS00, “Believes in Jn 3:16…”

           The Greek term is a participle, and would be best translated as “believing ones.” Thus, only the believing ones (whosoever believes) are given eternal life. The issue in John 3:16 are the unbelieving ones. If God loves them and gave His son for them, what does He do with them? Does God condemn people He loves and for whom He gave His son? Yes, people will answer – because they did not believe. Then, how is it that one believes and one does not. In John 10, referring to the Jews, Jesus said, “you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish;” This reinforces that which Jesus said in John 6, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.”

           Then, “If faith were a physical object, then one might could claim something like A is needed for B: “One needs a snorkel to then go snorkeling.” But faith is a concept, specifically, the persuasion that something is true, assured, or guaranteed.”

           Faith, the translation of the noun, is a tangible concept – it is real. It is the “persuasion that something is true, assured, or guaranteed” or “assurance and conviction” as Hebrews 11 defines it. I agree that “saying ‘the persuasion is that something is true is necessary to be persuaded that something is true” doesn’t make sense” Thus, the Calvinist follows the translators in saying that faith (being persuaded) is necessary to believing (action taken consequent to that faith or persuasion). The distinction is between a noun normally translated as “faith, a verb normally translated as “believe/believing.

           Loading...

      106. rh writes:
           ” Thus, the Calvinist follows the translators in saying that faith (being persuaded) is necessary to believing (action taken consequent to that faith or persuasion).”

           Still makes no sense. Faith is not a ‘thing’ which can be received, as all of Jesus’ references to faith show. He is surprised at some men’s greater faith, and displeased at others’ lack thereof, neither of which would make sense if man was just some passive recipient of faith upon God’s whim. Nor is having faith/believing an action.

           What, in rhutchin’s definition of faith, is one being persuaded of, and what, consequently, does one believe? As always, it is just word salad crafted to muddy the waters. The pretense that faith and believing are two different things is only necessitated by faulty presuppositions. Having faith in and believing God’s promises are one and the same thing, as most would understand from the various usages. Of course one must look past the English words, as they are merely translations by imperfect men with their own presuppositions.

           Having scriptural faith is believing in who God is and what he says, as Hebrews explains. The two English words are synonyms, in scripture as well as other usage. What, one wonders, is this imaginary substance Calvinists call faith, that differs from belief? Having faith is not being regenerated so one can believe, as Calvinism appears to suggest; regeneration is God’s promised gift of making new in response to man’s faith. Only those who believe receive this gift of life.

           But rhutchin understands quite well how the vast majority of believers interpret such things, even when he feigns ignorance.

           Loading...

      107. But wait….. there’s more!

           Faith is what you say TS00 and ….. we also know this….

           Christ “marveled because of their unbelief.” [Just give them faith!]

           Christ weeps about their unbelief [Just give them faith!]

           Christ rebukes his followers for their unbelief. [Just give them faith!]

           Jesus marvels (again) AT faith “When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” Luke 7:9 (Calvinist ESV). [Didn’t He give the faith?…. why marvel?]

           Jesus is marveling (amazed) and is saying that He “found” this man’s faith.

           None of these make any sense if faith is the object that is handed out by Christ.

           Loading...

      108. Thanks for supplying the examples. 😉

           Loading...

      109. Scripture provides all the examples we need!

           It’s just that some people filter obvious stories and narratives through a pre-disposed lens ….given them the answer they came to the passage to find (and of course rendering the passage meaningless, or worse a mockery).

           Loading...

      110. TS00 writes, “Having faith is not being regenerated so one can believe, as Calvinism appears to suggest; regeneration is God’s promised gift of making new in response to man’s faith.”

           It is statements like this that make one wonder if you even understand Calvinism. Regeneration, per John 3 (being born again) enables one to both “see” and “enter” the kingdom of God. The proclamation of the gospel reveals the kingdom that one has been enabled to see and enter Through that faith conveyed by the gospel, one has assurance and conviction and enters the kingdom of God – is saved.

           Loading...

      111. The Calvinist thinks he was eternally immutably predestined as special to God and to be born as among the few to get a nature that irresistibly would play out that special status. He thinks he was born already an elect one, a sheep of God’s fold, beloved.

           So much for their “worm theology”, which is a smoke screen, imo, for what seems like a latent narcissism theology. It’s like hearing them say, “I’m connected to God eternally immutably and you reprobates who never were loved by God like me are not!”

           There are some, I believe, who don’t see how their chosen theology makes them appear… and how it also makes God look very partial, even though He clearly says He is without partiality when it comes to providing and offering salvation.

           Romans 2:11 NKJV — For there is no partiality with God.
           Romans 11:32 NKJV — For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
           Psalm 145:8-9 NKJV — The LORD is gracious and full of compassion, Slow to anger and great in mercy. The LORD is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works.
           John 1:1,4,7,9 NKJV — In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men…. that all through him might believe….That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
           John 3:17 NKJV — For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

           Loading...

      112. Beautiful. This is the gospel that brings repentance, hope and peace. The chosen people theology was long ago declared untrue, yet many still cling to it. We are all loved, and God desires that all turn from wickedness, embrace his freely offered pardon and receive everlasting life. If you did not understand this clearly, O Calvinist friend, please ponder the difference between your gospel and the true gospel.

           Loading...

      113. You know I agree Brian.

           The problem is that Calvinists have the same Bible we do. They just take those verses you listed and make them mean something different than we do. That also take 30 verses or so and use them as a filter for the whole Bible. Certain things “must” be true (presuppositions) and all else must be made to fit that filter.

           But the bottom line is that they spend their entire focus proving and declaring that the message of the Bible is:

           God loves a tiny portion of humanity and “made-certain” their salvation (and of course made certain the damnation all of the rest) “for His Glory.” He damns “God-haters” (but He created them to be that way….”for His glory”).

           At its base, it is not a very “glorious” message and certainly NOT “Good News” ….unless you are one of the very, very few.

           Loading...

      114. Frankly, I don’t see it as good news even for the elect. Who would want to spend eternity with a god like that? Who can look him honestly in the face and say, ‘Hey, I’m perfectly fine with you damning my grandmother, neighbor and best friend. No really, what glory that demonstrates.’ No one.

           Loading...

      115. FOH writes, “That also take 30 verses or so and use them as a filter for the whole Bible. Certain things “must” be true….”

           Yes, the Scripture must be true and the Scripture filters out untruth.

           Loading...

      116. I agree Brian!
           I do see a spirit of elitism as part of what is manifested.

           Loading...

      117. brianwagner writes, “He was born already an elect one, a sheep of God’s fold, beloved.”

           As Paul describes it, “…when God who had set me apart, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,…”

           Then, ‘It’s like hearing them say, “I’m connected to God eternally immutably and you reprobates who never were loved by God like me are not!””

           I guess that your rendition of Paul’s attitude toward the reprobate. It’s not how the Calvinist sees Paul.

           Loading...

      118. Paul being set apart for service for the sake of God’s eternal plan, even from birth, is not the same thing as every person who ever lived being either decreed to be regenerated/given faith so they definitely will be saved or decreed to never have faith or even be able to respond in faith so that they definitely will be condemned.

           Scripture shows at times specific people set apart for a crucial time (Prophets, judges, Christ, etc.) Even those prophets are shown with the ability to obey or disobey – even with Jesus it is heavily implied that He technically could ask for a legion of angels to rescue Him or escape the cross, but that He will not and submits to the Father instead for the sake of the joy set before Him/eternal plan of redemption. But, in the lives of those people we see God work in special, out of the ordinary ways such as visions, burning bushes, sending angels, etc. in order to show them their call to service and aid them during it. None of those prophets or people claimed to call themselves or set themselves apart (which was one of the errors of the Pharisees, – they appointed themselves as the religious guards of Israel.) Paul didn’t create the vision on the Damascus road, it was revealed to him by God that the one he persecuted was Christ.

           Paul being set apart is yet another example of Calvinists using examples of the particular (events scripture shows as unusual/different from the norm) to somehow represent the usual (and also going beyond what the text explicitly says to apply it to personal salvation rather than in it’s context of service/ministry.)

           Loading...

      119. JR: “Paul being set apart for service for the sake of God’s eternal plan, even from birth, is not the same thing as every person who ever lived being either decreed to be regenerated/given faith so they definitely will be saved or decreed to never have faith or even be able to respond in faith so that they definitely will be condemned.”

           No, but it does tell us that God had a plan and Paul was part of His plan. What was God’s plan for Paul, “I might preach Him among the Gentiles.” In Ephesians, Paul adds this,”you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ…the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister…” Then, Paul writes, “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,” Of Israel, Paul writes, “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;..That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” Paul reminds us that Isaiah had foretold this, “Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved.”

           To this plan, we can add all the prophecies on the OT concerning the coming of Christ and all the prophecies in the NT of the second coming of Christ and of the end. We can reasonably conclude that God has not left anything to chance, but “works all things after the counsel of His will.” Calvinists appeal to the whole of Scripture not just, “Paul being set apart is yet another example of Calvinists using examples of the particular (events scripture shows as unusual/different from the norm) to somehow represent the usual (and also going beyond what the text explicitly says to apply it to personal salvation rather than in it’s context of service/ministry.)” Your conclusion betrays a bias against Calvinism that is not warranted.

           Loading...

      120. “No, but it does tell us that God had a plan and Paul was part of His plan.”

           No one disagrees that God has a plan. The crucial difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is that for the Calvinist the ‘plan’ includes the predetermined destiny of every individual (and for many Calvinists, every thought and action of that individual as well): that a select few would be assured to become believers (by some method such as regeneration, being given faith, irresistible grace, etc.) while the rest are predetermined to stay in their condemned state with no hope of redemption. For the non-Calvinist, God’s eternal plan regarding salvation refers to how God has intervened in history to create the nation of Israel, set apart prophets and priests and kings, set the boundaries and rise and fall of nations, and send the Redeemer at the right time in history to die on the cross. For individuals, God’s plan is that any who respond to the gospel in faith/believe in Christ will be graciously pardoned, forgiven, baptized, adopted, reconciled, etc.

           “What was God’s plan for Paul, “I might preach Him among the Gentiles. In Ephesians, Paul adds this,”you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ…the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister…””

           Yes. God specifically called Paul into ministry that he would go to spread the gospel to the Gentiles. The ministry of Jesus’ apostles was primarily, though not entirely, to the Jews. Paul established countless churches, and the Holy Spirit even intervened at times to guide him or even translate him to where God wanted.

           “Then, Paul writes, “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,”

           Yes. Read Eph 1 in it’s context. Look at the audience – the “faithful in Christ Jesus.” God chose the faithful in Christ Jesus, before the foundation of the world, to be made Holy. The Ephesian church was also included in Christ, hence predestined to be adopted and made Holy and conformed to Christ, etc., when they believed. God chose those in Christ (believers) to be holy and predestined those in Christ (believers) to be adopted. Eph 1:1-14 does not state that God predestined anyone to be, or not to be, a believer or to be in Christ!

           God also seals those in Christ (the faithful in Christ Jesus whom Paul is addressing) with the Holy Spirit as a down payment of our future inheritance of eternal life.

           Predestination deals with God’s omnipotence and omniscience. The word itself means to “to mark out beforehand’; to pre-establish limits and boundaries. Specifically, this word references how God set limits/boundaries/laws upon everything before creation. He set the laws of physics, placed the boundaries of the sea, determined the eternal plan by which mankind would be saved, (Prov 8:22-31, Eph 1:3-10, Eph 3:10-11, Job 38:33, Rom 8:29, etc), set the rules by which deliverance and pardon are obtained (Num 25:22-29, Jer 26:1-6, II Chron 7:14, John 3:16, Heb 10:11-18, Luke 4:14-21, Heb 9:22, Matt 5:29, Isa 45:22-25), etc.

           In the plan of salvation, God also predestined it to include the gentiles, not just the Jews (Eph 3:2-12, Rom 3:21-31, Rom 9:1-26, Rom 15:5-13, John 1:11-13, Isa 45:9-10, Rom 9:11-16, etc). It is this aspect of predestination that Eph 1 deals with in-depth.

           God elected a people for Himself, the body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile. (I Pet 2:7-10, II Pet 1:2, Rom 1:1-3, II Tim 2:1-13, etc). His calling this people is by His grace, not by any of our own works (I Pet 2:9-10, Eph 2:8-10, Rom 11:1-6). The Jews thought they alone were the ‘Chosen People’ of God, and were resistant to the idea of the Gentiles being brought into God’s flock as well. In context, Paul is speaking here of how God pre-determined before time that both Jew and Gentiles would be brought into the kingdom of God through Christ; any who would put their hope in Christ (Eph 1:11-14).

           “Of Israel, Paul writes, “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;..That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” Paul reminds us that Isaiah had foretold this, “Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved.””

           Yes – true Israel is of the promise given to Abraham, NOT ethnic descent from Abraham. God planned that inclusion in Israel be by faith in the promise, not by ethnicity or works of the flesh. Nothing in Rom 9 or 11 hints that God pre-picked who would be given faith in that promise while others were pre-doomed to never be able to believe the promise.

           Rather, again, we see that the grafting in of Gentiles is by belief, but that ethnic Israelites can be broken off due to unbelief.

           “To this plan, we can add all the prophecies on the OT concerning the coming of Christ and all the prophecies in the NT of the second coming of Christ and of the end.”

           The plan of salvation being offered and accomplished by Christ and granted to believers, yes. The Calvinist plan of individuals being pre-chosen by God, apart from faith but just by God’s choice, to definitely get faith and believe or definitely never be able to have faith? No – nowhere in those prophecies of the coming of Christ and the end.

           The nation of Israel was elect due to God’s own choice (Ezek 16:5-7, Deut 10:15, Isa 45:4). Israel entered the covenant with God to confirm this (Deut 29:9-15), but they still rebelled, and thought salvation was by works and not the promise (Jer 4:22).

           While to the Jews it seemed as if God allowing the gentiles in would be changing his mind or contrary to His promise, the offer of salvation to the gentiles had truly been God’s plan from the start. Just as God had fore-determined the boundaries and subdivisions of the promised land, so He had fore-determined the purpose, plan, and promises of salvation, the structure and limits of the true church under the headship of Christ (I Pet 1:3-9, Rom 9:6-26, I Pet 2:10).

           In similar manner, we didn’t chose the way of salvation (God did), nor did we chose our own gifts or ministries (God did). We are, however, to have faith and follow (John 15:16, John 12:25-26).

           In Eph 1; predestination shows that Christians are the church, the body of Christ (Col 1:18, I Cor 12:12, Col 3:14-16, Eph 4:14-16). All those in Christ (those with faith) are the ‘elect’, those predestined to be holy, the people of God joined together under the headship of Christ (1 Peter 2:4-9). We all become part of the elect/the church through faith; and those with faith are made holy; a plan God predestined long before time, Israel, or the law.

           ” We can reasonably conclude that God has not left anything to chance, but “works all things after the counsel of His will.””

           That isn’t a reasonable conclusion. “Chance” is merely a set of finite variables operating inside of God’s created universe and the natural laws He made – laws He can supersede as needed. Does God setting the boundary of the sea mean He “must” push around every water molecule and sculpt every wave Himself lest “chance” somehow derail His boundaries? Does God creating every nation of men from Adam, to inhabit the whole Earth, determining the appointed times of the nations and the boundaries of their lands, in the hopes that men would seek him (Acts 17:26-28) mean that God *must* control the individual destinies, individual thoughts, individual actions, etc. of all individuals, to the point of ensuring that many just can’t seek him at all or find Him, lest they somehow overturn His boundaries?

           Of course not. The actions, thoughts, and movements of man are finite variables, not infinite ones. And the universe is not a closed system, since God can operate on it at will (such as to perform miracles, call prophets, servants, etc.)

           As for God working all things after the counsel of His will doesn’t mean He *determines* all things as He pleases. For one, the Greek word for working here is more like “engaged in” or energizing – that is, He is a present God, not a God from a distance, who is actively involved in the affairs of men and working to bring about His sovereign plan over history. God planned the promises, salvation, the reconciliation and adoption of believers, etc. according to His own council, purpose, and will – not according to any work or wisdom of man, before He created time. Jesus, the lamb slain from the ‘foundation of the world’ (Rev 13:8, John 1:1), would enter history at the proper time to die for our sins and bring all who believed into His body, the church (Gal 4:3-7, Rom 10:4, Col 1:15-23, I Pet 1:19-20, Eph 1:4, II Tim 1:8-9, John 3:16-18). Then, eternal life will be granted us (our inheritance) at the end of the ages, when all things are fulfilled in Christ and He presents the church to Himself as a radiant bride (Eph 1:9-11, Eph 5:25-33, Titus 1:1). The council of God’s will can quite easily include the will to give libertarian freedom to man, it is not proof against it!

           “Calvinists appeal to the whole of Scripture”

           Citing a lot of out-of-context verse references and appealing to presuppositions to interpret them, while simultaneously ignoring other sections of scripture, is not appealing to the whole of scripture. You cannot synthesize a cohesive and Biblical model without first analyzing all the component parts. And to analyze a passage or scripture, you have to start with context, audience, Greek or Hebrew word meaning and grammar, parallel text, literary category, etc. You also need to avoid presuppositions that may falsely color an interpretation, avoid reading every possible connotation into a term or phrase without checking context, avoid over-literalizing figurative language, etc. If two passages seem to contradict when all this is done, go over them again and see if anything has been missed. When putting the parts together, one has to avoid reading in more presuppositions or using fallacious reasoning.

           I reject Calvinism because over the past 15+ years I’ve analyzed the various verses used to “prove” the view. The majority have turned out to be out of context, or reliant on a presupposition not even hinted at in scripture but more at home in Greek philosophy. A few are possible interpretations, but over-extrapolated, so while those verses don’t directly contradict the view, they don’t support the view to the exclusion of other possibilities. Still others over-literalize figurative language, even when it contradicts other passages. Etc.

           For a non-Calvinist example: in the U.S.A., a pre-millenial, pre-trib rapture view has become very popular and one of the main ‘teachers’ on it currently is Walvoord. Before I started studying in depth, it was the theory I leaned towards since it is the one I had been exposed to growing up, and most of the Bible notes I had seen promoted that view. But I took his list of 100+ support verses and started going through them to test the theory anyway, since my church group was going to start studying Revelations and I wanted to research it for myself. Only, I didn’t find what I expected! I had three highlighters – green for in-context verses which strongly supported the view; yellow for verses which were ambiguous enough that they could support the view but could just as easily support others, or verses which really didn’t clearly speak to the topic at all; and red for verses that within their own text/context seemed to contradict the view. I expected mostly green; what I got was mostly yellow, no greens, and a handful of reds.

           What was interesting though as my local church in sermons and in Bible Studies looked at eschatology (from a completely biased and one-sided perspective) for a while was just how many people thought the *number* of verses Walvoord used was the same thing as “proof” – or held the idea that because Walvoord could create a “nice system where everything is explained and put in a box (my church group has a lot of engineers, lol)” that was the same thing as being “Biblically sound.”

           Calvinist offers a system-in-a-box, which is very appealing to many, and on the surface can refer to many verses as ‘support’ – it’s only when those verses are analyzed *without* presupposing Calvinism as true that countless problems with context, word-use, logic, scriptural harmony, etc. show up.

           “Your conclusion betrays a bias against Calvinism that is not warranted.”

           Not being willing to take logical fallacies as sound reasoning or take out-of-context scripture as “proof” doesn’t mean I am letting bias color my conclusions.

           By analogy, imagine this argument:

           Albert: “The ice cream shop owner on the corner, Doug, determines the flavors of ice-cream everyone will purchase.”
           Tom: “Why do you think that?”
           Albert: “He only offers two flavors.”
           Tom: “That means choices are limited, not that everyone has to pick what Albert chooses.”
           Albert: “But he owns the shop. He’s sovereign over what happens inside it.”
           Tom: That means He governs who can come in – such as ‘no shirt, no shoes, no service,’ he picks the method by which they can obtain the ice cream, such as it or offering a free sample they can try. He can even call the cops if they don’t pay.” It doesn’t mean he always picks the flavor they get.
           Albert: “But Bill wanted vanilla when he went in, only the shop owner gave him a sample of the chocolate to try and he ate that – then Bill bought the chocolate.”
           Tom: So the shop owner used his position to influence a decision. That didn’t determine Bill would pick chocolate, let alone show that Doug determines the choices of all who enter.
           Albert: “But Sally came in and Doug gave her a free chocolate!”
           Tom: Which would be him using his authority as shop-keeper to offer her a chocolate – she still could have refused it, or bought a vanilla the normal way. Besides, Sally is his niece. She’s the exception, not the rule.
           Albert: You’re just biased against my argument!

           Loading...

      121. Jenai,
           Enjoy your posts!

           If only they used Scripture and logic they would agree with you!

           Per this one and your earlier post ….

           Calvinists often say that God determines everything, and they use to prove it the phrases said about Jeremiah, David, and Joseph (Gen 50). I have posted here and elsewhere that this actually DISPROVES (not proves) their point. God is telling us WHEN He acts in a special way (that sometimes He acts in a special way).

           If He ALWAYS acted this way (micromanaging / determining every person) then He would not be saying anything special about David and Jeremiah. (Kinda like: “Yeah, you say you called Jeremiah in a special way God, but Calvinists tell us that you do that same for everybody, Attila the Hun included….. so nothing ‘special’ to see here.”)

           Loading...

      122. I misread this initially. To clarify, I believe that you meant if only Calvinists used logic and scripture they would agree with her’, not, if only her posts used logic and scripture’. Correct?

           Loading...

      123. Absolutely correct. You know me too well TruthSeeker!

           She does use both logic and Scripture.

           Loading...

      124. That’s an excellent point FOH!

           If the God of scripture takes the time to spell out things he is doing with a certain individual – then that is him expressing what he is doing with one specific individual out of many thousands of other people living at that time. If he were micro-managing every human being that lives he would express that instead of expressing what he is doing with one specific individual or one a group of people that belong to 12 tribes. And even then in most of those events mentioned in scripture – there are no indications that he is determining that person’s every neurological impulse to make them think and act the way he determines them to think and act. There fore those events do not represent examples of micromanaging human beings. And actually represent rare occasions.

           Loading...

      125. JR: For the non-Calvinist,…God’s plan is that any who respond to the gospel in faith/believe in Christ will be graciously pardoned, forgiven, baptized, adopted, reconciled, etc.”

           Your description does not distinguish the Calvinist from the non-Calvinist. The key phrase is, “…any who respond to the gospel in faith/believe in Christ…” We know that some do not hear the gospel, so they cannot respond in faith. We know tat, of those who he experience the gospel being preached, some respond in faith and some do not. The Calvinist would say that some were able to “hear” the gospel and others were not. How do we account for this? The Calvinist says that God gave faith to the ones who responded and did not give faith to the ones who did not respond. You can propose a non-Calvinist explanation for this outcome, if you want.

           then, “God specifically called Paul into ministry…”

           Agreed – nothing controversial here.

           Then, “God chose the faithful in Christ Jesus, before the foundation of the world, to be made Holy….Eph 1:1-14 does not state that God predestined anyone to be, or not to be, a believer or to be in Christ!”

           You lost me. Given that God did the choosing before the foundation of the world, how is that not God deciding to make certain people holy and not others? Could we not say, “God predestined the faithful in Christ Jesus, before the foundation of the world, to be made Holy.” In Romans 8, we see that those God predestined to be holy, He then called to Christ and then justified. Those not predestined to eb holy are the reprobate.

           Then, “God also seals those in Christ (the faithful in Christ Jesus whom Paul is addressing) with the Holy Spirit as a down payment of our future inheritance of eternal life.”

           Agreed, as Paul explains, “In Christ, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,” Those God predestined to be holy before the foundation of the world then hear the gospel in the course of time and respond by believing and then are sealed by the Holy Spirit. Do we agree on that order?

           Then, ‘In the plan of salvation, God also predestined it to include the gentiles,…It is this aspect of predestination that Eph 1 deals with in-depth.”

           OK. I see Paul dealing with both Jews and gentiles by his descriptor, “Paul…to the saints who are at Ephesus, and who are faithful in Christ Jesus:” As Paul intended that this letter be read by the other churches given the nature of the teaching as applying to all believers. Thus, Ephesians can be understood to apply to both Jewish and gentile believers and both would take encouragement from the first chapter.

           Then, “Nothing in Rom 9 or 11 hints that God pre-picked who would be given faith in that promise while others were pre-doomed to never be able to believe the promise.”

           No hint?? Paul says that the children of promise are saved. Paul then writes, “For this is a word of promise:” and he now explains how the promise works. First, it was Sarah’s son who was the child of promise; not Ismail. Then, Jacob is the child of promise and not Esau. If Isaac and Jacob were not pre-picked then what were they? In Paul’s explanation, we are to understand that the Children of Promise are those chosen by God “in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls.”

           So, you write, “The Calvinist plan of individuals being pre-chosen by God, apart from faith but just by God’s choice, to definitely get faith and believe or definitely never be able to have faith?” Yes, as God’s choosing of Isaac over Ismail and Jacob over Esau demonstrates.

           Then, “The nation of Israel was elect due to God’s own choice…but they still rebelled,”

           This leads Paul to explain that God’s word had not failed as the children of promise were always in view to be saved.

           Then, “We all become part of the elect/the church through faith; and those with faith are made holy; a plan God predestined long before time, Israel, or the law. ”

           And it is God who gives faith to His elect because He has predestined them to holiness before the foundation of the world and then called to Christ in the course of time..

           Loading...

      126. JR: Albert: “The ice cream shop owner on the corner, Doug, determines the flavors of ice-cream everyone will purchase.”
           Tom: “Why do you think that?”
           Albert: “He only offers two flavors.”

           It should be
           “Albert: He only offers one flavor to some and the other flavor to the others.
           Tom: “That means each person’s choice is limited to the one flavor he is offered, and everyone has to pick what Albert chooses to give them.”

           The analogy is off if the intent was to portray Calvinism.

           Loading...

      127. JR: Albert: “The ice cream shop owner on the corner, Doug, determines the flavors of ice-cream everyone will purchase.”
           Tom: “Why do you think that?”
           Albert: “He only offers two flavors.”

           It should be
           “Albert: He only offers one flavor to some and the other flavor to the others.
           Tom: “That means each person’s choice is limited to the one flavor he is offered, and everyone has to pick what Albert chooses to give them.”

           The analogy is off if the intent was to portray Calvinism.

           br.d
           Actually JR’s two statements by “Albert” do represent Calvinism accurately.

           You’re replacement analogy also expresses truth concerning Calvinism -but expresses different points about it.

           But both are correct.

           As a mater of fact your analogy is quite LOGICALLY coherent with Adam in a Determinist world.
           In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) – as your analogy shows – it is case that only one choice was made available to Adam.
           The ice-cream flavor called “disobedience” was the only flavor made available to Adam.
           And as you say in your analogy – Adam had to pick what Calvin’s god choose to give him.

           Loading...

      128. “JR: Albert: “The ice cream shop owner on the corner, Doug, determines the flavors of ice-cream everyone will purchase.”
           Tom: “Why do you think that?”
           Albert: “He only offers two flavors.”

           It should be
           “Albert: He only offers one flavor to some and the other flavor to the others.
           Tom: “That means each person’s choice is limited to the one flavor he is offered, and everyone has to pick what Albert chooses to give them.”

           The analogy is off if the intent was to portray Calvinism.”

           ?? My analogy was meant to portray the illogic of the various *supports* you have been using to support Calvinism, claiming that they prove the initial premise. Even if you change the first line from “Doug determines the flavors of ice cream…” to “Doug must only offer one flavor to some and other flavors to others” that doesn’t change the analogy, which is not about Albert’s first premise but about how his “support claims” do not really prove it.

           I did not set up my analogy by saying,
           “I am going to make an analogy about Calvinism” but rather “Not being willing to take logical fallacies as sound reasoning or take out-of-context scripture as “proof” doesn’t mean I am letting bias color my conclusions.” The analogy is so you can better see why generalizing from the particular is a logical fallacy and why other ‘supports’ you have given do not support your conclusion at all.

           Now, I did pick the initial argument, that Albert thinks Doug must determines the flavors of ice-cream everyone will purchase, based on some of your own own prior words about God decreeing everything that occurs. We can use yours instead if you want (albeit modified since yours is asserting the conclusion as a proof, which is circular reasoning, AND makes the mistake of thinking that everyone must pick what is offered rather than leave, which is a fallacy all of it’s own…)

           Albert: “The ice cream shop owner on the corner, Doug, must only offer one flavor of ice cream to every person that comes in and disallows them to buy the others.
           Tom: “Why do you think that?”
           Albert: “He only offers two flavors in the shop in general.”
           Tom: “That means choices are limited, not that everyone has to pick what Albert chooses.”
           Albert: “But he owns the shop. He’s sovereign over what happens inside it.”
           Tom: That means He governs who can come in – such as ‘no shirt, no shoes, no service,’ he picks the method by which they can obtain the ice cream, such as it or offering a free sample they can try. He can even call the cops if they don’t pay.” It doesn’t mean he always picks the flavor they get.
           Albert: “But Bill wanted vanilla when he went in, only the shop owner gave him a sample of the chocolate to try and he ate that – then Bill bought the chocolate.”
           Tom: So the shop owner used his position to influence a decision. That didn’t determine Bill would pick chocolate, let alone show that Doug determines the choices of all who enter.
           Albert: “But Sally came in and Doug gave her a free chocolate!”
           Tom: Which would be him using his authority as shop-keeper to offer her a chocolate – she still could have refused it, or bought a vanilla the normal way. Besides, Sally is his niece. She’s the exception, not the rule.
           Albert: But when Janelle wanted chocolate, Albert wouldn’t give it to her.
           Tom: Because she has an outstanding tab. These are all particular instances – they don’t prove your premise that Albert only offers one flavor and disallows the other to everyone who enters.
           Albert: You’re just biased against my argument!

           Now, Albert *could* be right – maybe Doug really does just not let people purchase the flavor he doesn’t want to purchase. It’s unlikely for an ice cream shop owner, but theoretically possible. The point is that none of Albert’s arguments proved or even supported that Doug does such a thing all the time, as they used fallacious reasoning. Albert incorrectly extrapolated from the cases of individuals entering the shop (much as Calvinists often over-extrapolate from Paul or the other prophets where God is shown working in an unusual manner as somehow representing the norm.)

           Loading...

      129. Love it! And guess what, in the real ice cream shop called life, there are endless flavors from which to choose. Or we can choose to not have ice cream at all and go get an organic, grass-fed burger.

           Look around at the diversity in people and their lives. Compare that to the sort of world John Calvin sought to establish, in which people were meticulously controlled, even as to how they could wear their hair, what songs or games they could play, what they could serve for dinner or what they could name their children. That is what the Calvinist worldview produces – tyranny and control.

           Freedom and diversity is what a scriptural worldview produces. When I escaped my Calvi-church I found myself laughing for joy at girls with short skirts or people with extensive tattoos and purple hair. I had for so long been in a repressive, legalistic environment that I had become afraid to associate with real people. Some have deep needs. Like the girls holding hands and smooching, or the guy in a dress. And I don’t know that I have what it takes to meet those needs.

           All I can offer is the good news of a loving God who desires their best interests – without a doubt. There isn’t a chance in the world that their sin issues, or mine, are the result of God not loving us, or creating us for destruction. That is not, absolutely NOT, the good news Jesus sent his disciples to the world to deliver. Instead, as with the angels I can proclaim, ‘I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people . . . Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.’

           I’m so thankful that God gave us good news to share, rather than Calvin’s horrible decree.

           Loading...

      130. Wait a minute TS00…

           You dont think that is “Good News”—- that before time God created 98% of humanity with the sole intention of having them be vessels of wrath so that his justice could have an object?

           You dont think that is “Good News”—- that before time God chose a tiny few people to irresistibly save from sins they irresistibly had no choice in committing?

           You dont think that is “Good News”—- that before time God decided to “sovereignly will” that man would sin but “commandingly will” that they not sin?

           You dont think that is “Good News”—- that before time God decided to tuck all these tiny truths neatly in 40 verses so that the “doctors of the law” could find and construct them and teach the young and restless?

           You just dont know Good News when you see it!

           Loading...

      131. Au contraire, monsieur, ne dis pas de bêtises! I love how the french sounds so much nicer than ‘Don’t give me that nonsense’.

           Loading...

      132. JR: “The point is that none of Albert’s arguments proved or even supported that Doug does such a thing all the time, as they used fallacious reasoning.”

           OK. My problem is with your “fallacious reasoning” conclusion. I don’t see Calvinism appealing to fallacious reasoning. So, we need to change your staring comment by Albert to accord with Calvinism:

           Albert: “The ice cream shop owner on the corner, Doug, determines the flavors of ice-cream he will carry and make available to everyone to purchase.”

           Then:
           Tom: “Why do you think that?”
           Albert: “Because he owns the ice cream shop, so he does what he wants.”

           Under Calvinism, God makes salvation available to everyone and anyone can freely choose salvation or reject it. The problem is that no one really wants what God is offering – they would never choose that ice cream flavor and and always choose another ice cream flavor. So, maybe your analogy should start:

           Albert: “The ice cream shop owner on the corner, Doug, only carries one flavor of ice cream but makes it available to anyone to purchase.”

           I think your analogy misrepresents Calvinism in order to generate fallacious reasoning. The problem may lie with my ability to support Calvinism accurately. I have been reading the Institutes over the last week, so hopefully, my arguments will improve in accuracy. So, don’t fault Calvinism over my inability to communicate what it says.

           Loading...

      133. rh writes:
           “Under Calvinism, God makes salvation available to everyone and anyone can freely choose salvation or reject it. The problem is that no one really wants what God is offering . . .”

           I haven’t the slightest doubt JR can deal with this one more effectively than I . . . but isn’t this overlooking a tiny, little foundational Calvinist doctrine called limited atonement, which asserts that Jesus did not die for all, but only for the elect, who irrevocably must and will ‘choose’ the salvation ordained, decreed and, frankly, forced upon them? Did somebody just remove the ‘L’ out of TULIP?

           Loading...

      134. It also removes the I, as those who accept under Calvinism do not freely choose to accept, but are irresistibly made/transformed so they will definitely accept wit no chacne or ability to nkt accept. It’s like they want the surface language of freedom so it sounds nice, but what they end up with is anything but freedom.

           It’s like claiming Doug the Ice cream shop owner only offers one flavor, but he must put it in a special container that the majority of people who enter can’t see. And claiming even if Doug tells them how good it is, it doesn’t help because everyone is deaf. And claiming those who enter can’t even reach a hand out to feel for it, because they are all incapable like dead corpses. For that matter, they can’t even read the sign advertising ice cream or enter the shop. Then claiming that Doug arbitrarily chooses a select few that he zaps with life and energy and the ability to see the ice cream. But even then he leaves nothing to chance! He hypnotize those who can now see just to make sure they definitely eat the ice cream. And after claiming all those absurdities, making the further claim that everyone is “free” to take or leave the ice cream.

           And when people ask for proof, like Tom asked Albert, just assert presuppositions as true, appeal to fallacious reasoning like generalization from the particular, cls oit of context verdes ate support or just appeal to God’s theoretical ability to do whatever He pleases as proof that He pleases to do things in a specific way.
           (I say theoretical not because God is not omnipotent, buy because we know there are things God cannot do like violate His character, renege on a promise, create a logical impossibility like a square circle or married bachelor, etc.)

           Loading...

      135. JR writes:
           “And after claiming all those absurdities, making the further claim that everyone is “free” to take or leave the ice cream.”

           And, if all that is not bad enough, Doug the Ice Cream shop owner publicly condemns all who ‘refused’ to accept his offer of ice cream. After hiding the existence of the ice cream, and deafening all but a select few from hearing of it Doug the Ice Cream shop owner, who also just happens to be the King of the land, mercilessly slaughters all who arrogantly ‘refused’ to partake of the king’s most generous offer.

           Loading...

      136. Okay…then RH is promoting TUP then, not TULIP.

           Loading...

      137. FOH:
           “Okay…then RH is promoting TUP then, not TULIP.”
           Won’t work. If you have Total Depravity without Unconditional Election and Irrisistible Grace then all would die in sin. If you had Total Depravity and Unconditional Election without Limited Atonement, then all would be saved, as per Universalism. It is all or nothing; one cannot be a 2, 3, or 4-pointer, however many would like to believe they are. At most one could be a 1-pointer, believing in OSAS without the determinism, as most Baptists once did.

           Loading...

      138. Jenai
           It’s like they want the surface language of freedom so it sounds nice, but what they end up with is anything but freedom.

           br,d
           EXACTLY!

           Calvinism embraces the philosophy of Theological Determinism – and freedom is defined in compatibilistic terms.

           Immanuel Kant – “Critique of Practical Reason”
           quote:
           “Compatibilism is a wretched subterfuge with which some persons still let themselves be put off, and so think they have solved lives problems with petty word-jugglery.”

           Dr. William James- “The Dilemma of Determinism”
           quote:
           “Compatibilism is a quagmire of evasion. The Compatibilists strategy relies upon stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism. They make a pretense of restoring the caged bird to liberty with one hand, while with the other they anxiously tie a string to its leg to make sure it can’t get beyond determinism’s grasp.”

           Loading...

      139. JR: “It’s like claiming Doug the Ice cream shop owner only offers one flavor, but he must put it in a special container that the majority of people who enter can’t see.”

           The claim of Calvinism is that the gospel goes to the whole world, as Jesus said, ““Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.” Because of Adam’ sin, people are unrighteous and have no faith (a point you have not disputed so far). So, what is the result, “John was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man…this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” This is the condition of humanity without faith. They have depraved hearts and like Israel, “we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.”

           So, the claim of Calvinism is that “the Ice cream shop owner (God) only offers one flavor,(salvation) and it is there for all to purchase (Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest} but without faith, all who enter refuse and reject it.” Having given people the opportunity to be saved and seeing that all reject salvation, God gets to choose whom He will save – “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,” and “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me.” God’s choices of whom He will save is unconditional, not based on anything in the person but solely “after the counsel of His will.” This is unconditional election.

           So, for whom does Christ die? Does Christ die for those whom God has not given Him and who will not be saved? Paul said, “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” here, “us” refers to the believers to whom Paul writes. Then, “by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain;” and “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.” God is saving His elect and to accomplish this, God had to send Christ to die for them.

           How does God save His elect? “…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God…he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” So, “God who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” “by grace you have been saved through faith;…we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

           Then, JR: “And claiming even if Doug tells them how good it is, it doesn’t help because everyone is deaf.”

           Being unrighteous and without faith, everyone is deaf to the gospel, “we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness.” ”

           Then, “And claiming those who enter can’t even reach a hand out to feel for it, because they are all incapable like dead corpses.”

           Yes. “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.” and “…that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality, for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.”

           Then, “For that matter, they can’t even read the sign advertising ice cream or enter the shop.”

           No. If there is one thing the unsaved know – it is the gospel. That gospel is foolishness to them because they have no faith.

           Then, “Then claiming that Doug (God) arbitrarily chooses a select few that he zaps with life and energy and the ability to see the ice cream.’

           Not “arbitrarily” but “after the counsel of His will.” Theses God gives the new birth so that they can see the kingdom of God and then faith by which they enter the kingdom of God. If you want to say that God zaps them, that is fine. It gets the point across that it is God who saves.

           Then, “But even then he leaves nothing to chance! He hypnotize those who can now see just to make sure they definitely eat the ice cream. And after claiming all those absurdities, making the further claim that everyone is “free” to take or leave the ice cream.”

           What does Christ say, ““f you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” true freedom is only found in Christ. Those who have been freed from slavery to sin are truly free.

           Then, “when people ask for proof, like Tom asked Albert, just assert presuppositions as true, appeal to fallacious reasoning like generalization from the particular, cls oit of context verdes ate support or just appeal to God’s theoretical ability to do whatever He pleases as proof that He pleases to do things in a specific way.”

           Absolutely not. Calvinists appeal to the Scriptures in everything. The worse that you can say is that the Calvinists have misunderstood those Scriptures.

           Loading...

      140. Rhutchin,

           Your comments are a blessing, brother. I truly mean that (no sarcasm implied).

           Your comments should be a reminder to all of us that anyone can take verses, even half verses, out of context, ignoring grammar, to get them to say what we want them to say.

           Your comments should also remind us that we can truly believe something, I mean really, really believe something with all our heart and, yet, still be wrong.

           Still, even with your ongoing ramblings and your rejection of other alternative explanations, you have never been hateful or mean-spirited (At least, not that I have noticed). That is a credit to you. I can’t say that about some who have posted here in the past.

           I believe that most of what you embrace is flawed. Incredibly so. But everyone here embraces some form of error. I know most here reject some of my beliefs. That just means I am outnumbered, but that doesn’t mean I am wrong.

           Again, your comments are a blessing. Other than the occasional drive-by, you are our resident authority on Calvinism. Without your contributions some on-lookers might think we are making this stuff up. And without your comments, most likely we would just be arguing amongst ourselves. And that would be boring.

           Loading...

      141. phillip writes, “Your comments should be a reminder to all of us that anyone can take verses, even half verses, out of context, ignoring grammar, to get them to say what we want them to say.”

           How about explaining how you think verses were misunderstood or misused. One verse at a time, so we can get closure on issues.

           Loading...

      142. Well, brother, I am still waiting for a biblical response to 2 Timothy 2:10…

           “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.”

           An answer that aligns with context, other scripture, and with a proper understanding of grammar. Up to this point, you have failed to do so.

           Loading...

      143. phillip writes, “Well, brother, I am still waiting for a biblical response to 2 Timothy 2:10…
           “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.”

           I am encouraged that you did not challenge the arguments I made to Jenai’s Doug, the Ice Cream Shop owner.

           If memory serves me, you tend to live in an OT world so you see any mention of the “elect” in the NT as a reference to Israel, while I live in a OT/NT world and see the elect as Jews and gentiles. I thought that we had pretty much defined our positions on 2 Timothy 2 and there wasn’t more to say..

           Loading...

      144. No, brother. I live in both the OT and NT too. If I remember correctly, you have taken 3 or 5 cracks at it, while completely ignoring the grammar, which has nothing to do with scripture, but just an elementary education. I do, however, believe we have established that the Jews/Israelites do fit the immediate context.

           2 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV)
           Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David (from the tribe of Judah, a descendant of Jacob/Israel), was raised from the dead according to my gospel, for which I suffer trouble as an evildoer, even to the point of chains (the Jews/Israelites are the ones who have imprisoned him; they are the reason he is in chains); but the word of God is not chained. 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.

           I am completely open to an alternative explanation. But it must align with all of scripture (both OT and NT) and fit the grammar. You cannot ignore the grammar. Or worse, just omit words (erase the words of God) like Piper does.

           Still waiting. Let’s have some closure.

           Loading...

      145. phillip writes, “I am completely open to an alternative explanation.”

           I have no problem with the comments you made in parenthesis – historical content is always good. The problem, if I remember correctly, was the identify of the “elect,” where you wanted this to be physical Israel (physical descendants of Israel) and everyone else recognizes Paul’s reference to be to be Jewish and gentile believers whether present or future.

           Loading...

      146. For any “new” on-lookers, here is a video (which I have posted before) of Calvinist John Piper discussing “the elect” from 2 Timothy 2:10.

           Please take special notice that Piper omits the word “also” each time he quotes the verse. Why? What’s the BIG deal? Because in doing so, it changes the meaning of Paul’s message. The word “also” introduces another category other than “the elect”, which, in this case, would have to be “the non-elect”.

           Below is just three examples in regards to the usage and meaning of “also”….

           Romans 3:29 (NKJV)….
           Or is He the God of the Jews (one category) only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles (a completely different category)?

           Romans 4:9 (NKJV)….
           Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised (one category) only, or upon the uncircumcised (another completely category) also?

           2 Timothy 2:11 (NKJV)….
           This is a faithful saying: For if we died (one event) with Him, We shall also live (a completely different event) with Him.

           With that in mind, we have….

           “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they (the elect; Jews/Israelites) also (with the non-elect; the Gentiles) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           Piper omits the word “also” or “too” each time he quotes this verse. So this had to be by deliberate design. You would think that anyone in the audience with their Bibles open would have noticed this.

           Guess not.

           Loading...

      147. Hi Philip I don’t see the link in your post & I’m interested in listening and sharing the missing; “also” with others. If it’s in this thread I’ can search for it, but I just haven’t been able to read them all.

           Loading...

      148. Blessings, Reggie.

           Piper’s omittance of the word “also” is found in the video I posted above (were you unable to view it?). The video is rather short; just under 4 minutes. In it, Piper references 2 Timothy 2:10 three times. Two times he is reading directly from the text (1:18 and 2:47 marks of the video). Omitting a word once might have been just a mistake, but two times? Three? That’s deliberate. And shameful.

           Even more shameful if his audience failed to notice it.

           Please let me know if you are unable to view the video above.

           Loading...

      149. Hi Phillip I think I see what I must have done wrong which is to not click on continue reading🤔 or something….. but after searching through comments I did indeed find it.. Wow he does leave “also” from the ESV two times. Piper alo leaves out “Therefore” at the beginning, & “the” before salvation. My version the 1984 NIV has “too” in place of also, but you are correct he leaves it out both times… and states; (“I will be victorious with my word being spoken”) WHAT ding ding ding!! who in his close circle isn’t calling him out on such omissions and self centered statements??? Even if at first I didn’t catch the omission, but his statement would have started me question. Thanks for sharing🙋‍♀️

           Loading...

      150. Reggie,

           I remember the first time I watched this, I asked myself “Which translation is he using?” However, when I did the research, all the major and most used translations had either “also” or “too”. KJV, NKJV, NET, NIV, NASB, and even the beloved ESV. All of them. But Piper omits it. Why? Because that one simple word gets in the way of his system. Someone, other than “the elect” may obtain salvation too. And for Calvinism, that’s a “No No”.

           Blessings.

           Loading...

      151. Thanks for pointing that out Phillip.

           Of course in general Piper is revered by the Calvinist crowd and on this site considered nearly flawless by our Calvinists posters.

           (Calvinist) MacArthur takes him to the wood shed cuz he is Pentecostal.

           Oh well…. they can’t be right on everything! ((As long as they agree on determinism: that God is the creator of all evil. That’s all that really matters to them).

           Loading...

      152. You are more than welcome, dear brother.

           I understand that Piper might be a kind, gentle, and passionate believer, but when you start to omit the spoken word of God, something should “go off” in your head.

           When in church service, I always have my Bible open. I know not all translations are verbatim, but the meaning should never change. Again, two times Piper appears to be reading directly from the text. Most likely he is using the ESV, and yet…

           “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they ALSO may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           Also? “Well, we can’t have that, can we!?! Let me see….”

           “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           “There” he says “Much better. And they will be none the wiser.” (insert eerie organ music)

           Loading...

      153. phillip writes, “With that in mind, we have….
           “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they (the elect; Jews/Israelites) also (with the non-elect; the Gentiles) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           O, we can have

           “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that the elect (especially, those I have yet to reach) also (with me) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           Paul is explaining why he endures ordeals and sufferings, even as an evil doer. He is suffering at the hands of the Jews, Romans, idolaters, etc so that those to whom he preaches the gospel might also, together with him, obtain salvation.

           If we identify “elect” with the Jews as phillip suggests, we know from Romans 9, that it would apply not to the physical descendants of Abraham but only to the “children of promise.” However, Paul is not going to the Jews nor are they in view, as we see in his earlier instruction to Timothy, “the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men (primarily gentiles), who will be able to teach others also. Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus… Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead…according to my gospel,” When Paul says “my gospel” he means that the gospel is for the gentiles as well as the Jews.

           Loading...

      154. Rhutchin writes….

           “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that the elect (especially, those I have yet to reach) also (with me) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           What did a say before? A blessing!

           Brothers/Sisters,

           I hope everyone is paying close attention here. This is a CLASSIC example of eisegesis. That is, reading into the text what you want it to say. You couldn’t have a better example, because not is he only ignoring the word of God, but he’s ignoring grammar as well. Rhutchin will not allow God, nor grammar, to get in the way of his system. He has to force into the text what he needs it to say to align with his beliefs.

           Any honest student of the word of God would find rhutchin’s explanation laughable. Just look to what extent he will go to to edit or add to the word of God.

           Shameful. This should be a lesson (and warning) to all of us.

           Look at Acts 28:20 (NKJV). This is the apostle Paul speaking, the same author of the books of Timothy…..

           “For this reason therefore I have called for you, to see you and speak with you, because for the hope of the elect I am bound with this chain.”

           Sounds simple enough, right? Only problem is, that is not exactly what the text says. In scripture Paul writes…..

           “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.”

           See how easily interchangeable “the elect” replaces “Israel”. And the meaning of the text doesn’t even change. Did Paul say it was “because for the hope of the body of Christ I am bound with this chain?” Nope. But that’s what some would have you to believe. Was it “because for the hope of the Gentiles I am bound with this chain?” Again, nope.

           Romans 9:3 (NKJV)…..
           For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh….

           Did Paul say that he was willing to be accursed from Christ for the body of Christ? Or Gentile believers? Nope and nope. O, but that’s what they want it to say.

           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.

           Was Paul magnifying his ministry to the Gentiles in the hope of saving some Gentiles? Nope.

           What did Paul say?

           Romans 10:1 (NKJV)….
           Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.

           So what do we know? What do the scriptures tell us?

           1. It was Paul’s desire that Israel might be saved.

           2. Paul was willing to be accursed from Christ for his fellow Israelites.

           3. Paul magnified his ministry to Gentiles in the very hope of saving his fellow Israelites.

           4. It was for the hope of Israel that Paul wore his chains.

           What does that give us (if we allow God’s unfiltered word to speak)?

           2 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV)…
           Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they (the elect) also (along with the non-elect) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

           Paul was enduring his suffering on account of, and because of, the elect. The elect are the very ones who had him imprisoned. The elect are the ones who locked him up. And it was for these same elect that Paul was willing to suffer in the hopes of them obtaining salvation. Even though Paul’s ministry was to the Gentiles, Paul’s heart was always for the people of Israel.

           So simple. At least, for some.

           Loading...

      155. phillip writes, “Look at Acts 28:20 (NKJV). This is the apostle Paul speaking, the same author of the books of Timothy…..”

           Acts 28
           17 …it happened that after three days he called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they had come together, he began saying to them, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people, or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans….
           20 “For this reason therefore, I requested to see you and to speak with you, for I am wearing this chain for the sake of the hope of Israel.”
           21 And they said to him, “We have neither received letters from Judea concerning you, nor have any of the brethren come here and reported or spoken anything bad about you.
           22 “But we desire to hear from you what your views are; for concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is spoken against everywhere.”

           In context, we understand “the hope of Israel” to be Christ and to the Jews, the Messiah – it was appropriate for Paul to make this connection in speaking to the Jews. However, Paul did not use the term, “elect.” Then, we read, “when they had set a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God, and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening.” Paul does not reder to the Jews as “the elect” but he does preach Christ to them as he did to all people everywhere.

           Then, “Romans 9:3 (NKJV)…..
           For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh….”

           No doubting Paul’s sincerity here for Israel. Then, we read, “…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.” Here, Paul identifies the children of God as the children of promise and these would be the elect – not all of Israel.

           Then, “Paul was enduring his suffering on account of, and because of, the elect. The elect are the very ones who had him imprisoned.”

           If phillip is to be consistent in his reasoning, then he would identify the elect as the children of promise within Israel. Thus, we would have, ”

           “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the [children of promise], that they [the children of promise] also [with the gentiles] may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           That would be a true statement, but I don’t see it fitting the immediate context of Paul’s instruction to Timothy.

           Loading...

      156. Rhutchin,

           Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

           However, you have (continually) failed to address the issue of the “also” or “too” in 2 Timothy 2:10 referring to a different category other than “the elect”. I have even provided biblical examples in an attempt to help you, but you insist “also” just means “the elect” by forcing in the concept of “over time”. This is just grammar. In the words of my Lord and Savior…

           “If I have told you earthly things (like grammar) and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things (like scripture)?”

           I could take 2 Timothy 2:10 to an unbelieving English major and they would understand it. But show it to a Calvinist (and some others) and they struggle. Why?

           Again, quoting you…

           “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that the elect (especially, those I have yet to reach) also (with me) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           Seriously? Again, classic eisegesis. I find it extremely ironic that you reject most (if not all) alternate explanations here by our brothers and sisters in Christ regarding other portions of scripture, but then you dare put that out there as a plausible explanation. Its laughable. And if the shoe was on the other foot, you would be calling me out for doing the same. And justifiably so. Still, I admire your gumption for even attempting to address the issue. However, obviously, you are not going to allow grammar, nor God, to stand in the way of your precious Calvinism.

           Regarding 2 Timothy 2:10 we still don’t have closure, brother. But as long as you continue to ignore grammar, we never will.

           Loading...

      157. phillip writes, “However, you have (continually) failed to address the issue of the “also” or “too” in 2 Timothy 2:10 referring to a different category other than “the elect”.”

           “…the elect..” and “,..they…” are the same group. “…also…” points to something else or someone else (a different category to you), Paul wants the elect to obtain salvation also just like X category has.

           So, we get, “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they (those elect) also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory [even as X has].”

           You make it, “…also (along with the non-elect) may obtain the salvation…” However, the non-elect are not going to be saved – that is why they are non-elect.

           What grammar am I ignoring?

           Loading...

      158. Rhutchin writes….

           “You make it, ‘…also (along with the non-elect) may obtain the salvation…’ However, the non-elect are not going to be saved – that is why they are non-elect.”

           Thank you! And that is precisely what blinds you to the grammar!

           I’ll let brother Brian, who previously explained it to you, yet again. He’s words, not mine…..

           “2 Tim 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.”

           Brother Brian nailed it. I’m trying to help you understand this, brother, but your theology has blinded you to it. Paul can’t be saying what he is saying because you are convinced the non-elect can’t be saved.

           And, yet, here I am! Praise God!!

           Loading...

      159. Phillip,
           And what’s more in that verse…. Why does Paul have to “endure” anything so that others would receive salvation?

           I mean, that puts some of their salvation on his endurance right? Talk about synergism!!

           There is no monergism in that verse! Paul is the first and best Arminian (or non-Calvinist if that term bothers you).

           Paul persuades, reasons with, and convinces people, and is “all things to all men that he might win some…”

           Monergism.com should take all references to Paul off their site (they have can have Luther and Calvin and Mary-worshiping Augustine if they want)

           Loading...

      160. FOH,

           Agreed. In Calvin-land the salvation of the elect is a certainty. Paul could have gone along his merry way and it would have changed nothing.

           But Paul loved his fellow Israelites so much he was willing to be imprisoned by them, and for them.

           “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of my fellow Israelites (the elect), that they also (along with the non-elect; the Gentiles) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           Though it aligns itself perfectly with scripture and grammar, rhutchin can’t allow it.

           You know me, brother. “Arminian” does rub me a bit. I see them as 2 point Calvinists (both adhere to TD/TI and some form of Irresistible Grace). Arminianism is just a softer, user-friendly, version of Calvinism. But, another subject.

           Still, bless his heart, rhutchin struggles with both grammar and scripture. “Well, it can’t mean that, because my system won’t allow it.”

           Well, maybe you need to re-evaluate your system. I mean, just where does your loyalty lie? With God? Or with your beliefs?

           God bless you, brother.

           Loading...

      161. phillip uses Brians analysis, “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.’

           Brian has “elect ones” and “them/they” being two categories of people. As Brian says, “‘even’, has to do with Paul’s introducing ANOTHER CATEGORY of people, besides the Gentiles to whom he is an apostle,” Thus, Brian reads the verse:

           ‘I endure all things for the sake of the [gentiles], that [the Jews] also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           But then, Brian writes, “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,..” So, this gives us:

           “I endure all things for the sake of the [unsaved Jews], that [the gentiles] also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           Then, Brian says, “This other category he also wants to see saved and is willing to keep enduring all things so that might happen.” This would give us the reading:

           “I endure all things on account of the [unsaved Jews], for the sake of [the gentiles] that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           I think this is a good translation as it seems to fit the context.

           You, however, have it:

           ‘I endure all things for the sake of the [Jews], that [the gentiles] also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           Here, your positioning of “for the sake of” seems to be off. If you translate, “even/also” to suggest, “fort the sake of” giving us Brian’s apparent translation – “I endure all things on account of the [unsaved Jews], for the sake of [the gentiles] that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” – I think we have something on which we can agree.

           Maybe, Brian can chime in and gives us his rendition of the verse.

           Loading...

      162. Rhutchin writes…

           “You, however, have it: ‘I endure all things for the sake of the [Jews], that [the gentiles] also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.’”

           Not exactly. You need to go back and re-read my comments and Brian’s as well.

           2 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV)….
           Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect (his fellow Israelites), that they (the elect; his fellow Israelites) also (along with the non-elect; the Gentiles to which he is an apostle) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

           “The elect” is a direct reference to the people of Israel. The “also” or “too” introduces another category of people, who are distinguishable from “the elect”. Given there can only be two groups, that other category would have to be the non-elect, in this case, the Gentiles (or non-Israelites).

           Salvation may be obtained by both Israelites (the elect) and Gentiles (the non-elect). Now here comes the part that is only going to make matters worse for you. Salvation is obtainable by both “the elect” (or Israelites) and the “non-elect” (or non-Israelites), because Christ died for all. Both Jew and Gentile. Both elect and non-elect.

           Loading...

      163. phillip writes, ‘Salvation may be obtained by both Israelites (the elect) and Gentiles (the non-elect). Now here comes the part that is only going to make matters worse for you.”

           I still like this translation:

           “I endure all things on account of the [unsaved Jews/his fellow Israelites], for the sake of [the gentiles] that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           I think you are asking too much of “τηα καὶ αὐτοὶ” in your translation. But, maybe Brian can set it right.

           Loading...

      164. Rhutchin writes…. “I still like this translation:

           ‘I endure all things on account of the [unsaved Jews/his fellow Israelites], for the sake of [the gentiles] that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.’”

           Your “translation” is a mess. You really need to work on your grammar, brother.

           Rhutchin writes… “But, maybe Brian can set it right.”

           He already did when he wrote… “…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.”

           He confirmed I had/have both context and grammar correct, with additional scripture support. Everything you would expect from a sound exegetical analysis.

           Loading...

      165. phillip writes, “He already did when he wrote… “…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.””

           We can both agree to that. That gives us the translation of the first part of the verse as, “Therefore I endure all things on account of whom (the unsaved Jews forcing Paul’s arrest and trial by Rome) he is enduring his current imprisonment….”

           I don’t think that is at issue, Is it?

           Then, given that “also” denotes a different category – gentiles – we get the last part of the verse, “…that [the gentiles] also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           As we seem to be agreeing with Brain on this translation, what is your issue??

           Brian’s translation seems fine to me as it fits the immediate context.

           Loading...

      166. Rhutchin asks… “I don’t think that is at issue, Is it?”

           It has been “one” issue up to now, that is, if you are now willing to concede that the elect are the ones imprisoning him. The elect are the ones locking him up in the hopes of having him killed. The elect are the ones who want him dead.

           Rhutchin then asks… “As we seem to be agreeing with Brain on this translation, what is your issue??”

           The issue is (unless I am mistaken) you fail to see that the Gentiles are not among “the elect”. No doubt, in your mind, this verse means…

           “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect Jews, that they (the elect Jews) also (with the elect Gentiles) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           But that is NOT a valid translation. Whoever the “also” Paul is referring to, they are NOT part of “the elect”. For me, call me crazy, but that would only leave “the non-elect” (remember: another category). And according to Paul, they, the non-elect, can also obtain salvation.

           Also, as Brother Brian just reminded me, the salvation of “the elect” in this verse is no guarantee. Paul feels a high probably that the elect won’t obtain salvation, but he is willing to endure his suffering, at their very hands, in the hopes that they might. Again, this is supported by Romans 11:14 (NKJV)….

           “…if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh (his fellow Israelites) and save some of them.”

           I’m truly trying to help you, brother. But if you want this verse to make any sense at all, you are going to have to jettison Calvinism (though painful as it may be). Or, you can just omit “also” like Piper did. That might be easier. It was for him.

           Loading...

      167. phillip writes, “if you are now willing to concede that the elect are the ones imprisoning him.”

           If by elect, you mean physical Israel. then reading it as “Therefore I endure all things on account of the Jews…”

           Then, “The issue is (unless I am mistaken) you fail to see that the Gentiles are not among “the elect”. No doubt, in your mind, this verse means…”

           I haven’t seen anything preventing that reading. We can read this as, “”Therefore I endure all things on account of God’s elect…”

           Loading...

      168. Rhutchin writes….“I haven’t seen anything preventing that reading.”

           Of course you haven’t, brother.

           Let’s try the ESV (okay?), that’s the Calvinist’s translation of choice.

           2 Timothy 2:10 (ESV)….
           Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they ALSO may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

           1. “The elect” are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Paul’s fellow countrymen according to the flesh.

           2. Paul is enduring his suffering because of, and at the hands of, “the elect” or “God’s chosen ones”. It is “the elect” or “God’s chosen ones” who have imprisoned him and want him put to death.

           3. Paul is willing to endure this suffering by the hands of “the elect” or “God’s chosen ones” so that they also may obtain the salvation in Christ Jesus. There is a high probability they won’t, which is what causes Paul so much anguish (Romans 9:1-3). The salvation of “the elect” or “God’s chosen ones” is not a guarantee. Some of, or worse, perhaps most, of “the elect” will be lost. And Paul knows it!

           4. The “also” or “too” suggests there is another category of people who are not part of “the elect” or “God’s chosen ones”. This would have to be the Gentiles (the non-elect/non-Israelites) to whom he was sent. These, too, may (or may not) obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus.

           I have explained this to the point that even a child could understand it. Brother Brian has been gracious enough to chime in and say pretty much the same thing, though in less words. I’m pretty sure most on-lookers “get it”, though most have probably never thought of it in this way.

           You’re naturally resistant to it, because it refutes so much of what you believe. In the words of Yoda…. “You must unlearn what you have learned”.

           I have personally “Been there. Done that.” And I know its not easy, brother.

           Loading...

      169. The author of “Examining Calvinism” writes this about 2nd Timothy 2:10

           You can see how John Calvin infers that “the church” is the intended reference,[to Paul’s use of the term elect] and by that reference, the Calvinistically elect church. However, the problem is that this would have Paul contrasting one group with the same group, which wouldn’t make sense.

           Question:
           Can the Calvinist interpretation adequately explain the phrase, “they also”?

           Answer:
           Obviously I don’t think that it can. Otherwise, it would be like saying, “For this reason I endure all things for the sake of the Calvinistically elect, so that they too may obtain the salvation which the Calvinistically elect receive.”

           In other words, it makes no sense to contrast one group with the same group. The phrase, “they also,” can only make sense if it is contrasting differing groups.

           Laurence Vance writes: “To believe that Paul strove (Rom. 15:20) and labored in the Gospel (Phil. 4:3), enduring (2 Tim. 2:10) beatings, stoning, imprisonments, shipwreck, perils, pain, hunger and cold (2 Cor. 11:23-27) for the sake of the ‘elect’ who would be saved anyway is the most preposterous excuse ever offered in support of Unconditional Election.” (The Other Side of Calvinism, p.369)

           Additionally – if Paul endured all of these things for those who would be saved anyway, due to an irresistible, unavoidable, impossible-to-miss grace, simply because Paul might possibly have assumed it as “the predestined means,” [also] infers quite a bit upon Paul.

           To suppose that sufferings would be “the predestined means,” just doesn’t seem to be an adequate motivation.

           A more logical, sensible and plausible motivation is the idea that effort is something that aims towards that which *CAN* be, rather than something that WILL REGARDLESS INEVITABLY be.

           I believe that this references to the Jews. Why would Paul add the description of Jesus being a “descendant of David”? David was a Jew. Who caused Paul such “hardship”? It was the Jews. Who chased him down from city to city, and had him stoned and placed in prison and treated as a “criminal”?

           It was the Jews.

           Loading...

      170. BrD,

           Thank you, brother, for sharing this.

           Calvin isn’t the only one who reads “the church” into 2 Timothy 2:10, most non-Calvinists do too.

           In the video with Piper, he states, regarding the elect, that “Paul doesn’t have a clue who they are”. Wrong. Paul knows exactly who the elect are. That entire 4 minute video is based on a false premise. Its garbage and should be treated as such.

           Now from your post….

           “In other words, it makes no sense to contrast one group with the same group. The phrase, ‘they also’, can only make sense if it is contrasting differing groups.”

           Gee. Sounds familiar.

           Then….

           “I believe that this references to the Jews. Why would Paul add the description of Jesus being a ‘descendant of David’? David was a Jew. Who caused Paul such ‘hardship’? It was the Jews. Who chased him down from city to city, and had him stoned and placed in prison and treated as a ‘criminal’? It was the Jews.”

           Makes sense to me. Of course there is other scriptural support as well.

           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.”

           Context. Grammar. Other scriptural support. Everything you would expect from a sound exegetical analysis.

           And, yet, most still want to pull a Piper…

           “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they **poof** may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           Loading...

      171. I agree – I think Piper is just doing what all Calvinists are taught to do – makes all kinds of blind speculations – in order to maintain the sacred science – and make it APPEAR to align with scripture. And it always leads them into a ditch of self-contradictions and IRRATIONAL assertions.

           Loading...

      172. BrD,

           Just curious, brother, and I don’t mean to put you in the line of fire. With everything you have read, do you think I am way off base?

           Loading...

      173. So far I have not had that perception – off base concerning what?

           Loading...

      174. The elect in 2 Timothy 2:10 referring to the Israel/the Jews?

           Loading...

      175. I think that makes the most sense of that passage. Although Paul in other places calls Jews with different references. “my brethren after the flesh”, or “the circumcision” etc.

           Loading...

      176. Thanks, brother. I agree.

           Clearly, Jesus is speaking about the Jews when He uses the phrase “the elect” in Matthew 24.

           So, if “the elect” refers to the Jews in 2 Timothy 2:10, then the other group (not an individual; we are contrasting different groups) other than “they also” would point to the “non-elect”, or the non-Jew, in this context, the Gentiles.

           This is a hard teaching for some because they are convinced that every time they see the phrase “the elect” they are sure it refers to believers, or those who are saved. Here, in 2 Timothy 2:10 we see Paul calling a group of people “the elect” and, yet, in Paul’s mind (and language) they are still lost.

           Loading...

      177. I think we will find messianic and rabbinical scholars who would agree with this interpretation.

           I note that Paul uses the same root-word (ἐκλεκτ) ῶν in 1 Timothy 5:21 – where he refers to “elect” angels.

           I believe the word בְחִיר֗וֹ in Ps.106:23 – in regard to Moses – is translated as “Yahweh’s Chosen One” or “elected” one.

           And it seems like Paul’s choice of words when he references Israel – he tends to use specific adjectives to describe them in the context of his different thoughts concerning them. There is a historic sense in which Israel was God’s chosen people – set apart from the rest of the nations to be a nation of kings and priests (exodus 19:6) – and that could be conceived as a form of “election”.

           King Saul was chosen for a specific purpose as was David. So there is a form of “chosen” status that is consistent in God’s dealing with Israel. And since Paul is willing to call Angels “elect” – which would probably be a reference to their status of being chosen for specific purposes – then its quite reasonable to allow for Paul to use the same root word in regard to the Jewish people.

           This would be an excellent question to ask Dr. Michael Brown

           Loading...

      178. BrD,

           I found the below on that website you pointed out (Examining Calvinism). Again, thanks for sharing!

           “The phrase ‘they also’ ruins this interpretation. If you take out ‘they also’, the Calvinist interpretation becomes more plausible, but who would want to subtract from Scripture? The text would look like this: ‘For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they…may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.’ That would eliminate the contrast, and would make the calvinistically elect into the sole object.”

           But who would want to subtract from Scripture? John Piper!

           Then, same website…

           Question: Who are the “chosen” and what is the implication of “they also”?

           Answer: I believe that this references to the Jews. Why would Paul add the description of Jesus being a “descendant of David”? David was a Jew. Who caused Paul such “hardship”? It was the Jews. Who chased him down from city to city, and had him stoned and placed in prison and treated as a “criminal”? It was the Jews. Yet, despite being an apostle to the Gentiles, Paul had a zealous passion for reaching the Jews. (Romans 9:1-5, 10:1-3, 11:12-14) That explains the expression, “they also.” It must be pointed out that Paul sometimes references the Jews by other expressions. Galatians 2: 7-9 states: “But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” Another example is Romans 15:8: “For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy.” It’s clear that Paul is making an indirect reference to the Jews. That seems to be the case at 2nd Timothy 2:10 as well, given all of the aforementioned factors. Moreover, I believe that the Jews are specifically called “elect” by Jesus, insomuch that the Jews have an election in Abraham. At Matthew 24:22-31, Jesus specifically discusses what I believe must exclusively be the Jews.
           ………………..

           Agreed. If you believe “the church” is the elect then you have the body of Christ going thru the tribulation period. There are those, like myself, who believe the church will be in heaven during the tribulation period. If so, then who are “the elect” in Matthew 24:22-31? The language points to the Jews.

           Loading...

      179. Piper is a typical Calvinist in how he AUTO-MAGICALLY superimposes the irrational world of Calvinism into everything.
           I think Mr. Piper is probably one of the most popular voices of Calvinist double-speak in their guild.

           Loading...

      180. phillip writes, “2. Paul is enduring his suffering because of, and at the hands of, “the elect” or “God’s chosen ones”. It is “the elect” or “God’s chosen ones” who have imprisoned him and want him put to death.”

           Paul is being harassed by the Jewish leaders and he endures this on account of the elect, So the ESV, “Therefore I endure everything [done to me by the Jews] for the sake of the elect [of God]…,” I think you have a point in the treatment of “dia” by the translators. It seems that the verse could be translated as “Therefore I endure everything on account of the elect [physical] Israel,…” It doesn’t make sense to me, because earlier Paul says he is suffering because of the gospel making those whom God is saving his concern.

           Then, “3. Paul is willing to endure this suffering by the hands of “the elect” or “God’s chosen ones” so that they also may obtain the salvation in Christ Jesus.”

           So, Paul endures suffering at the hands of the Jews so that the remnant can be saved. That’s fine.

           Then, “4. The “also” or “too” suggests there is another category of people who are not part of “the elect” or “God’s chosen ones”.

           “also” identifies with “they” and the antecedent of “they” is the previous “elect.” If you make the elect to be the physical nation of Israel, you cannot add the gentiles into “they.” The grammar does not allow it. You have Paul writing that he endures suffering at the hands of the Jews in order that the remnant would be saved – the remnany uniquely identifies with the “children of promise” in Romans 9, and does not include gentiles.

           Then, “I have explained this to the point that even a child could understand it. ”

           While taking a few liberties with the text (principally your treatment of “they” and its antecedent). However, you still need to explain why Paul would be talking about physical Israel in the context of his instructions to Timothy. You have done half the job – the half that allows your personal views of v10.

           Loading...

      181. Rhutchin writes….

           “the ‘also’ identifies with ‘they’ and the antecedent of ‘they’ is the previous “elect.” If you make the elect to be the physical nation of Israel, you cannot add the gentiles into ‘they’. The grammar does not allow it.”

           You’re a mess, brother.

           “They” is a reference back to “the elect”, which is the people of Israel. The “also” is added to show someone other than “they” or “the elect” can obtain salvation. In context, that would have to be the “non-elect”, in this case the non-Israelites, or Gentiles. Thus…

           Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that the elect also (along with the non-elect) may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

           Or….

           Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the Jews, that the Jews also (along with the Gentiles) may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

           The “also” changes everything, which is why Piper omits it (to his shame). This is how he reads it….

           “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they (the elect) may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           That’s what you want it to say. But Paul (by inspiration) added “also” for a reason. Even though Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul is willing to suffer for the sake of the Jews (the elect), and by their hand, in hopes that they (the elect) will obtain salvation as well, along with the Gentiles.

           Why do I get the impression that everyone else “gets it”, but you don’t.

           Loading...

      182. phillip writes, ““They” is a reference back to “the elect”, which is the people of Israel. The “also” is added to show someone other than “they” or “the elect” can obtain salvation. In context, that would have to be the “non-elect”, in this case the non-Israelites, or Gentiles. Thus…

           Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that the elect also (along with the non-elect) may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           That’s a little hard to take.”…also..” modifies “…they…” – “…that the elect also…” Inserting “(along with the non-elect)” is not called for by any stretch of the imagination. That’s you trying to make the verse say something it does not.

           At least, we seem to have identified our positions. I don’t see anything else to be gained.

           Loading...

      183. Rhutchin writes… “That’s a little hard to take.’…also..’ modifies ‘…they…’ – ‘…that the elect also…’ Inserting ‘(along with the non-elect)’ is not called for by any stretch of the imagination. That’s you trying to make the verse say something it does not.”

           Not at all. Since the text clearly points “they” to “the elect” and since “also” implies another category in direct contrast to “the elect”, the only viable option would have to be the non-elect. Very simple to those who are willing to grasp it.

           Maybe this will help you…

           “Therefore I endure all this for the sake of rhutchin, that he also may obtain a better understanding of this scripture.”

           You said “At least, we seem to have identified our positions. I don’t see anything else to be gained.”

           Perhaps. However, “my” position fits both the context and the grammar, plus with additional scriptural support. Even Brian acknowledges this. “Your” position fails on every front.

           Loading...

      184. phillip writes, “Maybe this will help you…
           “Therefore I endure all this for the sake of rhutchin, that he also may obtain a better understanding of this scripture.”

           To what would “also” refer in the above? Me?

           Loading...

      185. No, brother. “Also” would refer to those not named “rhutchin”, but who might be reading along.

           Thanks for asking.

           Loading...

      186. Rhutchin.

           My bad. I did that rather quickly.

           The “also” applies to you. However, the “also” suggests someone other than “rhutchin” might obtain a better understanding of this scripture as well.

           You’re the reason I am enduring all of this, and its for your benefit, but other “on-lookers” can benefit from it as well.

           Loading...

      187. Phillip writes:
           ““Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they (the elect) may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           That’s what you want it to say. But Paul (by inspiration) added “also” for a reason. Even though Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul is willing to suffer for the sake of the Jews (the elect), and by their hand, in hopes that they (the elect) will obtain salvation as well, along with the Gentiles.

           Why do I get the impression that everyone else “gets it”, but you don’t.”

           Add me to the ‘don’t get it’ list. 😉

           I do not see how you justify ignoring the plain, most natural reading of the verse. It is no different from someone saying, ‘Therefore I paid the big bucks for the kids’ tickets, so that they also may go to the playoff game.’ One could mean the exact same thing with or without the explicit use of the word ‘also’, but the implication of the ‘also’ is that the speaker, and potentially unnamed others were already going to the game, and it was decided that it was worth the extra money so that the kids could also go to the game. You are simply reading anything else into the passage due to presupposition. I find this to be the case whenever one attempts to assert that ‘the elect’ must mean ‘the Jews’, when in every case it could just as easily, or more easily, refer to ‘all who will ever believe’.

           Note, I am not saying you MUST be wrong, but you easily might be, as is so often true of interpretations made by adding or insisting on a meaning that is not made clear in the passage.

           Perhaps you might rest your case on this issue, as your opinion has been made clear, but is not by any means universally held. I do not begrudge you the right to your own personal opinions, but simply challenge the repeated claims that ‘all get it’, when, frankly, ‘all’ don’t necessarily believe what you believe. No offense intended.

           Loading...

      188. TS00,

           Perhaps I should clarify what I meant by “why do I get the impression that everyone else ‘gets it’, but you don’t.”

           I never said that everyone “agrees” with me (I know better), but rather everyone else might “get” what I am attempting to explain. My explanation to rhutchin appears to come across as not being understandable (he’s baffled by the explanation). Where I believe everyone else clearly understands what I am saying, regardless if they accept it or not.

           For example, I believe you “get” what I am saying, but you just don’t agree with me. I’m fine with that.

           Loading...

      189. Thanks for that explanation. And for not taking offense. 😉 Yes, I’m afraid it appears at times that good ol’ rhutchin pretends to not ‘get’ what one is saying, for reasons of his own. But we love him anyway. You are correct that I understand your view, and even grant that it might be possible, but do not find it to be the most logical or scripturally consistent interpretation.

           Loading...

      190. No worries, brother. I’m thicker skinned than that.

           If I was failing to get my point across (even with rhutchin), then that’s on me. Once everyone understands what I am saying, I’m clean. I am starting to think Rhutchin just wants me to live in the tub 😉

           Loading...

      191. I learned a long time ago that RH is not here to be open-minded or truth-seeking. I pay close attention to behavior patterns. Calvinist language is not a truth-telling language – its a cosmetic language designed to air-brush an acceptable image of Calvinism. So it makes sense that a Calvinist would dedicate himself to that cause.

           Loading...

      192. Just briefly,

           Salvation is an “already and not yet” concept in scripture. We have salvation from the first moment of faith when we die to sin and God raises us to new life; we hold salvation as we continue to believe; we get salvation in future at the judgement when we are given new spiritual bodies.

           “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may hit upon the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” II Tim 2:10 (There is no ‘and with it’ – just with.

           ‘Obtain’ here is simply ‘hit the mark,’ the antonym/opposite of hemartia (sin/to miss the mark.) So it is quite possible (especially in light of the phrase “eternal life” and the next few verses which mention reigning with Christ in conjunction with enduring that Paul is speaking of our future eternal life. Encouragement of the saints would seem to fit the context well.

           There are some potential parallel scriptures:

           “If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer.” II Cor 1:6

           The Corinthian church are already believers. So ‘salvation’ here would be in either/both the present and future sense a believer has salvation.

           “For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.” II Cor 4:17

           I think there are some others as well.

           Tit 1:1-2 also shows the elect waiting for eternal life – back to that ‘already and not yet’ factor.

           “Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness— in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, and which now at his appointed season he has brought to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior…”

           So just a possibility here, but Paul could easily be talking of the the faithful in Christ Jesus who are chosen to be made holy and who are waiting for new spiritual bodies at the judgement (eternal life) vs. talking about people who have yet to put faith in Christ.

           Loading...

      193. I think it is clear from the text that Paul is worried about “the elect’s” salvation, and not just some other future spiritual blessing. Those other spiritual blessings will happen to those who are in Christ Jesus, so the “may” is not an option.

           Though another author, we read…

           1 John 5:13 (NKJV)…
           These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have (present tense) eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

           While it is true that believers await their future glorification, I think its clear in 2 Timothy 2:10 that Paul’s concern is for the salvation of the elect, and not just some additional spiritual benefit for them. The “also” in 2 Timothy 2:10 suggests another category of people in direct contrast to “the elect”, rather than “also” referring to another spiritual benefit for “the elect” other than salvation itself.

           Something to think about.

           Loading...

      194. Concern about future salvation is still concern about salvation, not merely lesser spiritual blessings. Salvation, for the believer, is past, present, and future. The final blessings of salvation, such as being resurrected in a new spiritual body, are not granted until judgement day, even though the believer has present assurance that those promises will be fulfilled. Right now we have the promise of eternal glory, not the actuality, even though scripture in both Hebrew and Greek often idiomatically treats the promises of God as present realities. None of us are sinless, or walking around with resurrected bodies, or literally dwelling in the New Jerusalem, or have attended the wedding feast of the lamb, etc. We “have” those things now because they are promised to believers, but we will see them fulfilled in the future.

           In II Cor 1 we see Paul being afflicted “for the comfort and salvation” of the Corinthian church, who are already believers. In Eph 1 we see Paul in prison for the sake of the Gentiles of the Ephesian church, also presumably believers. In II Cor 4:17 we see again Paul’s suffering working out an “eternal weight of glory” in Paul and other Christians who suffer, even though he is already saved.

           This fits with the context, considering Paul’s very next line that “if we died (aorist) with him, we will also live with him (future active indicative.)” And “if we endure, we will reign with him” contrasted with the opposite response to affliction, “denying/disowning” Christ. This strongly implies, if not mandates, that the elect under discussion are believers, and he is hoping that his example will help them stand fast in times of affliction so they will continue to the end and be saved. It also fits with Paul’s earlier analogy that “If anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.”

           See also I Pet 1:1-9, where Peter addresses the exiles as part of God’s elect, and also speaks of their inheritance kept in heaven for them until the “coming of salvation which is ready to be revealed in the last time” and explains that their suffering and trials are there to test/prove the genuineness of their faith, and the end result of faith is the salvation of their souls. Different author, but same concept.

           Even further support for this is found back in the context, in II Tim 2:18, where Paul talks about false teachers who have departed from the truth. The specific teaching, destroying the faith of some, was their claim that the Resurrection had already taken place! Paul then would have great cause to worry and want to reassure the church, by his own suffering if needed, that the hope of the Resurrection and eternal glory was still ahead of them.

           And again the “obtain” of II Tim 2:10 (ugchanó) is “to hit the mark” – the word is the opposite of sin, “to miss the mark.” -.
           That is, “that they may also hit upon the mark of salvation in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” https://biblehub.com/greek/5177.htm

           Perhaps theoretically that could refer to getting faith so as to be saved, but that seems a strained way to take it and alien to the context. More likely it is used in the sense Jesus employs the term:

           “But those who are considered worthy of *attaining* the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage” Luke 10:35

           Or the author of Hebrews: “Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might *attain* an even better resurrection.” Heb 11:35

           And considering the original manuscripts did not have verse breaks or punctuation, it’s worth considering I Tim 2:14 and beyond as well. While some translations throw in a “the people of God’ – there is no such thing in the Greek. It’s simply “These things remind [them,] solemnly charging [them] before God…” with the ‘them’ implied by the grammar in reference back to a plural group Paul has spoken of before. But what group? He’s referred to Timothy (audience of letter,) himself, reliable people, the elect, and to “we” which seems to be the inclusive of Paul and believers. Timothy is supposed to remind this group, so while he could be a part of the group referenced, it wouldn’t make grammatical sense to think Timothy needs to remind “we.” But “elect” is the next closest term and fits well as a plural group which Timothy can address:

           “These things remind [the elect,] solemnly charging [the elect] in the sight of God….

           As for Paul’s “also” it makes perfect sense grammatically. He suffers all the afflictions he has and will undergo for the sake of the elect, that they also [as well as himself] will attain salvation in Christ Jesus with eternal glory [at the Resurrection of the dead.] The other ‘category’ is not the ‘non-elect,’ but simply Paul himself.

           It would be like if I said, “I plan to buy and give out tickets and give rides to my friends so they also can go to Prom.” No one would think the ‘also’ implies I will be buying tickets for my enemies. Rather, the “also” just implies that I myself will be getting a ticket and driving to Prom.

           Loading...

      195. Jenai,

           Thanks for your thoughtful and well laid out reply.

           The below are not my words, but another brother in Christ (regarding 2 Timothy 2:10)….

           “I believe that this references to the Jews. Why would Paul add the description of Jesus being a ‘descendant of David’? David was a Jew. Who caused Paul such ‘hardship’? It was the Jews. Who chased him down from city to city, and had him stoned and placed in prison and treated as a ‘criminal’? It was the Jews. Yet, despite being an apostle to the Gentiles, Paul had a zealous passion for reaching the Jews. (Romans 9:1-5, 10:1-3, 11:12-14) That explains the expression, ‘they also’. It must be pointed out that Paul sometimes references the Jews by other expressions. Galatians 2: 7-9 states: ‘But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.’ Another example is Romans 15:8: ‘For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy.’ It’s clear that Paul is making an indirect reference to the Jews. That seems to be the case at 2 Timothy 2:10 as well, given all of the aforementioned factors. Moreover, I believe that the Jews are specifically called ‘elect’ by Jesus, insomuch that the Jews have an election in Abraham. At Matthew 24:22-31, Jesus specifically discusses what I believe must exclusively be the Jews. Yet, despite all of their persecutions against him, Paul’s desire was that they ‘may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus.’ (2nd Timothy 2:10) This is because Paul still dearly loved his Jewish brothers, so much so, that he made this statement: ‘My heart is filled with bitter sorrow and unending grief for my people, my Jewish brothers and sisters. I would be willing to be forever cursed – cut off from Christ! – if that would save them.’ (Romans 9:2-4, NLT) Paul was willing to be forever cursed, if that would satisfy God’s justice and save his Jewish brothers. That shows just how much Paul truly loved his Jewish brothers who knew not what they were doing. Paul’s endurance of his mischievous Jewish brothers stems from his sincere love for them, and his enduring hope that they may also come to know Christ as Savior. That’s what Paul was referring to at 2nd Timothy 2:8-10.”

           I agree. The only thing I would like to add that my brother above left out is the following….

           Acts 28:17-20 (NKJV)….
           And it came to pass after three days that Paul called the leaders of the Jews together. So when they had come together, he said to them: “Men and brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans, who, when they had examined me, wanted to let me go, because there was no cause for putting me to death. But when the Jews spoke against it, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar, not that I had anything of which to accuse my nation. 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.”

           Loading...

      196. phillip is another message wrote, “So, if “the elect” refers to the Jews in 2 Timothy 2:10, then the other group (not an individual; we are contrasting different groups) other than “they also” would point to the “non-elect”, or the non-Jew, in this context, the Gentiles.

           Here, he cites another individual to say, “That shows just how much Paul truly loved his Jewish brothers who knew not what they were doing. Paul’s endurance of his mischievous Jewish brothers stems from his sincere love for them, and his enduring hope that they may also come to know Christ as Savior. That’s what Paul was referring to at 2nd Timothy 2:8-10.”

           This is contrary to what phillip has been saying. This individual says that “Paul’s endurance of his mischievous Jewish brothers” is derived from “his enduring hope that they may also come to know Christ as Savior.” Earlier, the individual said, “Yet, despite being an apostle to the Gentiles, Paul had a zealous passion for reaching the Jews. (Romans 9:1-5, 10:1-3, 11:12-14) That explains the expression, ‘they also’.” In other words, this individual says that Paul is only talking about the Jews in the flesh when he says, “the elect” and then his concern is that they, “the elect,” may also come to know Christ as Savior.

           Yet, phillip writes, “I agree,” when he has been disagreeing in his comments. So phillip, can you straighten out what I take this individual is be saying?

           Loading...

      197. I really don’t see the problem here, rhutchin. I really think everyone else reading along understands fully what has been put out there. You seem to be the only one struggling with this. Why, I don’t know.

           However, let me put it this way. The Father called them “the elect/the chosen ones” in the OT. The Son called them “the elect” in the four gospels. “The elect”, “the Jews”, “the circumcision”, are all synonymous with one another. With that in mind we have…

           “I endure all things for the sake of the circumcised, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.”

           Do you see anything in that verse regarding the heathen/gentiles/uncircumcised? Not directly. However, salvation was not only to the circumcised (the Jews), but the uncircumcised (the Gentiles) as well. Hence, the “also”, which suggests someone other than the circumcised could (or may) obtain salvation. That other group, in direct contrast to the circumcised, would have to be the uncircumcised. Paul is saying that the elect/the Jews/the circumcised, could (or may) also obtain the salvation that the non-elect/the Gentiles/the uncircumcised were experiencing.

           Loading...

      198. phillip writes, “Do you see anything in that verse regarding the heathen/gentiles/uncircumcised? Not directly.”

           The key admission – “Not directly.” That is the point that I (and even TS00) was making. You are mixing translation with commentary to say, “Paul is saying that the elect/the Jews/the circumcised, could (or may) also obtain the salvation that the non-elect/the Gentiles/the uncircumcised were experiencing.” No one disagrees on that point. The only point at issue is what Paul meant when he used the term, “elect” and two viable positions exist.

           Loading...

      199. I’ll let my “other brother” answer this.

           “The phrase, ‘they also’, ruins this interpretation. If you take out they ‘also’, the Calvinist interpretation becomes more plausible, but who would want to subtract from Scripture? The text would look like this: ‘For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they…may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.’ That would eliminate the contrast, and would make the calvinistically elect into the sole object.”

           Agreed. Your position would require “pulling a Piper”. Then we also have what brother Brian (objectively) has provided…

           “The context leans towards identifying the ‘elect’ as the same ones ‘on account of which’ he is willing to endure suffering, that they also (the ones causing the suffering) ‘may obtain’ salvation… but not certain they will.”

           1. “The elect” are the elect if they obtain salvation or not
           2. There is a high probability the “the elect” will not obtain salvation
           3. The elect are the ones who have imprisoned him and want him dead

           My viable position address all 3 points. Your viable position fails miserably on all 3.

           Hence, only one viable position, though painful as it may be.

           Loading...

      200. Isn’t that horse dead already? 😉 And a bit off topic.

           Loading...

      201. “Isn’t that horse dead already?”

           I wish.

           “And a bit off topic.”

           Please show me one article (one thread) on this website that has ever stayed on topic. 🙂

           Loading...

      202. Phillip
           I really don’t see the problem here, rhutchin. I really think everyone else reading along understands fully what has been put out there. You seem to be the only one struggling with this. Why, I don’t know.

           br.d
           We should have warned you in advance Phillip. One will observe over time with Calvinist here – that they see only what they want to see. What they don’t want to see doesn’t exist for them. At some point you will recognize – dialog with RH becomes tail-chasing. That’s just the nature of the beast.

           Loading...

      203. I understand, brother. I have observed the same with Brian interacting with rhutchin over the years. Whoever said “patience is a virtue” never tangled with a Calvinist. Still, had to try.

           However, to be fair, Calvinists are not the only issue here. Our Arminian brothers do the same. For them, “the elect” are those whom God foresees will have faith in Christ. Hence, they have believers, or those in Christ, wanting Paul dead.

           Ouch!

           Loading...

      204. yes I see.
           And I think also perhaps we are looking at the difference between general bible readers vs how a scholar approaches a certain text – “supposedly” with an open mind.

           When E. P. Sanders published his book “The New Perspective on Paul” it landed like a large bomb that exploded right in the middle of biblical scholarship. And things went flying in different directions. Some scholars who hold a death-grip on their tradition of interpretation adamantly rejected making any consideration of it. Others who are open minded and focused on discovering the N.T. author’s intent behind the text were open to applying his findings into their considerations to see how they would survive under scrutiny.

           The general bible reader however is more inclined to believe whatever he is told by someone he chooses as a voice of influence.
           That type of behavior is what kept Europe in the dark ages under the authority of the RC for so many years.

           Loading...

      205. BrD,

           Agreed. However, this behavior has been going on for centuries.

           John 12:42 (NKJV)….
           Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue

           Honestly, I am not overly impressed by “the experts”. Just give me someone untrained and thirsty for the word. Someone who is willing to think for himself and take the road less traveled.

           Again, I want to thank you for providing that quote (and additional support. I didn’t know it was out there). It says something about you. You, obviously, gave my position credence (when you could have just as easily brushed it off) and therefore were willing to do your own homework. I won’t forget it.

           Many blessings, dear brother.

           Loading...

      206. Thanks!
           And my hats off to you for being a discoverer in the process.
           While others simply accept and believe what they are told.

           Loading...

      207. Good morning Roger, I prefer not to get back into a discussion over this text – 2Timothy 2:10 Suffice to say that this context does not suggest in the least the teaching of individuals elect before creation unto certain salvation after creation. That has to be read into this text. The context leans towards identifying the “elect” as the same ones “on account of which” he is willing to endure suffering, that they also (the ones causing the suffering) “may obtain” salvation… but not certain they will.

           Loading...

      208. Brian,

           Thanks for chiming in, brother. I felt you didn’t want to (which is fine), but your insight and expertise is appreciated. Also, I appreciate your willingness to be open to other plausible interpretations, especially when they might come to odds with your own.

           You are a blessing.

           Loading...

      209. brianwagner writes, “Suffice to say that this context does not suggest in the least the teaching of individuals elect before creation unto certain salvation after creation. ”

           It identified people as elect without indicating a time frame for that election.

           Then, “The context leans towards identifying the “elect” as the same ones “on account of which” he is willing to endure suffering, that they also (the ones causing the suffering) “may obtain” salvation… but not certain they will.”

           That seems to play fast and loose with rules on antecedents, as “they” would, by rule, trace back to “the elect.”

           Loading...

      210. I also like Randolph Yeager’s translation:

           “That is why I have been enduring all of this – for the sake of the elect, in order that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           Of course, “elect” here would be comprised of both Jews and gentiles.

           Loading...

      211. Phillip,
           I’m stunned here!!

           Why would any Calvinist quote this verse??

           “That is why I have been enduring all of this – for the sake of the elect, in order that they also may obtain the salvation…”

           Paul has to “endure” something “in order that….”

           Man is he taking credit for part of their salvation!

           If we said that anywhere near a Calvinist today they would immediately accuse us of “robbing God of His glory….cuz man cannot do anything ‘in order that’ another man get saved. That is 100% God’s job!”

           I present to you Paul….. the first and best non-Calvinist disciple!

           Loading...

      212. FOH,

           Maybe this is what Paul really meant….

           2 Timothy 2:10 (Calvinist Translation)…

           “Therefore I endure nothing, absolutely nothing, for the sake of the elect, because they, and they alone, will obtain the salvation which is Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           That’s what they want it to say. But…..NOT!

           Loading...

      213. Phillip:
           One of the things I noticed is how many times Calvinists start the explanation of a passage with “It doesnt really mean what it looks like” or “world here doesnt mean world” or “this is an anthropomorphism and it doesnt mean what it says…”

           There are hundreds and hundreds of these passages that they say “dont meant what they say.” Why they are all in the Word (misleading us about God if Calvinists are right) they can never say.

           Loading...

      214. Well, if true, brother, that is disappointing. Sounds like Catholicism to me. “Here. Its too complicated for you. I’ll tell you what it says. Trust ‘me’.”

           But, Calvinists do believe they are the “enlightened ones”. The only reason they are Calvinist is because of God’s grace. That’s what separates them from everyone else. God’s grace.

           Loading...

      215. Phillip
           Sounds like Catholicism to me.

           br.d
           N.T. Write does say that John Calvin was essentially a Catholic with a small “c”

           Loading...

      216. FOH writes, “There are hundreds and hundreds of these passages that they say “dont meant what they say.””

           Still with the feigned ignorance of the Calvinism he claims to have believed. FOH knows that Calvinists agree with the non-Calvinists on many things that the Scriptures tell us – they then argue that the Scriptures say much more than that. For example, without faith, a person cannot be saved. Calvinists argue that we must take all the Scriptures into account and not just some as FOH would like people to do. Why does FOH have to malign Calvinism to make his points. Why can’t he just say that he chooses to ignore certain verses and be done with it?

           Loading...

      217. GraceAdict,

           I understand. It can be frustrating, but we are supposed to be patient with our brothers and sisters.

           But, again, to his credit, Rhutchin has never been rude, hateful, or mean-spirited. And from dealing with other Calvinists, that’s refreshing in and of itself.

           Still, I have dealt with other Calvinists who have said to me “well, you have given me something to think about.” That, at least, showed a “willingness” to consider that other options might be viable.

           Rhutchin, to date, seems unwilling to yield to anything, which is unfortunate.

           I never thought I would have to teach grammar though. Not my field.

           Loading...

      218. GA,
           Sorry we must not have told you —when you started posting —- “RH is gonna just waste your time going ’round in circles.” Several of us dont answer him any more (thus I get accused of all kinds of things…cuz he knows I wont answer).

           But I do like to interact with those who have shown his huge mistakes. And you are right, he never admits them….. My favorite lately was the one about God sincerely offering salvation and people freely rejecting it.

           That is the “feel-good” side of Calvinists. But when they are feeling bold and in-your-face-ish they will easily proclaim that Limited Atonement means that God never intended to offer Christ to the 95%. There is no offer!

           But with the proliferation of words on websites you see more and more of them saying “God loves everyone …. in a certain way.” Piper even says Christ died for everyone “in some sense.” Here is his article: “In What Sense Did Christ Die For The Non-Elect?”

           https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/in-what-sense-did-christ-die-for-the-non-elect

           This is a long sermonette of mish-mash of both sides of the position.

           He shows no shame to say in the same article….

           “The offering of his Son is the offering of salvation to the world.”

           “The new covenant is not an offer of salvation.”

           He even says this…..

           “Now, we’ll come back to this in just a moment to answer the question ‘For what tangible reason did Christ die for the non-elect?'”

           But he never comes back to it. Oh, he quotes John 3:16 and then says, “He loved the world so that everyone who believes would have life.”

           And that …..my friends is how Calvinists learn to talk like Calvinists one minute and Methodist-Pentecostals the next.

           That is how he answers the title of the article “In What Sense Did Christ Die For The Non-Elect?”

           Wow…… and people follow this guy?

           Loading...

      219. FOH
           And that …..my friends is how Calvinists learn to talk like Calvinists one minute and Methodist-Pentecostals the next.

           br.d
           Which makes them look like this:
           https://www.123rf.com/photo_2257739_two-faced-woman.html

           Loading...

      220. FOH writes, “My favorite lately was the one about God sincerely offering salvation and people freely rejecting it.”

           This is FOH rejecting the Calvinist notion that a sincere offer of the gospel can be made to those who do not have faith or that people without faith freely reject the gospel. What does Paul say, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,” Also, “we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,” Are we to think, as FOH, that Paul’s preaching of the gospel was not sincere or that the gospel was not freely rejected – even if we understand the severe constraints placed on a person through lack of faith?

           Loading...

      221. Rhutchin – you keep treating faith (noun) as something effectually granted from without, like God somehow gives some people trust itself rather than showing Himself trustworthy to keep His promises, and that being enough to persuade many to trust in Him when presented with the gospel message [The gospel message being in essence Christ revealing and accomplishing salvation and showing the way to be reconciled to God and inherit the promises for all those who will trust in Christ.]

           Let’s look briefly at Rom 10:17:

           “So faith [is] from hearing, and hearing through [the] word of Christ.”

           Much of the force of this is lost in English, as “from” can’t fully capture the Greek preposition “ek.” But basically, this shows the response “out of” the person’s hearing “to” faith; an internal process within the person in response to the hearing which has the outcome of faith.

           “1537 ek (a preposition, written eks before a vowel) – properly, “out from and to” (the outcome); out from within. 1537 /ek (“out of”) is one of the most under-translated (and therefore mis-translated) Greek propositions – often being confined to the meaning “by.” 1537 (ek) has a two-layered meaning (“out from and to”) which makes it out-come oriented (out of the depths of the source and extending to its impact on the object).”
           https://biblehub.com/greek/1537.htm

           See Matt 12:35 for another example of this preposition in action:

           “The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.”

           Ek here is translated “out of.” Would anyone claim that Jesus is saying in that passage that “The good man is given good treasure, while the evil man is given evil treasure?” No. The motion is still ‘out from and to.’

           For other examples: The beam is to be removed out of the eye, not put into it (Lk 6:42.) Good fruit comes out of the good tree, it is not hung on to the tree (Matt 12:33) Jesus was called out of Egypt. (Matt 2:15)

           The second preposition of Rom 10:17 is dia, ‘through.’ Literally, it means ‘across’ (such as to the other side; think of the English term ‘diameter’.) We find it in verses speaking about things spoken of “through” the prophets or Jesus being perfected “through” sufferings or the promises being given “through” the righteousness that comes by faith. It’s often used to show something being instrumental to an outcome. But it doesn’t make the thing itself confer the outcome.

           Consider:
           Did a prophet speaking of the future (by inspiration of God) make the prophet the effectual cause of a future act?

           Did suffering, of itself, confer perfection on Jesus – of course not! Jesus proved himself perfect through the midst of suffering and His willingness to undergo it so as to fulfill the Father’s will and accomplish salvation.

           We see faith as tested by fire in I Pet 1:7. Does the fire give the faith? No! But the our faith is proved true on account of the fire – without the fire, no one could see that our faith was genuine (as the fire of the analogy will melt impurities or ‘fake’ gold.)

           Rom 4:13 speaks of receiving the promises through the righteousness of faith. Is it the imputed righteousness of Christ that confers the promises? No, it is God who confers the promises on account of the imputed righteousness of Christ which he credits to those with faith (hence why righteousness comes by faith.)

           Or in Matt 7:13-14: “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

           We have to go through the gate. That doesn’t mean we effectually create the gate, or that the gate effectually makes us go through it. But we can only “get to the other side” on account of the gate’s existence.

           Back to Rom 10:17:

           The gospel shows us the way to the other side of condemnation: salvation. It shows us the way (Christ, the way, the truth, and the life; the door; the gate; the Savior, deliver; etc.) Hearing or otherwise being presented with the gospel is essential, as no one can know of the gate if he has never been told of it or seen it himself. But, as Rom 10 shows, physical hearing is not enough. The person must respond in faith, must believe “with their heart” – and this is not a faith conferred effectually from without by God or the gospel itself, but is out of the person hearing the gospel to the outcome of faith.

           Ethnic Israel, despite having understanding of the scriptures and prophecies of the Messiah which they studied, for the most part rejected Christ. They sought the Messiah – but didn’t find him because they were disobedient and obstinate. Gentiles, who had no comprehension of scripture or understanding of God’s promises or discernment of a redeemer, were flocking to Christ in droves at the presentation of the gospel. They didn’t seek God or even know of Him, but once the good news was shared, they could find God!

           Let’s conclude with a glance at Rom 10:20:
           “And Isaiah is very bold and says,
           “I WAS FOUND BY THOSE WHO DID NOT SEEK ME,
           I BECAME MANIFEST TO THOSE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR ME.”

           The verb “was found” is to find/discover, especially after searching. what is sought. How could the Gentiles be said to find God (after seeking) when they are also said to have never sought God? Because something changed! What changed? The gospel! The entire chapter shows that the Gentiles, who had never sought God, now *could* seek God since the gospel was now revealed to them and so Christ was made manifest! Now, Christ can say, “seek and you shall find” to them, with sincerity, because any and all of them can seek what is revealed!

           Loading...

      222. JR: “Much of the force of this is lost in English, as “from” can’t fully capture the Greek preposition “ek.” But basically, this shows the response “out of” the person’s hearing “to” faith; an internal process within the person in response to the hearing which has the outcome of faith.”

           I agree. That the person “hears” means that he gains assurance and conviction as that is faith. Such assurance can only come from hearing the gospel. However, not all who hear the gospel preached give any evidence of being assured or convicted of anything. This agrees with Paul, ” we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” Here we see that a person must be called if they are to “hear” the gospel. Then, Paul, “Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called;” Thus, those God predestined to be conformed to Christ, He then calls, and it is those whom God calls who then “hear” the gospel gaining assurance and conviction from it. Faith is generated from without as it comes from an outside source – the gospel. The person hears the gospel and for some reason that he cannot explain, gains assurance and conviction = or faith – and that faith manifests in the person calling on the name of the Lord to be saved.

           Except for the points above, your analysis was fine.

           Loading...

      223. Philip
           “Therefore I endure nothing, absolutely nothing, for the sake of the elect, because they, and they alone, will obtain the salvation which is Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           That’s what they want it to say. But…..NOT!

           br.d
           A Calvinist interpreting a bible verse always reminds me of a professional contortionist! :-]

           Loading...

      224. GraceAdict
           Maybe he is just trying to do something else here on this site… Just a thought…I

           br.d
           BING!

           99% of the Calvinists that have posted here (at least to date) have not come with any observable degree of open-mindedness.
           Most come wielding a library of talking-points they’ve been taught to memorize – as if they are Don Quixote slaying windmills.
           They’ve been taught a library of talking-points which are supposed to be GOTCHA statements for defending Calvinism.

           Many show up temporarily with that armament – and when it fails they may give up and leave.
           Others may get angry and start making personal attack statements – and if they go too far – Brian lets them know that tactic doesn’t meet SOT101 standards of civility. RH is a different game player altogether. He’s about as inventive as I think I’ve seen on brain-storming different ways of rewording Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK to make it APPEAR as much as possible as normal dialog.

           Loading...

      225. GraceAddict… please refrain from labeling anyone with a “lack of ability to see what the Scripture actually says”… or “willingly ignorant”. I treat those kind of comments as ad hominem. You can’t know those things for certain.

           I know of a number who have defended Calvinism or some other theology vigorously… who have changed. Keep praying and presenting the truth clearly, firmly, and with love. Thanks.

           Loading...

      226. Will do, I guess I had hoped this would be a site that primarily like minded folks could engage in thoughtful dialogue instead of one person a Calvinist setting the agenda for discussion and that turns into the only conversation that seems to happen. I think us lonely traditionalists out here in the Calvinist world are tired of hearing these same arguments over and over again… But that must be just me…(my mistake). I was hoping for something that it isn’t… keep up the good work.

           Loading...

      227. No… GraceAddict…this is not a closed forum just for traditionalists/provisionalists. And hopefully it can be a place where besides getting encouragement from other likeminded brethren, one can learn how to better deal with Calvinists for their good.

           Attacking their positions with truth and “grace” is welcome. But as you observed… you don’t have to respond. And the agenda is set by the original posts, none of which are by Calvinists. Keeping the focus on that subject helps.

           Loading...

      228. FOH writes, “Paul has to “endure” something “in order that….”
           Man is he taking credit for part of their salvation! ”

           Apparently, FOH is pursuing the path of contrived ignorance of the Calvinism in which he was once enamored. FOH knows what Paul said, “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” Paul does not seek his own glory in saying, “I endure all things,” because he says, “Christ we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily.” and “For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel.” Paul is not taking credit for his preaching or the afflictions he endures. But FOH knows all this. So, what game is FOH playing by his feigned ignorance of this?

           Loading...

      229. Rhutchin writes… “I also like Randolph Yeager’s translation:

           ‘That is why I have been enduring all of this – for the sake of the elect, in order that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.’

           Of course, ‘elect’ here would be comprised of both Jews and gentiles.”

           O, Rhutchin, bless your heart! Even with this translation you still have to deal with the grammar. “Also” STILL introduces another category of people other than “the elect”.

           My understanding of the text still works perfectly (with Yeager’s)….

           “That is why I have been enduring all of this….for the sake of Israel (the elect), in order that they (the Jews/Israelites/the elect) ALSO may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           You are determined to read Calvinism into this text. As long as you insist on doing that, you are going to struggle (with scripture and grammar).

           Kudos to you on effort. But you are still flunking the course.

           Loading...

      230. I don’t often get the chance to stand up for rhutchin, so I will do so while I can. 😉 I also do not see that your proffered reading of the text is necessary. While all who read it will import their own definition of who the ‘elect’ are (I will avoid that debate), the verse itself simply appears to say that Paul bears all things so that the ‘elect’ – however defined – can also, with him, obtain salvation. In other words, he is doing as he has been charged to do – enduring much in order to extend the good news of the gospel to the lost, so that all who believe it may obtain salvation.

           One might argue that ‘also’ implies someone other than Paul, but it is certainly not a necessity, nor do I view it as the most logical reading.

           Loading...

      231. I appreciate your input, brother.

           In Calvinism, only “the elect” (those predestined to salvation) can obtain salvation. Paul would have to be included in that group so the redundancy of “also” would need to be deleted (which Piper was more than happy to do).

           If you take the more popular view that “the elect” refers to the body of Christ or believers, then the verse makes even less (biblical) sense. Believers have obtained salvation in Christ Jesus. And Paul knows that better than anyone. Whoever “the elect” are, its clear from the text that Paul considers them to be lost. And those who are “in Christ Jesus” are definitely not lost.

           Again, I am open to another plausible interpretation to this verse, but, so far, every attempt has failed. I am not saying that there isn’t another viable explanation (there very well could be), but one hasn’t been given here; nor have I read one in any of the bible commentaries (no surprise there). So far, as I can tell, mine is the only one that fits the immediate context, is consistent with the grammar, and aligns with other scripture.

           God bless.

           Loading...

      232. phillip writes, “Paul knows that better than anyone. Whoever “the elect” are, its clear from the text that Paul considers them to be lost. And those who are “in Christ Jesus” are definitely not lost.”

           Paul knows that God’s elect are to be saved through the preaching of the gospel. So, Jesus, ““Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” Paul says, “Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, and a door was opened to me by the Lord,… Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place.” Also, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.”

           The use of “also” by Paul is not a redundancy, but the acknowledgment by Paul that God saves His elect through the preaching of the gospel. To the Thessalonians, Paul writes, “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, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” So, we have Paul enduring all things in order to preach the gospel because it is through the preaching of the gospel that God’s elect also obtain salvation even as Paul has.

           Loading...

      233. Once again, I agree with rhutchin. The ‘also’ most naturally refers to any other than Paul and all who have already obtained salvation. Surely one can see that not all obtain salvation until they hear and believe, which is why Paul and the other disciples were called to proclaim the gospel. He endures much suffering in order that the gospel can be proclaimed, and many who are not yet saved will ‘also’ hear and believe. It is a rather obvious interpretation. I’m find your claim that no one else has a meaningful interpretation unconvincing. 😉 We must all resist the temptation to read into scripture what we believe, and assert that there can be no other interpretation, simply because we don’t agree with those offered.

           Loading...

      234. Brother, I completely agree with your overall assessment. And I have stated that there very well could be another plausible interpretation. Taking your understanding of “also” we have…..

           2 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV)….
           Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they (the elect) also (along with myself and those who have already obtained salvation) may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

           I think Piper (and Rhutchin) would agree with you here.

           But that interpretation still has issues (at least from a Calvinistic/Arminian point of view).

           Look at the comment brother Brian just posted…

           “The context leans towards identifying the ‘elect’ as the same ones ‘on account of which’ he is willing to endure suffering, that they also (the ones causing the suffering) ‘may obtain’ salvation… but not certain they will.”

           1. The elect are the elect if they obtain salvation or not (I agree with that).
           2. There is a high probably that “the elect” will not obtain salvation (I agree with that).
           3. The elect are the ones who have imprisoned him and want him dead (I agree with that).

           I agree completely that “we must all resist the temptation to read into scripture what we believe”. That is why my interpretation (if correct, though I could be wrong) has ruffled so many feathers.

           Loading...

      235. phillip writes, “My understanding of the text still works perfectly (with Yeager’s)….

           “That is why I have been enduring all of this….for the sake of Israel (the elect), in order that they (the Jews/Israelites/the elect) ALSO may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

           I think Brain ‘s take on this was consistent – “I endure all things at the hands of the unsaved Jews, that the X people may also obtain salvation.”

           Loading...

      236. rhutchin
           Paul wants the elect to obtain salvation also just like X category has.

           br.d
           Either you know what you’re trying to say here – and it just came out irrational – or its just irrational.

           Firstly – if we assume Paul holds to a form of Calvinism – your statement says ” Paul wants the elect to obtain salvation also just as the elect has.

           Secondly – if Paul holds to a form of Calvinism – then he AUTO-MAGICALLY assumes the “elect” are the FEW who Calvin’s god chooses. And the non-elect are the MANY whom Calvin’s god ordained for damnation. And these things would be an AUTO-MAGICAL given – just as much as Calvin’s god’s existence is a given.

           In such case your statement would be the equivalent of saying Paul WANTS DESIRES God to exist.

           Loading...

      237. Rhutchin…. “Paul wants the elect to obtain salvation also just like X category has.”

           br.d….. “Either you know what you’re trying to say here – and it just came out irrational – or its just irrational.”

           Yosemite Sam… “I’m thinking. My head hurts.”

           I can relate.

           Loading...

      238. Rhutchin,

           Not sure who “everyone else” is (perhaps this is referring to the “experts”), but whoever they are, they struggle with grammar. Sad. The elect are still the elect, regardless of “when” (past, present, or future). This lame attempt of an explanation continues to fail the introduction of another category or group of people, other than “the elect”.

           You might have numbers (even “experts”) on your side, but “might” does not make “right”.

           Still looking for closure, brother.

           Loading...

      239. Interesting! I was just thinking the exact same thing yesterday Phillip!

           rhuchin is wonderfully consistent – and provides us some totally incredible examples of Calvinism’s double-speak.

           Wonderful contribution!

           Loading...

      240. rhutchin
           The claim of Calvinism is …..etc

           br.d
           We already understand the type claims Calvinism makes are NOT LOGICAL claims – but SEMANTIC claims.
           For example, a gift is NOT ACTUALLY “offered” – but is SAID to be “offered”.

           These claims are not designed to make sense to LOGICAL people.
           But they are uses-full for Calvinists to perceive themselves as biblical

           Loading...

      241. TS00,
           Once again you are so right!!!

           They cannot have it both ways!

           They cannot say it is “offered to all” AND say that before the foundations of the world the atonement was LIMITED. According to them it was NEVER designed to be offered to all. How dare they besmirch the Calvinist version of God by saying it is “available to everyone.”

           Once again….the the thousandth time…. saying one thing one minute and another the next.

           Sure….sure…..if they want to change it to TUIP. But as a package TULIP deal the L strictly and clearly teaches that it was NOT offered to all.

           Loading...

      242. And, as JR noted, once you start plucking petals, the whole flower falls apart.

           Loading...

      243. Well there you go….. the plucking the petals analogy works well since ….

           He loves me….(pluck)

           He loves me not….

           Loading...

      244. To add on to my earlier comment, many a Calvinist (and non-Calvinist) scholar has noted that the TULIP cannot stand without all of its planks. Total Depravity requires Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace; Unconditional Election and Irresistible grace demand a Limited Atonement; and the existence of the previous four points lead unavoidably to a Perseverance of the Saints. It is an all or nothing deal.

           Loading...

      245. FOH
           Once again….the the thousandth time…. saying one thing one minute and another the next.

           br.d
           Bulls-eye FOH!

           William Lutz – American linguist – What is DoubleSpeak
           quote:
           Basic to doublespeak is INCONGRUITY.
           The incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and WHAT REALLY IS.
           It is the incongruity between the word and the referent, between seem and be, between the essential function of language.
           What doublespeak does — mislead, distort, inflate, circumvent, obfuscate.

           Loading...

      246. I cannot imagine a more clear refutation of the ‘Doctrines of Grace’ than “Under Calvinism, God makes salvation available to everyone and anyone can freely choose salvation or reject it.” If they are now distorting things that badly, no wonder people are confused as to what being a Calvinist means. Listen up folks; if any Calvinist says that to you, whatever he means, it isn’t what you think it means.

           Loading...

      247. TS00,
           You are so right…. This is a classic statement….

           “Under Calvinism, God makes salvation available to everyone and anyone can freely choose salvation or reject it.”

           Limited Atonement….. it was never intended to the non-elect.

           Loading...

      248. “Under Calvinism, God makes salvation AVAILABLE to everyone and anyone can freely choose salvation or reject it.”

           br.d
           If a father does not PERMIT his son to have a gift – is it TRUE or FALSE to say that father made that gift AVAILABLE to his son?
           I think in order to argue that as TRUE – one has to abuse the term AVAILABLE.

           Here are the assertions of Calvinism:

           1) Whatever Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN – Calvin’s God PERMITS.
           2) Whatever Calvin’s god does NOT RENDER-CERTAIN – Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT
           3) Where an individual’s salvation is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN – and damnation is – the only thing that is PERMITTED is damnation – salvation for that individual is NOT PERMITTED.

           So we must ask the question – is it TRUE or FALSE to say the gift of salvation is AVAILABLE in a GENUINE sense – where the gift of salvation is NOT PERMITTED.

           Remember Calvinist arguments are not LOGICAL arguments.
           They are SEMANTIC arguments – and in SEMANTIC arguments definitions for words are twisted.

           Loading...

      249. TS00
           Listen up folks; if any Calvinist says that to you, whatever he means, it isn’t what you think it means.

           br.d
           Absolutely correct TS00!

           That’s why we call it Calvinist Double-Speak

           Loading...

      250. TS00,
           I dont think it is intentional, deceptive double-speak as much as it is they WANT to adhere to Calvinism but they dont want it to sound (be) as bad as it is:

           Created to be a vessel of His wrath: But God loves everyone…. in a certain way.

           Limited Atonement is true …. But Christ died for everyone ….in a certain way (this is all over Piper’s site).

           Limited Atonement is true….. But “Under Calvinism, God makes salvation available to everyone and anyone can freely choose salvation or reject it.”

           Total Depravity is true…. But man is responsible for his own decisions and choices.

           Sovereignty means absolute determinism…….. but man is responsible for his own decisions and choices.

           Loading...

      251. I get that. I really do. For the layman in the pew. Who simply absorbs what is tossed at him, trusting in the authority, wisdom and accuracy of those who present themselves as religious leaders. It is the leaders, the teachers, the writers of books for whom I have limited tolerance.

           If they don’t know better, they should. Should they not have invested at least as much time as I have grappling with such issues? Should they not, by now, know that there has been an ongoing debate on such issues for centuries, and that they owe it to themselves and those who follow them to study deeply, understand what they believe and express it in a clear, uncomplicated and honest manner?

           If you cannot do this, you should not be a teacher, pastor or public defender of Calvinism. Is that too harsh?

           Loading...

      252. TS00
           Did somebody just remove the ‘L’ out of TULIP?

           br.d
           I think this is just rhutchin here – and not what most serious Calvinists would enunciate.
           I am reminded that rhutchin’s posts manifest a consistent urgency to make Calvinism APPEAR as UN-Calvnistic as possible.

           Loading...

      253. TS00: “Total Ignoring of the countless explanations that faith is not a ‘thing’ (noun) that one receives but the noun referent to the verb ‘believe’, which is a chosen response to the presentation of alleged truth.”

           R: “Then again, “faith” may be the translation of the noun referring to a tangible quality received by the person and “believe” is the verb denoting the manner in which faith manifests itself in the person.”

           Persuasion is not a tangible quality. Tangible means “able to be touched” or “discernible by touch.” If I pick up an orange, the orange is tangible. Even wind is tangible in an abstract sense since it can be discerned by touch – air, not so much. Concepts like love, faith, hope, etc. are not tangible.

           Imagine this scenario: You’ve bought a house in another country, but have never seen it in person. Still, from photos and exchanges with the realtor you believe it exists and even were willing to sign a contract based in that faith. Now, you are going to sell your own home, leave your own country, head to a land you do not know, all while trusting that your new home has really been prepared for you.

           What is tangible in that scenario? The house (well, you have faith it exists, and if it exists it will be tangible,) evidence for the house (photos, realtor,) your country, the new country, and the written contract you signed. Your faith that the house exists or trust in the realtor and photos is NOT a tangible quality.

           For the believer, what is tangible is not belief but what he believes in – Christ. He has faith that Christ exists. He has faith he will receive all manner of other promises as well.

           Believing is just the active state of holding belief. Trusting is just the active state of having trust. There is no English word ‘faithing’, but if there were ‘faithing’ would just be having faith; being persuaded that the secondary evidence once is presented with is enough to prove the existence or reality of something.

           In other non-scripture Greek writings, the word for faith is basically used to mean a guarantee or warranty. The verb means trusting in that guarantee. The “trust” itself is not given people. Rather, people trust in the promise or not based on how strong/authoritative they view the guarantee.

           For example, if I see a salesman hawking essential oils on the roadside and guaranteeing they will make me look ten years younger and cure every ill I have, I won’t put much stock in his guarantee since he has no credibility with me and his claims are not seemingly backed up in any way – I would write him off as a snakeoil salesman.

           Conversely, if my doctor who had correctly prescribed medication for me before recommended an oil and guaranteed it would improve dry skin, I would be more persuaded to trust him and buy the oil, because he had credibility with me and I could seek other testimonies about the effectiveness of the product.

           No one has to “give” me persuasion – it isn’t even a concept that makes sense if given. (If you “give” persuasion, that’s hypnosis, not real persuasion.) But a person can do things and show things to be more persuasive! In God’s case, there is nature, history, miracles, scripture, prophets, apostles, testimonies, Christ’s ministry, Christ’s death and Resurrection, the conviction of the Spirit, the gospel message, etc.

           Those who respond in faith ‘accept the guarantee,’ so to speak – they metaphorically sign the new Covenant in Christ’s blood and enter it, God baptizes them, they now live by the Spirit as they walk in faith looking forward to the rest of the promises they believe in.

           Those who reject the gospel and Christ do not accept the guarantee. They don’t see the promises as assured or don’t trust Christ’s claims. Or, they don’t *want* to believe due to love of sin, etc. I’ve listed many reasons from scripture that some don’t believe in other comments.

           Loading...

      254. JR: ‘Those who respond in faith ‘accept the guarantee,’ so to speak – they metaphorically sign the new Covenant in Christ’s blood and enter it, God baptizes them, they now live by the Spirit as they walk in faith looking forward to the rest of the promises they believe in. ”

           I’ll accept your explanation and conclusion above. You say, “who respond in faith.” Thus, “faith” engenders a response, that I identify with “belief” or “accept the guarantee.” Faith is having assurance and conviction (11:1) that “God is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” (11:6) With such faith, people respond by doing something that I say is believing but we could call it “sign the new Covenant in Christ’s blood” (although that wording troubles me, but let’s go with it).

           I don’t think we are disagreeing on the basics, just how to expalin it.

           Loading...

      255. Jenai:

           Earlier today on another string I wrote that Calvinists often puzzle us by declaring back to us very non-Calvinist verses…. say “see….it says here…”

           Here is a case in point. Calvinists quote back Hebrews 11:6 as if it explains something for them!!!

           “6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

           No person in all of history would come up with Calvinism reading this. And certainly they would see the opposite.

           1. We must have faith (does not imply that it is only given to a few).

           2. God can be “pleased”. So much for the Calvinistic-Platonic idea that God does not have emotions….impassible. Our faith can actually please God!! Amazing….but true cuz He says it.

           3. “Anyone who comes to Him…” So much for the Calvinist idea that no one can come to Him!! Too-Dead they say.

           4. “…believe that He exists” So much for the dead thing.

           5. “…that He rewards…” Woah. Cool. He rewards. Of course for Calvinists the formula is Too-Dead, Given-Faith, Irresistibly made to come to Him…..THEN rewarded for that! Amazing! That’s not a reward!

           6. “…earnestly seek Him…” There are many more verses saying we can and should see Him than the one Romans 3 poetic proof-text they use.

           So….. nah…..this whole verse and whole chapter is the anti-Calvinism Chapter….

           They try to whisk it all away by saying “Yeah but God gives the faith that He then rewards.”

           But again I ask….. what then is the point?

           Loading...

      256. Precisely. If God simply wanted a people of faith, and he then, unilaterally and irresistibly, gave one part of his now totally depraved, dead human race said faith and life, why didn’t he just do that in the first place? Because centuries of hatred, murder, war, oppression, rape and genocide sounded more interesting? Because he had such an egotistical need to show his stuff that he couldn’t resist a little mass genocide to impress the ones he ‘loved’? Sheesh, who can even make such stuff up?

           Loading...

      257. FOH writes, “Here is a case in point. Calvinists quote back Hebrews 11:6 as if it explains something for them!!!”

           LOL!!! Hebrews 11:6 says, “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” According to Calvinism, Hebrews 11:6 defines faith as, “…believe that God is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” Nothing more; nothing else. FOH knows this, so why doesn’t he mention this in his comment. Sounds suspicious to me.

           Then, “4. “…believe that He exists” So much for the dead thing.”

           Yes. Anyone who believes that God exists has faith and is alive and not dead. So, what is FOH’s point???

           Then, “5. “…that He rewards…” Woah. Cool. He rewards. Of course for Calvinists the formula is Too-Dead, Given-Faith, Irresistibly made to come to Him…..THEN rewarded for that! Amazing! That’s not a reward!”

           Again, a person must have faith – therefore, be alive – to believe that God rewards. So again, what is FOH’s point???

           Then, “6. “…earnestly seek Him…” There are many more verses saying we can and should see Him than the one Romans 3 poetic proof-text they use.”

           FOH is correct. He also knows that a person must have faith to earnestly seek God and that faith comes from hearing the gospel. Why didn’t he mention that. So again, what is FOH’s point???

           What game is FOH playing???

           Loading...

      258. I know you won’t respond, FOH, but it is quite obvious who is playing games. Your logic is valid.

           Loading...

      259. You are so funny! You knew I would not respond and indeed had already deleted that childish response saying to myself….. if I had a nickel for every childish RH jab at me, I would be a rich man!

           Here’s that verse again…..so sweet:

           6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

           Not only does He reward those who seek Him but in His word He tells the world that He “commends” them.

           2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

           4 By faith Abel …..he was commended as righteous

           5 By faith Enoch ….For before he was taken, he was commended as

           39 These were all commended for their faith…

           What a crazy hermeneutic …….

           God picks certain people to give faith to. He foists it on them (they have no choice in the matter; they must use the faith He foisted on them). They exercise that faith. Then He commends them for it.

           Only in Calvin’s world does that make sense.

           Loading...

      260. Yes, and anyone who steps outside of the Calvinist script and looks at the logic will quickly recognize its absurdity. I once did not understand the critics who pointed out that Calvinism has a certain internal logic, as in all five points lead to one another, but that it is completely lacking in logical consistency to scripture and reality. I now know exactly what they mean.

           Loading...

      261. Each person has a microscopic disk inserted into the brain – called the TOTAL DEPRAVITY disk.
           The disk contains all neurological impulses that will be processed in the brain.

           If that person is designated “elect” – the disk will at some point be replaced with one that contains SAVED neurological impulses.

           But in either case – the individual is totally unaware that neurological impulses occurring within his brain were determined by someone external to himself before he was created. :-]

           Loading...

      262. Jenai R: ‘Those who respond in faith ‘accept the guarantee,’ so to speak – they metaphorically sign the new Covenant in Christ’s blood and enter it, God baptizes them, they now live by the Spirit as they walk in faith looking forward to the rest of the promises they believe in. ”

           br.d
           Its wise to remember phrases like “respond in faith”, “accept the guarantee”, “sign the new covenant”, “live in the spirit”, “walk in faith” etc- etc – etc ……are classified in Calvinism as the AFTER EFFECT of a supernatural influence that is projected onto the individual – and the power of that spell that is cast upon the individual is such that the individual CANNOT RESIST it.

           So the Calvinist can agree with all such statements.

           Loading...

      263. br.d,
           Yes…and what they also say comes AFTER regeneration is “born of the Spirit” “given new life” “born again” “living in Christ” “alive in Christ”.

           So….Calvinists say that dead people are “regenerated” (given life), then they express their faith, and are then given life (again) in Christ.

           So….Calvinists say that dead people are “regenerated” (given life) then express their faith, then are born again (again).

           So….Calvinists say that dead people are “regenerated” (given life) then express their faith, then are made alive (again) life in Christ.

           Sproul’s famous “regeneration precedes faith” is also

           “(new life) regeneration precedes regeneration” and

           “(new life) regeneration precedes new life”

           The ordus salutis (they like to talk in Latin— cuz Augustine was a Catholic priest) is regeneration, foisted faith, then regeneration.

           Loading...

      264. I responded to this idea that Paul being called “specially” shows that God does that exceptionally. If He did it all the time to every person then there is no sense to the “special call” of Paul, Jeremiah, and David (the ones I mentioned in the previous post).

           Loading...

      265. Total Ignoring of the countless explanations that faith is not a ‘thing’ (noun) that one receives but the noun referent to the verb ‘believe’, which is a chosen response to the presentation of alleged truth.

           He who hears God’s revelation of who he is and what he promises has a choice: he will either believe and receive the declared revelation, or he will deny and reject its veracity.

           Loading...

      266. TS00 writes, “Total Ignoring of the countless explanations that faith is not a ‘thing’ (noun) that one receives but the noun referent to the verb ‘believe’, which is a chosen response to the presentation of alleged truth.”

           Then again, “faith” may be the translation of the noun referring to a tangible quality received by the person and “believe” is the verb denoting the manner in which faith manifests itself in the person.

           Loading...

      267. Sorry for the double post. My phone didn’t recognize me, and couldn’t tell if it posted.

           Loading...

   2. Hi Rhutchin,

      The “supernatural” clarification can be found under the comments of the blog, not Olson’s original blog post. Sorry if my reply was confusing, I did mention “and the comments.” But my article above is not specifically to the point of supernatural enabling, just any ‘further’ enabling beyond the graces God already gave at the gospel and cross.

      That is, pretty much all Christians would agree that with neither gospel or dreams/visions or some method for a person to here the gospel, no person could believe. For a person to be “able” to accept the gospel in faith, he must first hear the gospel or read about it or otherwise be presented with it. That is why many of us say the gospel “enables” man to believe, since it reveals to the fallen person that he is a sinner, that there is a Savior, that God will graciously grant him salvation if he believes, etc. No human in the world who had never heard of Jesus in the gospel in any way would think up the gospel out of their own head.

      But when many Arminians speak of enabling grace, including Dr. Olson, that is not what they are talking about. Rather, because most Calvinists and Arminians hold to the underlying assumption of total depravity, that fallen man cannot have faith even when confronted with the gospel, then something else must happen before the sinner can believe. For Arminians that ‘something’ is usually viewed as a special act of the Holy Spirit, to everyone who hears the gospel, to enable them to believe such as freeing the mind or will. For Calvinists the ‘something needed’ varies quite a bit more, but is usually either prior regeneration, partial regeneration, God overwhelming a person with proof, God just giving a person faith, the faith of Jesus being effectually applied to a person, etc.

      The crux of my argument above isn’t to dive into the relative strengths of all these positions, but rather address the charge that one essentially has to pick between belief in the theory of Total Inability (man is unable to believe) and belief that man, not God, initiates salvation – as if the only options were Calvinist, Arminianism, or Semi-Pelagianism. And as demonstrated, there is no logical reason to believe rejection of the theory of Total Inability (whether one personally thinks that wise or not) would make one have to belief man is the initiator of salvation.

      *****

      “The issue of TD/TI is the condition of man’s spirit – is the lost person spiritually dead and thereby unable to respond to God and if so, what must God do to negate that condition”

      That wasn’t the topic of my argument. But let’s assume for a moment that theory of Total Inability is true in all parts, and fallen man cannot believe. Now let’s imagine half the church still rejects that idea. Does that mean those people who reject the idea must believe man saves himself or initiates his own salvation? No. They could still believe all the verses I posted above in my essay and more. Even if they were to believe ‘wrongly’ on the topic of Total Inability (as you, for example, might think they do) this would not logically entail that they must believe God initiates salvation.

      Now, let’s assume for a moment that Total Inability is false. Could anyone tell God that logically there must be either Total Inability or man must initiate salvation? I think God would have a laugh at that idea that if the fall of man did not make faith impossible for men when confronted with the gospel then God has to give man the credit for salvation.

      So if false it would not make “man initiate salvation,” and if true would not make anyone who wrongly believed otherwise have to think “man initiates salvation.” The charge that “man initiates salvation” is the only alternative to Total Inability for others to believe, then, is incorrect. It’s a false dilemma.

      “An argument is then given to answer the question, “What does it mean for God to initiate salvation?” The ensuing argument leaves out any Scripture that Olson or a Calvinist would point to in support of TD/TI This allows the author to say, “Below you will find brief comments of other passages which all Christians should be able to agree shows that God initiates that, we would argue, do not require Total Inability.” Leave out the opponents argument and you can easily argue your position. But, so what?”

      Are you disagreeing that God initiates salvation? If not, I fail to understand your point. My essay above is not an argument, specifically, against the theory of Total Depravity. That’s it’s own topic. My article is about the charge that disbelieving in total depravity (not finding it personally scripturally supported or implied, etc.) would make a person “have” to believe that man initiates salvation, or the idea that man initiating salvation, not God, is the only possible alternative to the theory of inability. One can show that a line of reasoning is fallacious without needing to go into detail on every premise that feeds into it. The line of reasoning would fail *even if* Total Inability was assumed true, as I just demonstrated in this comment.

      “I don’t think this. The argument is not whether man initiates his salvation but whether man cooperates in his salvation – God does His part and man does his part to procure salvation.”

      I’m pretty sure Dr. Olson’s blog said “initiate salvation” not “cooperate with.” I don’t think you get to move the goal posts for someone else’s claim and pretend that’s what the argument is actually about. 😉

      But briefly, you’ve introduced so many English terms here it’s near impossible to know what you are meaning or if it is even a bad thing. Man *accomplishing* part of salvation would not be possible. Man cooperating with a would-be-deliverer by acknowledging he needs a rescue and accepting the rescue? Fully possible. If you mean procure as in merit or go out and obtain by some effort or skill – impossible. If you mean procure as in welcome a freely offered gift which someone else did all the work for, or accept an invitation into a covenant, and then be graciously granted the rewards and promises following that, such as in Jn 1:12 and Heb 6:15, etc. – no problem.

      “”Then, ‘Also, why do you specifically believe that someone rejecting the Calvinist/Arminian theory of Total Inability would necessitate his rejecting all the ample passages of scripture (many listed in the above post) as to how God graciously initiates salvation?”

      “I don’t believe that.” Great! You aren’t the intended audience of this article then. This is written to those who do believe that rejecting the theory of Total Inability must mean one believes God initiates salvation. (Or, more broadly as already mentioned, that thought that Total Inability must be true ‘else’ man would initiate his own salvation.)

      “Certainly God initiates salvation – the question being, To what degree must God act to enable a person to be saved.”

      That’s not the question of this article, it’s a different question. Interestingly enough, though, the concept of ‘degrees’ is related.

      Imagine four men, C, D, E, and F, live in a desert in a small shack. Unbeknownst to them, the house is slowly sinking and a distant sandstorm is on the way. Without intervention, they will both perish in their ignorance. A traveler comes and tells them of the danger, and offers to guide them to a distant Oasis and provide a home for them there. C believes the traveler and the traveler offers him a pack for a journey. But the other two refuse to come. The traveler offers them a telescope so they can now see both the distant sandstorm and lush Oasis, and shows them the exact spots in the house which are buckling. D decides that is proof enough for him, and the traveler gives him a pack for the journey as well. But E and F are stubborn. Perhaps the storm will change direction. Perhaps they can fix up the house. So, the traveler reaches over and scoops F up, carrying him out of the house and tying him to a camel. C, D, and restrained F all head out on the journey with the traveler, eventually coming to the Oasis and getting a new home, where finally F realizes that the traveler was right and thanks him for forcing him to come along.

      Now, in every case above, the traveler initiated ‘saving’ the men from the sandstorm. But their responses showed various degrees of action by the traveler. For one, telling of the danger and promising a safe haven was enough. For the second, opening the man’s eyes and overwhelmingly proving the danger and promise is real. For the third, he just chose of himself to drag the man to safety. For the fourth man, well, he’s buried in sand.

      While that’s an imperfect analogy, it should be clear enough that differences in the degree of persuasion or even force that an initiator uses wouldn’t change his position as initiator.

      ” If TD/TI is correct, then certain actions are called for and Calvinists and Arminians can cite Scriptures detailing these actions. If ane argues that TD/TI is not correct, then those Scriptures may be ignored as the essay above does.”

      I’m a little confused as to your meaning here. The essay wasn’t about directly evaluating the theory of total inability. But the article above does give many, many actions God takes to initiate salvation. It even mentions that the list is non-exhaustive. I’m pretty sure some verses often used as support verses for Total Inability made it into the mix. If you feel a verse has been ignored, feel free to post it – but please understand that someone not talking specifically about a topic they weren’t claiming to talk specifically about doesn’t mean they are ‘ignoring’ verses.

      I cannot stress this enough: this article is about a specific line of reasoning and why it fails. It is not specifically about the relative strength of different premises. While comparing premises would be a great topic, it’s not this one.

      “The answer is, Yes. Under Total Depravity, a person cannot respond to the gospel for two reasons – (1) he is spiritually dead, and (2) he has no faith with which to respond. If one rejects this notion of TD, then the presumption is that faith is inherent and something a person is born with. The person has a faith that seeks an object for his faith. If a person has no faith (thereby being TD), and can only receive faith through the hearing of the gospel, then of course, God becomes the initiator of salvation through His gift of faith (among many other graces).”

      You set up several false dilemmas here and assume many premises – this does not prove your point. No non-Calvinist “presumes” that faith is something humans are “born with” – I suggest you ask people what they believe rather than assume it. Furthermore, you just present one way God could initiate salvation – that doesn’t disprove other ways or make other ways less of an initiation. Even in your own view you mention the necessity of the gospel – why do you think God only “becomes” the initiator after that if He gives faith? With all due respect, your view would seem to make God out to be less of the initiator for salvation, since apparently graces given prior to faith are not counted as initiation? It is confusing, to say the least.

      In scripture, faith is a type of response to evidence or testimony. It is the inborn persuasion that something is true, even if we do not have direct proof/sight. For example, a child trusting the testimony of a teacher that germs are real, even when the child cannot see them, is ‘faith’ in germs. Faith in Christ, then, is not bound to be either something “born with” or something effectually given by someone else (indeed, the latter would make it more like proof, which would seem to defeat the point.)

      The term scripture uses for ‘receiving’ Christ is lambanó, https://biblehub.com/greek/2983.htm, which is to actively, personally, take what is offered. This ‘taking of a gift’ is treated as equivalent to believing in the name of Christ. So faith is not something effectually granted – rather the object of faith (Christ) is revealed to us through the gospel message, testimony, etc. We then either receive Christ in faith or refuse Him and stand condemned.

      When you say “Faith is a gift” I am assuming you are referencing Eph 2:8? But in Eph 2:8 the gift is *salvation, by grace and through faith.*
      ‘Faith’ and ‘grace’ are in the feminine gender, but the gift of God is in the neuter gender. In Greek, this then applies the ‘gift’ to the entire clause. There is no grammatical way to make faith the gift (‘nearest antecedent’ only applies when the genders match.)

      The process of salvation is taken as a whole in regards to source, reason, and mechanism. Paul contrasts salvation by grace and through faith with ‘works’, for man cannot achieve salvation by his own merit.

      It’s a similar train of thought to Rom 5:18-21. While we were all condemned by the law and sin reigned, the death of Christ brought justification by His own blood. In this grace reigns (the ‘by’), through righteousness and through Jesus (the process), to bring eternal life (the ‘what’). The process is given in even more detail in Rom 3:22-26: Righteousness is given through faith to all who believe. We are justified by grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God displayed Christ publicly (grace) as a propitiation (atoning sacrifice) whose blood is applied to us through faith. These and other similar passages are summaries of the gospel; that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. We receive Him by faith and are justified, receiving the righteousness of Christ in place of our own sins, and will never perish but will have eternal life. (Tit 3:3-8, Heb 10:22, II Tim 1:9-11, 2 Corinthians 5:21)

      I agree that man is spiritually dead. I would guess we mean different things by it. I see the fallen nature of man as meaning we are corrupted by the flesh, slaves of sin, lawbreakers under the penalty of death, etc. I do not see it as scripturally or logically meaning that fallen man is “unable” to repent and believe when he hears the gospel message.

      As for premise 2, “he has no faith with which to respond” that makes little sense, so I would disagree with it, for the scripture and reasons I just got into above. Even if he has “no faith” before he hears the gospel, he can put faith in what he hears the same way the child who may have formerly thought demons or bad odors caused sickness can put faith in the existence of invisible organisms when the teacher explains germs. “The person has a faith that seeks an object for his faith” also makes little sense. Faith as a noun is what we believe in (Christ is Lord, etc.) Faith as a verb is the act of believing. Faith only exists if it has an object, it doesn’t ‘seek’ an object. As to the last point, humans believing in Jesus upon hearing the gospel (Rom 11, etc.) is not equivalent to God handing some people and not others faith. And God initiates effectual salvation when He baptizes the believer into His household, covers the believer with the blood of Christ, etc. as I detailed in my article. Faith itself is not salvation, so even if God did (as per your view) give people effectual faith that would not in and of itself confer or initiate effectual salvation. Salvation is the new birth, deliverance, forgiveness, reconciliation, etc. that God gives to believers. It’s a separate concept from faith. Faith does not save of itself; God saves those with faith, the condition He graciously gave. Huge difference!

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Woah…. that was nice and long!

         Your presentation is working for some of us, but I think you are assuming that RH responds to logic and scripture. Not really what we have seen.

         And as for CDEF and the shack: here is the Calvinist version.

         ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ are stone cold dead on the floor in the shack. The traveler “resuscitates” F and tells him that he “can now freely” get on the camel to leave. While F is considering his options…. being “convinced” and “reasoned with,” the traveler picks him up and carries him and ties him to the camel.

         While traveling, F asks the Traveler why He did not resuscitate any others. The Traveler tells him that they were not resuscitated because He did not want to, but anyway…..they got what the truly wanted. The Traveler also tells him that he (F) “freely chose” to come.

         Good News that!

         Loading...

      2. If I was ‘F’ I would be horrified and beg to be returned to the shack. Better perish than live forever with a crazy dude who kidnapped me and left my friends to die.

         Loading...

      3. JR writes, “For a person to be “able” to accept the gospel in faith,…”

         One does not accept the gospel in faith. We can speak of he gospel of faith as faith is conveyed through the gospel. From Hebrews 11, we know that faith consists of assurance and conviction; such assurance and conviction is conveyed to certain people who hear the gospel. It is this assurance and conviction that then leads a person to believe Christ. Faith provides the basis for one to believe. The gospel conveys assurance and conviction to a person resulting in belief. However, we seem to agree: Absent the gospel no one could be saved reinforcing TD/TI.

         Then, “But when many Arminians speak of enabling grace,…”

         The purpose of enabling (prevenient) or saving (irresistible) grace is to override TD/TI. Even you seem to recognize this in the necessity for the gospel to be heard. The issue is then to account for only some who hear the gospel and believe. Something else must happen to a person who “hears” the gospel before he “believes” the gospel. Thus, “…the underlying assumption of total depravity, fallen man cannot have faith even when confronted with the gospel, then something else must happen before the sinner can believe.” Technically, the underlying assumption of TD/TI is that a person cannot be saved apart from faith and faith is conveyed only through the gospel. If faith were conveyed to all who heard the gospel, then all would be saved. There is a need for faith. So the question, “Why don’t all who hear the gospel receive faith and believe?

         Then, “The crux of my argument above isn’t to dive into the relative strengths of all these positions, but rather address the charge that one essentially has to pick between belief in the theory of Total Inability (man is unable to believe) and belief that man, not God, initiates salvation…”

         The theory of TD/TI is that none has faith and thus is unable to believe. TD/TI requires that God initiate salvation by first sending the gospel out and then conveying faith (the assurance and conviction of Hebrews 11) to some, but not all, of those who hear it. If one says that the gospel enlivens a dead faith already residing in the person, and that faith is the basis for salvation, then one could say that the person initiates (or better, cooperates) in his salvation without such cooperation, he could not be saved.

         Then, “And as demonstrated, there is no logical reason to believe rejection of the theory of Total Inability (whether one personally thinks that wise or not) would make one have to belief man is the initiator of salvation. ”

         Without TD/TI, the gospel is not necessary to override a condition (lack of faith) that makes salvation impossible. It must only provide information to make salvation available. The person takes this information, chews on it for a while, and decides Yea or Nay. In this sense, the person is the initiator of his salvation (however, I think the Calvinist argument is that the non-Calvinist has a person cooperating with God in his salvation without such cooperation he could not be saved).

         Loading...

      4. Rhutchin –

         R: “One does not accept the gospel in faith.”

         J:
         “Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.” I Cor 15:1-2

         We receive/accept the gospel in faith.

         “For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the One we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the One you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it way too easily.” II Cor 11:4

         But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: that if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with your heart you believe and are justified, and with your mouth you confess and are saved. It is just as the Scripture says: “Anyone who believes in Him will never be put to shame.”… “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then can they call on the One in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” Rom 10:8-15

         Hearing the gospel message is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to have faith. The person must not just hear it, but believe it, and confess it. Note that no one believes because they are given undeniable proof or just handed belief on a platter, but they must “believe with the heart” (Compare this to the words of Luke 24:25, where Jesus calls the unbelieving Pharisees “slow of heart” to believe all that God said through His word and the prophets.) and “confess (agree)” that Jesus is Lord.

         R: “We can speak of he gospel of faith as faith is conveyed through the gospel. From Hebrews 11, we know that faith consists of assurance and conviction; such assurance and conviction is conveyed to certain people who hear the gospel. It is this assurance and conviction that then leads a person to believe Christ. Faith provides the basis for one to believe. The gospel conveys assurance and conviction to a person resulting in belief. However, we seem to agree: Absent the gospel no one could be saved reinforcing TD/TI.”

         J: Faith and belief (noun) are synonyms. Having faith and believing (verbs) are synonyms. You seem to be treating them differently. “Faith provides the basis for one to have belief” makes little sense since it means “trust provides the basis for one to trust,” in so many words. If you mean “The Faith” as in “the gospel” or “what is believed by Christians” such as it is used in Jude 1:3, then that would make more sense. The gospel does indeed make promises and claims to the hearer. And those claims are 100% true, and those promises 100% assured to the believer, which is what Heb 11:1 is getting at. But the “confidence” in those claims is not something conferred to certain people and not others. The hearer either welcomes the gospel and put confidence/trust in its claims and promises, or doesn’t. Then the hearer must confess/agree Jesus is Lord. (In some rare cases, the hearer may trust the truth of the message as even demons do, but still refuse to confess Jesus as their Lord!)

         I suggest you read Heb 11:1 in its context. You will not find that confidence is something conferred onto people, but rather the confidence of the patriarchs and others in the promise is what spurred them to continue following God, even without “seeing” the fulfillment of the promise. Note that Abraham reasoned/logically deduced that God could even raise the dead in order to fulfill a promise. Sarah supposed/considered that God was faithful. The whole chapter is about people who braved the wrath of rulers, gave up comfortable lives, or otherwise risked or suffered mistreatment, torture, imprisonment, etc. because they hoped for the future and had faith in the promises of God. Their faith was not because God “gave them” assurance, but because they trusted that God, due to His character and power, could and would make good on all His promises.

         Sometimes people stop at the end of Heb 11 – but Paul is building up an argument. The conclusion is in the next chapter.
         “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.” Heb 11:40

         “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.” Heb 12:1-3

         The reason Paul wants us to focus on the promises of God, and look to those who suffered all manner of adversity while looking forward to the promises, is because we will likely face both opposition from sinners and the temptation to sin in our own lives. Keeping our “eye on the prize” helps us keep running the race. Focusing on the joy set before us helps us endure any torture or adversity. Looking to others who have gone through adversity and overcome in faith encourages us to resist sin. Considering Christ helps us not “lose heart.”

         Heb 3 and other passages of scripture have a lot to say on this topic as well.

         R: “The purpose of enabling (prevenient) or saving (irresistible) grace is to override TD/TI. Even you seem to recognize this in the necessity for the gospel to be heard.”

         J: Total Inability is the theory that fallen man cannot respond in faith *even if* presented with the gospel. Hence the term “Inability.” That someone believes that hearing the gospel message is a necessary for someone to believe in the gospel hardly mandates agreement with either the theory of Total Inability or of Total Depravity. It’s too bad we can’t insert Venn Diagrams…

         R: “The issue is then to account for only some who hear the gospel and believe. Something else must happen to a person who “hears” the gospel before he “believes” the gospel.”

         J: Perhaps this is the real crux of the issue, for you? Why some believe, and others do not? Scripture dives into many reasons some believe (awaiting the Messiah, disposed towards eternal life, simple childlike trust, understood scriptures, joy at the promises, humbly recognize they are sinners in need of forgiveness, love God when He is revealed to them, testimony of the martyrs, etc.) and many reasons some might not believe (love of sin, hardened heart in rebellion, love of self, pride, reject testimony of scriptures/God/prophets that speak of Christ, cares of the world, not wanting their sin exposed, love lies more than truth, etc.)

         Blaise Pascal has an excellent bit about this very quandary in Pensées. Trust can be based in so many things – from simple childlike acceptance to complex logical deduction – and no one way or reason for the persuasion that Jesus is the Messiah is superior to another, since no matter the “why” the end result is the same: the person trusts the gospel and is assured of all God’s promises.

         And no matter the reason someone personally rejects the truth, the end result is the same. All who reject Jesus stand condemned.

         R: “Technically, the underlying assumption of TD/TI is that a person cannot be saved apart from faith and faith is conveyed only through the gospel”

         J: Those are assumptions that come out of the theories, they don’t underly them. E.g. because man is totally depraved, he cannot be saved apart from faith; because man is totally unable, he can’t respond to the gospel in faith; because TD/TI, the man must get faith in another way, such as prior regeneration, being given faith, the faith of Jesus applied to him, partial regeneration, overwhelming proof given, etc. (there are at least five or six different ‘ways’ I have seen various Calvinists propose as the solution here. Some believe multiple. Yours would fall under the “given faith” variety.)

         R: “If faith were conveyed to all who heard the gospel, then all would be saved. There is a need for faith.”

         J: Faith is not “conveyed” to anyone who hears the gospel. Your base premise is incorrect. But there is indeed a need for faith for God to graciously grant salvation. The *object* of our faith, Christ, was revealed to man first in His Earthly ministry and then through testimony and the gospel. Hearers either place trust in those secondary evidences and the promises or don’t. They either change their mind/repent, or they don’t.

         R: “So the question, “Why don’t all who hear the gospel receive faith and believe?”

         J: I already got into that a little, but the ‘short answer’ is that many people are too proud to admit sin, love their sin, or are otherwise unwilling. Really, though, there are countless reasons some do not believe and countless reasons others do believe. Humility, a willingness to recognize one’s correct position as a sinner before God, does seem to be a common factor.

         R: “The theory of TD/TI is that none has faith and thus is unable to believe.”

         J: No, the theory of total depravity/total inability is that man is fallen/corrupted due to sin morally, physically, mentally, etc. to such an extent that man cannot work for or merit salvation (a point all Christians agree on) AND cannot even respond to the gospel in faith (the section referred to as Total Inability, and is not a point all Christians agree on.) Or in other words, that man is ‘spiritually dead’ and so ‘like a corpse’ cannot respond to the revealing light and draw of Christ through the gospel.

         It’s not “man doesn’t have faith, so is unable to believe.” The corrupt fallen flesh, not lack of faith, is the driving idea behind the theory of Total Depravity.

         R: “TD/TI requires that God initiate salvation by first sending the gospel out and then conveying faith (the assurance and conviction of Hebrews 11) to some, but not all, of those who hear it.”

         J: TD/TI requires a ‘solution’ so man can end up with faith – not necessarily the solution you personally believe in. For most Arminians, the solution is God simply ‘enables’ everyone who hears the gospel so they can believe (in the sense of some supernatural change to their fallen nature.) Now that the fallen person ‘can’ believe, some choose to and others refuse to. For Calvinists, the solutions vary. For some, like you, they believe faith itself is effectually given. Others believe the Holy Spirit regenerates a select view, making them born again so they can, and indeed must when combined with the theory of irresistible grace, believe. For others, they believe that Christ’s own faith in the Father is effectually applied to the fallen sinner. Yet others believe that only a partial regeneration is required, much like the Arminian thought, of mind or heart – but that the insight this gives is not resistible and all who receive it will necessarily believe. Etc. There is some cross-over, but you will find it is not an area of complete agreement among Calvinists over what precisely is required to solve the problem that TD introduced to begin with.

         R: “If one says that the gospel enlivens a dead faith already residing in the person…

         J: No one says this. You are presenting a strawman argument, and a strange one at that. The gospel presents Christ to the fallen sinner. The fallen sinner either is persuaded that the testimony is true or is not. They either believe or do not. If they receive Christ in faith (Jn 1:12) then they die to sin and the law, God raises them to new life in Christ and gives them the indwelling Spirit, God grants them the right to become a child of God, etc. Faith in Christ is not something waiting within a person to be made alive, or sitting without a person waiting to be effectually given. It’s a response, trust, a person has in response to secondary (non-‘sight’) evidence.

         R: “faith is the basis for salvation”

         J: It’s one necessary requirement, but not because it merits salvation or starts the process of salvation or is part of salvation. It is the basis because God graciously made it the condition, not because it would be worth anything of itself otherwise. Man couldn’t achieve salvation by works, but God wanted men to be saved, so God made the condition faith. (The implication in Galations and elsewhere that the condition was chosen because even a fallen human could trust in *someone else’s* work, namely Christ, or accept a pardon won by someone else.) The ‘true’ basis for salvation is the work of Christ and God’s gracious eternal plan as those are the underlying bottom layers, not faith. But it is fair to say faith is a personal requirement to be saved, so is a necessary thing even if not the true “basis” of salvation.

         R: “then one could say that the person initiates (or better, cooperates) in his salvation without such cooperation, he could not be saved.”

         J: Initiation and cooperation are very different things. This article was about initiation. As to cooperation, a person doesn’t cooperate/help with salvation by having faith, since salvation is not faith and faith is not salvation. God graciously grants salvation to the person with faith. It’s not that He “couldn’t save” a person without faith, but that God chooses to only save those with faith for the sake of His own character. If you accept a gift someone gives you, it doesn’t mean you cooperated with the making or buying or giving of the gift.

         Now, one could say that man cooperates with faith – that would be fair enough to say. Since both God and man are involved in faith (One offering the draw and testimony and revelation and good news victory has been one at the cross, the other trusting in that evidence) one could say they cooperate just as a person choosing to welcome a gift ‘cooperates’ in the acceptance of the gift as it is handed off.

         One way I have heard this termed is “Monergistic salvation, synergistic faith.” I think that is a fair enough assessment.

         But regardless of how one terms it, scripture never implies that it would be somehow terrible if man had the ability to repent and believe or that man trusting the gospel, without faith itself being effectually given, would make man partially responsible for actual salvation. Rather, scripture is pretty straightforward that fallen man needs to believe to be saved, but that it’s God’s gracious choice to grant salvation and eternal life to believers – not something faith merits of itself. God saves, not man. But it was His sovereign choice to only save those with faith, since only believers trust in the covering blood of Jesus Christ.

         For OT parallels, look at the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, or the deliverance of Israelites from the Angel of death.

         There were things the Israelites had to do: sacrifice lambs, apply blood to the doorframe, actually leave Egypt and keep walking/following, etc. Did God say, “Oh no, let me apply the blood for you, lest you take partial credit for my deliverance!” Or “Oh, here, let me irresistibly float you across the sea, lest onlookers think you cooperated with my miracle if I did something like ask you to walk.” Of course not! That they had to trust and follow and apply the blood did not minimize the deliverance and miracles of God. In the same way, our faith in the blood of Christ to cover us in no way minimizes the deliverance and salvation God graciously brings to those with faith.

         This will have to be my last reply to you on this topic. I’m glad we’ve been able to pack many of your underlying concerns, but it is apparent that you think others believe a great many things they do not and this is really affecting the premises you propose. I really recommend researching the views of those you disagree with to the point you could even argue them yourself, if needed, as this will really minimize the chance thinking or proposing that others believe other than they do (e.g. believe/propose strawman or prop argments rather than seeking understanding of others.)

         Loading...

      5. JR: “Hearing the gospel message is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to have faith….”

         I agree. My point was that the gospel is the means by which God conveys faith to a person. It is by this faith that we believe in Christ. Faith is not the means by which we believe the gospel but faith is the means by which we believe in Him whom the gospel describes to us. Where you state, “We receive/accept the gospel in faith,” I would say, “We receive/accept Christ in faith – a faith derived from the gospel.”

         JR: “Faith and belief (noun) are synonyms.”

         I am not sure about that. For now, I take them to have separate meanings. With faith, one has assurance and conviction; in belief one acts on that assurance and conviction. Faith is a noun; believing is a verb. As you stated, …the hearer may trust the truth of the message as even demons do, but still refuse to confess Jesus as their Lord! Faith bridges the gap between believing that the gospel is true and believing in Christ and confessing Him as Lord. So, “…the confidence [faith] of the patriarchs and others in the promise is what spurred them to continue following [believing] God,” Where you say, “Their faith was not because God “gave them” assurance, but because they trusted that God,” I would say, Their faith was because God “gave them” assurance, and enabled them to trust God,” It is a technical point, I guess.

         More later.

         Loading...

      6. JR: “The reason Paul wants us to focus on the promises of God,…is because we will likely face both opposition from sinners…”

         I agree and think most, if not all, also agree.

         Then, ‘Total Inability is the theory that fallen man cannot respond in faith *even if* presented with the gospel.”

         This because TI says a person has no faith and cannot have faith without hearing the gospel. Thus, Christ’s saying, “He who has ears to hear…”

         Then, “That someone believes that hearing the gospel message is a necessary for someone to believe in the gospel hardly mandates agreement with either the theory of Total Inability or of Total Depravity.”

         That’s fine. Now you just need to explain what makes hearing the gospel necessary to convey faith without appealing to TI preceding that conveyance of faith. Go for it.

         Then, “Perhaps this is the real crux of the issue, for you? Why some believe, and others do not?”

         Of course it is. It was to explain why people reject the gospel that we get to TD/TI as the explanation. If you have an alternate explanation, let’s hear it.

         Then, “Scripture dives into many reasons some believe…and many reasons some might not believe …”

         Absolutely not!! People believe because they have faith; people do not believe because they do not have faith. People are saved by grace, through faith. For God to give a person faith is to ensure that they will believe.

         Then, “because TD/TI, the man must get faith in another way, such as prior regeneration,”

         Absolutely not!! The only way for a person to receive faith is through the gospel. Calvinists will say that regeneration is necessary to prepare a person to receive faith when they hear the gospel. I don’t think Calvinists disagree on this point and I really don’t know what you mean when you say “(there are at least five or six different ‘ways’ I have seen various Calvinists propose as the solution here….).”

         Then, “Faith is not “conveyed” to anyone who hears the gospel. Your base premise is incorrect.”

         Paul wrote, “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” If you can explain this otherwise than the Calvinist, do so.

         Then, “It’s not “man doesn’t have faith, so is unable to believe.” The corrupt fallen flesh, not lack of faith, is the driving idea behind the theory of Total Depravity.”

         Not in Calvinism. In Calvinism, the corrupted flesh is devoid of faith and thereby TD/TI. A corrupted flesh is necessary to TD, but is not sufficient to produce TD – it is the lack of faith that seems man’s condition.

         Then, “For most Arminians, the solution is God simply ‘enables’ everyone who hears the gospel so they can believe (in the sense of some supernatural change to their fallen nature.)”

         I am not Arminian, so I do not know. I suspect that Arminians understand that prevenient grace enables a person to receive faith once the person hears the gospel. I’ll yield to Dr. Olson on this point when he says, “It seems to me that the Bible does teach that the sinner in incapable of responding to the offer of saving grace with repentance and faith without a supernatural work of God…” I think he means that prevenient grace makes repentance and faith possible when neither is possible without preveient grace.

         I think we have bet this horse enough.

         Loading...

      7. rhutchin: ‘“The issue of TD/TI is the condition of man’s spirit …”
         JR: “That wasn’t the topic of my argument….”

         As both Calvinism and Arminianism take man to be TD/TI, he cannot initiate his own salvation (i.e., decide that he wants to be saved or to seek salvation). This is your conclusion also, but it is not clear why a person could not initiate his salvation under your system. However, you opened the essay with, “…there is a more fundamental question that Dr. Olson leaves unaddressed. Does spurning the idea that an unregenerate, fallen man is incapable of responding to the gospel in faith, the theory of Total Inability which is shared by Calvinists and many Arminians, mean that one must believe that man is “the initiator in salvation”?” Why would Dr, Olson need to deal with that issue? Given that you agree that God initiates salvation in the manner described in your essay, there is the presumption that you agree with Dr. Olson even if you disagree about TD/TI. You just need to explain what you see preventing a person initiating his salvation (e.g., by seeking atonement for his behavior) without any action by God and then pursuing his salvation once he hears the gospel.

         Then, “The charge that “man initiates salvation” is the only alternative to Total Inability for others to believe, then, is incorrect. It’s a false dilemma.”

         I commented to Dr. Olson, and he replied, “I am still confused about the role of the Holy Spirit in the “Traditionalist Baptist” (non-Calvinist, non-Arminian) soteriology.” For example, does the Holy Spirit convey faith to one who hears the gospel? Apparently not, since that position is a TI position – without faith a person cannot come to Christ. However, if a person already has faith apart from hearing the gospel, then the purpose of the gospel is to enable a person to initiate his salvation by exercising his faith. You seem to be saying that God initiates salvation just by making the gospel available without regard to what a person might do with it. Thus, your comment, “These all ‘introduce’ us to Christ, the good news of the Kingdom of God, and the way of salvation.” The gospel introduces the person to Christ and invites the person to come to an initiation and this cannot happen without a decision by the person to accept the invitation. So, you have God taking the initiative in a general sense to make salvation available to all but the person must decide (or take the initiate(?)) to accept that invitation. Each party to salvation initiates his part with neither part being able to complete the deal by itself. What is the role of the Holy Spirit in this process?

         Loading...

5. Thanks Eric and Jenai. This is excellent. This is the absolute core and primary issue that begins one down one or the other soteriological paths. Everything else builds on this concept. I have spoken to many who consider themselves outwardly a Calvinist or partially Calvinist but when we talk a bit they open up that they have serious concerns about much of what Calvinism teaches, but they feel they have to consider it because they have first bought into Total Inability because they’ve never been exposed to good teaching that proves out that TI is not a biblical concept.and that if one rejects TI they are not “man-centered” or believing in “human initiation.” So once they buy into TI, they have to buy into either Calvinism or Arminianism as the answer to TI. I love to give them the “good news” that they aren’t stuck with those two alternatives, there is another way that is much more in line with scripture, is coherent, and begins and ends with God, not man.

   Great article and another good resource. .

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. andyb2015 writes, ” So once they buy into TI, they have to buy into either Calvinism or Arminianism as the answer to TI.”

      No, they have to buy into God’s active involvement in the salvation of a person – through drawing, conviction of sin, etc., and thereby buy into TI. If one were to deny such involvement by God, he would outright buy into a Pelagian system.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. The above article is entirely about God’s active involvement in initiating both effectual salvation as well as His active role in drawing all through Christ’s death and ressurection and the Holy Spirit convicting the world of sin and initiating the offer of salvation by sending/revealing Christ, etc.

         But nothing in that would logically imply or mandate belief in Total Inability. Faith is not equivalent to salvation, nor does it merit salvation of itself, nor does it accomplish salvation of itself, nor would man even have thought to trust or need a Savior without God’s plans and provisions. It is God’s gracious choice to grant salvation to those who believe in His promise, not man’s idea or meritorious work.

         Loading...

      2. Jenai,
         You have done well. It is understandable, concise, and biblical. There will be some who “do not choose” to believe it (get it?) but of course life is full of choices….and what we think does make a difference.

         Now, you can expect from JTL some long repetition of “what must be” just….well just because he says it over and over.

         From RH you can expect name-calling: Universalist, proponent of works-salvation, synergist, or ….. even being a semi- or full Polynesian!

         Perhaps sprinkled into the responses will be the same 5-10 verses we hear over and over (“Yes, because you have never responded to these verse!”).

         So….stay the course and keep putting out material that others can read that will help them decide which position to follow…. cuz in the end, either we are “determined” to hold the positions we hold, or we choose them!

         Loading...

      3. FOH writes:
         “So….stay the course and keep putting out material that others can read that will help them decide which position to follow…. cuz in the end, either we are “determined” to hold the positions we hold, or we choose them!”

         So why do those who assert that all things are determined choose to even participate on this blog, or in any conversation concerning the topic? In all seriousness, if no one has a choice, and God’s chosen will unavoidably be regenerated, why don’t they just, pardon my frankness, shut up and go away? They have absolutely nothing to gain, and it would seem that they enjoy rubbing it in the poor damned men’s faces that they are not one of the lucky chosen few.

         It makes sense for those who perceive a choice to be made to reason and discuss the things of salvation with unbelievers. They have an offer that such men desperately need, however much they may not know it. Calvinists can only crow about what great luck they have to be one of the elect.

         The rest of us, who once did not believe, but made a voluntary choice to believe in and receive the astounding, undeserved love and mercy of God will most assuredly recall making that choice. We speak out because we long for all men to know and believe in this God who is lovingly, graciously, mercifully calling all men to himself.

         What brutes we would be to speak of this great gift if it was not genuinely offered to others. Even the child with basic good manners knows not to speak of a birthday party in front of those not invited. Yet Calvinists declare with glee, ‘Only we have been chosen. You all are going to hell. God’s name be praised.’ One can see why non-believers who perceive Calvinism as Christianity hate it. In actuality they hate Calvinism, not the true gospel of salvation.

         Loading...

      4. TS00,
         Exactly.

         And I have share several places on this blog that my nephew is one such hater.

         In his later years of high school, when he was a leader in the youth group, the church called a newly-minted YRR, Calvinist as youth leader.

         He pounded in “The Doctrines of Grace” so hard that my nephew (who is now PhD level brilliant) just did the math and now “hates the Gospel.” Such grace!

         Loading...

      5. TSOO I appreciate you taking this seriously & speaking up just as I respect all those on this blog. Even though I never bought into calvinism nor arminianism to me they were simply titles assigned to camps that seemed against one another. I appreciate the historical information, because it brings things into a little more clarity for me. I also love the analogies given, & the knowledge you all have of this subject and the willingness to talk about it. For me the big one is others are hearing about God in a wrong light and I view this site as a defense of God’s Holy character not that He needs us to defend Him, but also an opportunity to refute those who say; “this is what God says, because I said so or they said so” This site says Really line your systematic up with the only thing that really matters His Word & connect the time period to the text. I know I’ve heard (I think Br.d told me🤔) calvinists aren’t even certain they’re elect/ chosen. I was unaware of that aspect until coming to this site. Ugh really sad to me & the times I’ve questioned whether God loves me or not has not been during really hard times, but rather believing there was a slight possibility He was a calvinist God☹ so I’ve despised this systematic for awhile!! So please keep sounding the alarm even if you think they’re not listening!!! Your planting seeds🌻

         Jude 1:23 NASB — save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.

         Loading...

      6. I despise Calvinism for the same reasons that atheists do. Only more so, because of the dishonor it casts upon God and the stumblingblock it puts in front of those who might otherwise respond to the true message of freely offered grace.

         Loading...

      7. Jenai Rothnie writes, “The above article is entirely about God’s active involvement in initiating both effectual salvation…But nothing in that would logically imply or mandate belief in Total Inability.”

         Total Inability, and the Scriptures cited to demonstrate that position, was not argued. I think the goal of the article was to show that the lost are able to cooperate with God in their salvation – God provides the means – or grace (death of Christ, conviction of sin, etc) and the lost person provides the faith (maybe only the will) to believe.

         Loading...

      8. Jenai:
         It is a curious thing the Calvinists’ drum-beating for Total Depravity (Total Inability).

         They feel that they provide “verses” for this position, but there are actually whole-chapter stories that cover the topic well.

         The most spectacular event in the OT and the most cited/ recounted event in the Bible is Passover.

         God “did it all”. He provides the idea, the instructions, and the way of escape. Still they had to apply the blood in faith and stay in the house.

         Now…..when this story is repeated over and over in the Bible it always says something like “God rescued His people.” I mean never “they rescued themselves.” It would be silly to accuse them of rescuing themselves. They were slaves (like we were slaves to sin), and what’s more they had no Bibles, teachers, and for hundreds of years, no prophets.

         But obviously, with the kind of proof offered by miracles (just as Christ and Paul did that they might convince people, or bear witness) they had enough “ability” to respond in faith.

         Calvinist answer: God told them what to do and gave miracles to provide the witness…. but that was not enough. God had to give each of them the faith to put the blood on the door. It’s the Calvinist position. It’s just not in the Bible.

         But that doesnt stop them from saying it!

         Loading...

      9. ‘There is power, power, wonder working power’ . . . but only those who had the faith to apply the blood of the lamb by their own free choice received the promised salvation. God has supplied the blood of the once-for-all Lamb, but it’s power of salvation will only be received by those who believe in it, thereby applying it – through faith – by their own free choice.

         Loading...

      10. TS00,
          Not only is there power in the blood…there is power in the Gospel.

          Paul knew better:

          Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed….

          The Gospel (preached Word) has the power and is the “righteousness of God revealed”.

          God reveals His plan in the Gospel….then men believe it or not.

          The blood has the power to save if applied.

          The Gospel has the power to save if believed.

          Loading...

      11. You make a good point. It is likely I would now reject the theology in that old hymn, as I do so many. The power is not in the blood, as if it is some kind of magic. The power comes from believing and receiving the promise of God. Were the power in the blood, no man would need to believe – all would be automatically forgiven of sin.

          Which once again demonstrates that the Calvinist and Universalist believe in the same deterministic fate; they only differ in how far its application goes. The genuine gospel message of salvation is that salvation rests solely upon our faith in the atonement has been accomplished, by God alone, with no contribution from man. Were the power in ‘the work’, i.e., the blood, all would be saved. The power to receive new life comes as a result of our believing in the promised salvation of God and desiring it above all else. This is a faith that results in changed lives.

          Loading...

      12. TS00,
          We have made this point before. Calvinists and Universalists are twin brothers. One is just taller than the other.

          Both agree that God, ex cathedra, with no hint whatsoever of participation, agreement, or free-will of man decides people’s fate.

          Universalists declare that He decides that all will be saved and none damned. Calvinists declare that He decides that a few will be saved and most damned. The difference is only in the number.

          Again, If God had wanted to create a world where either of those is correct, He could have. The Bible does not seem to say that He did.

          Loading...

      13. FOH writes:
          “The Bible does not seem to say that He did.”

          You, of course, are understating the situation, as a very good case can and has been made that the bible sets forth a far different story, again and again, than one of Divine Determinism. 😉

          Loading...

      14. TS00 writes, “Which once again demonstrates that the Calvinist and Universalist believe in the same deterministic fate; they only differ in how far its application goes. ”

          Yes. The Calvinist says God saves some but not all; the Universalist says God saves all.

          Loading...

      15. And the biblicist says God desires to save all, and freely offers to do so – but the choice is left to each individual, thus some will refuse.

          Loading...

      16. FOH quotes Romans, “because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.”

          So not to everyone but only those who believe. These are those first given to Christ by God who thereby come to believe. The focus here is not on individuals but on Jews and gentiles. Thus, the gospel in the power of God that brings salvation to Jews and non-Jews, a theme that Paul develops later in Romans.

          Loading...

   2. I find it very troubling that ‘scare tactics’ are often used to quell free discussion in various controversial topics. One side (or multiple sides) will in a sense ‘frighten’ those just beginning to study a topic by claiming that to believe another side’s view would be equivalent to being a heretic, or a cult, or stupid, disbelieving Christ, arrogant, etc. One can expect that sort of bludgeoning of character or intellect or spirituality, vs. relying on scripture and reason to persuade others of a view, out in the secular world – but it is still sad to see within the church.

      Loading...

      Reply

6. Jenai, thanks for sharing. Your points are clear and logical. Don’t expect rhutchin to admit that, however. He is committed to his belief system, and no amount of clear, consistent, logical evidence is going to have any effect. The logical fallacies of Calvinism have been shown and discounted by many, going back hundreds of years. Calvinism’s only strategy at this point is to ignore sound arguments and play word games to avoid acknowledging logical and scriptural inconsistencies.

   Loading...

   Reply

7. God is the initiator of Salvation. God must do it for the reason that man cannot do it for themselves. What’s the reason why they cannot do it for themselves? The answer is that the fallen man, has been spiritually dead and has been separated from a holy God due to sin. God the Father’s drawing sinners to come to the Son and the quickening of the Holy Spirit to the reprobates are just one of the means of God’s initiatives to effectually reach out to the fallen man.

   Non-Calvinists maintains that man though dead in sin still posses moral ascendancy to come back to God on their own using their native faith. If they can do it for themselves using their native faith, then man becomes the initiator of his salvation. He doesn’t need to be rescued by God anymore. He can go out of the pit on his own.

   Calvinists maintains that God is the one who gives faith after the fallen man has been made alive spiritually. God’s initiative to change the previous condition into spiritually alive condition is an evidence of God’s initiative in offering salvation to the legitimate beneficiaries.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. “God is the initiator of Salvation. God must do it for the reason that man cannot do it for themselves.”

      Agreed.

      “What’s the reason why they cannot do it for themselves? The answer is that the fallen man, has been spiritually dead and has been separated from a holy God due to sin.”

      The grammar is a little odd – fallen man IS spiritually dead and separated from God, not ‘has been’ – but otherwise agreed. This spiritual death, as I have detailed under other topics, refers to man being under the penalty of death due to being lawbreakers, and being a slave to sin/seeking the cravings of the flesh so unable to be morally perfect. And since it only takes one sin to be a lawbreaker, all fall short of the glory of God.

      ” God the Father’s drawing sinners to come to the Son” – This happens to all due to Christ’s death and Resurrection (Jn 12:32), which is indeed one way God initiates the general opportunity for salvation to all mankind.

      “The quickening of the Holy Spirit to the reprobate” – This is never described, implied, or mandated in scripture, as something that happens to a reprobate prior to repentance and faith. Only believers are quickened by the Spirit and receive new life, as it is through identifying with Christ’s death and God raising them up that God makes the believer born again. And Christ makes the believer *literally* born again with a new body at the Resurrection. (Rom 6, I Cor 15, Rom 7, I Pet 1, Titus 3, etc.)

      “are just one of the means of God’s initiatives to effectually reach out to the fallen man” – You seem to be treating ‘drawing’ and ‘quickening by the Spirit’ as the same concept by uniting them into one concept. But scripture treats them very differently. The “draw all things to Myself” Christ did by being lifted up, as Moses lifted the snake up in the wilderness as God offered healing to all those who would look at it. But quickening, making alive, only happens to the believer when the unite in the death of Christ (so the ‘law’ treats the believer as dead, hence no penalty, so the believer ‘dies to the law’ that bound him, etc.) and God raises the believer to new life and grants the indwelling Holy Spirit. Only then can the believer walk by the Spirit and understand and seek spiritual things.

      “Non-Calvinists maintains that man though dead in sin still posses moral ascendancy to come back to God on their own using their native faith.”

      This is a strange and illogical assailment you entail non-Calvinist’s with. No Christian believes man can “come back to God on their own” – at the very heart of Christian orthodoxy is the belief that Christ alone is the way to be reconciled to the Father. No one believes humans have the “power” to save themselves or reach God on their own.

      Ascendency is dominance or controlling influence. Why would believing that man could trust the gospel message when presented with it; the gospel being all about the revelation of the Messiah to man, Christ’s perfect work done on man’s behalf, etc.; give fallen man some form of moral dominance over God?

      Do you believe a drowning man accepting a thrown lifebuoy gains physical dominance over the one graciously pulling him in? Do you believe a poor man cashing a check received from a rich neighbor is showing monetary controlling influence over the rich man by cashing a check? Do you believe accepting a birthday gift gives you moral superiority over the giver? Of course not!

      Receiving Christ by believing in His name and work doesn’t give a person moral dominance or influence of God. It doesn’t even of itself give the right/power/authority to be reconciled to God or adopted by God or saved, etc. It is God’s choice to grant salvation to those who believe. The power and authority stem from God, not man.

      Indeed, a large part of repentance and faith is the recognition that God has the moral ascendancy over us, and that we are subject to judgement in our current state, and so we need a Savior, and that God graciously sent us one who did indeed have the power to accomplish what He claimed to!

      “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” Jn 1:12-13

      Receiving (aggressively taking/accepting what is offered) is the same concept as ‘believing in His name’ – faith. What gives them the right/power/authority to be children? The faith? NO! God gives the right to those with faith. [You seem, again, to be treating faith as some salvific force or merit that forces God’s hand in and of itself.]

      How are these believers then born as new children of God? Of their own power and will? By two parents having intercourse? By the believer deciding ‘hey I’m gonna be adopted now, poof?’ No! Of God’s power and will, as detailed above. Through baptism the believer unites with the death of Christ and God raises the believer to new life and grants the indwelling Spirit. Now that the believer has the Holy Spirit, the believer is an adopted child of God via the regeneration God gave.

      ” If they can do it for themselves using their native faith, then man becomes the initiator of his salvation.”

      They can’t do it themselves ‘using faith.’ God *grants* salvation to those with faith, graciously.

      I am not even sure how to make sense of your thoughts here. Imagine a ditch-digger is about to die in a mudslide that is coming, but a man on horseback shows himself, warns the man he has mere minutes, reaches down, and offers to help him out. The man in the ditch clasped the offered hand and is lifted out.

      There is only one thing the man in the ditch could be said to initiate: clasping the offered hand/agreeing to be helped. Did that make him the initiator of the offer? No, he only returned the grasp of a hand offered to him first. Did accepting rescue initiate the rescue? Of course not – the offer had already been made, and the effectual rescue happened (was initiated) when the rescuer started pulling up. Simple logic shows that. If the would-be-rescuer chose not to pull him out instead of making good on his promise to rescue, then the man in the ditch could clasp hands all he wanted – nothing would happen. And without the deliverer revealing himself and offering rescue, the man in the ditch would not have even known his danger, let alone had the opportunity to be saved from it.

      “He doesn’t need to be rescued by God anymore. He can go out of the pit on his own.” Again, does clasping the hand of the rescuer now make the man in the ditch able to climb out of the ditch on his own? Of course not!! The one pulling the man out of the ditch/pit is God. Faith/trust that God can do so doesn’t magically confer pit-escaping power on a person.

      “Calvinists maintains that God is the one who gives faith after the fallen man has been made alive spiritually.”

      Which is one reason many of us find it unscriptural, since scripture shows God giving new life in the Spirit to those who believe, not somehow making them alive then giving them faith. It’s also illogical, since there is no reason someone spiritually alive would need to die with Christ and receive new life if they had already passed from death to life.

      “God’s initiative to change the previous condition into spiritually alive condition is an evidence of God’s initiative in offering salvation to the legitimate beneficiaries.”

      No. God’s initiative in offering to change the condition of all men (gospel) and God effectually changing the spiritual condition of the believer is an evidence of God’s initiative in both the offer of salvation to all mankind and God’s initiative (and indeed full accomplishment) of the effectual granting of salvation to the legitimate beneficiaries of the New Covenant; those that believe.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Jenai Writes : “There is only one thing the man in the ditch could be said to initiate: clasping the offered hand/agreeing to be helped. Did that make him the initiator of the offer? No, he only returned the grasp of a hand offered to him first. Did accepting rescue initiate the rescue? Of course not – the offer had already been made, and the effectual rescue happened (was initiated) when the rescuer started pulling up. Simple logic shows that. If the would-be-rescuer chose not to pull him out instead of making good on his promise to rescue, then the man in the ditch could clasp hands all he wanted – nothing would happen. And without the deliverer revealing himself and offering rescue, the man in the ditch would not have even known his danger, let alone had the opportunity to be saved from it.”

         “He doesn’t need to be rescued by God anymore. He can go out of the pit on his own.” Again, does clasping the hand of the rescuer now make the man in the ditch able to climb out of the ditch on his own? Of course not!! The one pulling the man out of the ditch/pit is God. Faith/trust that God can do so doesn’t magically confer pit-escaping power on a person.”
         ——My Response——

         1. Jenai, how can that man be able to clasp his hand to the offer when he is spiritually disabled? we are talking here of spiritual matter, i.e “spiritual rebirth” is totally beyond man’s capability as you agreed above. The fallen man being disconnected to God is dead, and disabled by sin. They are blind and they cannot unblind themselves. He can only react if his dead spirit is given life.

         2. Agreed… God is the one deciding and pulling the rope to raise up the man….. and Jenai, God may do it only for those whom He gives life. Why give life to those whom he will not pull up the rope, I mean to those whom He knows beforehand that will not believe in the Son ?

         3. You said: “…since there is no reason someone spiritually alive would need to die with Christ and receive new life if they had already passed from death to life.” —— [Dying with Christ here has something to do with the doctrine of Sanctification. It does not refer to the event of making the dead spirit into spiritually alive. No one is automatically born spiritually alive upon physical birth.]

         4. You said : “No. God’s initiative in offering to change the condition of all men (gospel) and God effectually changing the spiritual condition of the believer is an evidence of God’s initiative in both the offer of salvation to all mankind and God’s initiative (and indeed full accomplishment) of the effectual granting of salvation to the legitimate beneficiaries of the New Covenant; those that believe.”

         But… Jenai … if your idea is denied by the 4 types of soil. Only the good soil has been changed by God into good by the time the seed fell on them. The other types of soil remained unchanged thus all of them failed. I believe that the Word of God alone is effective, “two edged sword”, but in the case of the 4 types of soil it does not work to the rest of of the types soil. It will only work to the legitimate beneficiaries as what you have quoted.

         Loading...

      2. JT,
         Woah there you go breaking a fundamental rule of exegesis.

         “But… Jenai … if your idea is denied by the 4 types of soil. Only the good soil has been changed by God into good by the time the seed fell on them. ”

         Where did you get the idea that the soil is changed by anyone? There is no mention of that in the parable or in the explanation by Christ. You are just showing your bias to “read into” a passage what you want it to say.

         Not a good idea, friend.

         Loading...

8. Wonderful article JENAI!

   Very clear and precise and logically laid out!
   You provided an excellent argument to show that the presumption of Total Inability is unnecessary for Biblical coherence.
   Sincere thanks!

   Of course the other conundrum Calvinists are faced with concerning Total Depravity is – since Calvin teaches that no man knows who the elect are – it follows no Calvinist has any certainly of his own election. They may in fact be TOTALLY DEPRAVED.

   Additionally – Calvin teaches that for a -quote “LARGE MIXTURE” in the Calvinist fold – Calvin’s god holds out salvation as a -quote “Scepter of greater condemnation” . For a temporary period (we assume while living) he deceives these Calvinists into believing they are saved. And then at some point he will – quote “strike them with greater blindness”.

   So it logically follows that a LARGE MIXTURE of Calvinists are TOTALLY DEPRAVED according to Calvin.
   And Calvinists thus have absolutely no discernment to know whether they are TOTALLY DEPRAVED or not.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. The necessity in Calvinism of believing some are deceived by God into believing they are saved (for His greater glory, or whatever excuse is used) is one of it’s strangest ironies, considering that many Calvinists believe and teach that in ‘other views’ man can never be assured of salvation and so only Calvinism brings piece of mind.

      Yet the reality is quite opposite. The view that faith is required for God to grant salvation may, and should, lead to self-examination, but it does not lead to anxiety. (II Cor 13:5, Col 1:22-23, II Pet 1:3-11, etc.)

      But if someone clings to the idea that salvation truly rests in a choice of God apart from faith, so a person never really knows if their current belief is just a deceptive belief or partial belief that might be removed from them someday could glean no assurance from scripture of their personal salvation nor assurance that they are truly among the elect. Rather than hoping in Christ and thus holding the assurance that one is among the saved and elect, they would be hoping that they turn out to be among the elect (and thus hoping they are among those special few given true enduring faith.) To me, that would seem a far more shaky and anxious state, since even if I believed that God would preserve His elect I would have no guarantee that I was among them vs. among those deceived into thinking they are among them.

      I have never had cause to doubt my salvation, even through my darkest times of struggle with sin or being temporarily angry at God, etc. as I have faith in Christ. Yet I’ve been told by many Calvinists that I must necessarily struggle with anxiety and doubts and not know if I am truly saved or will be saved tomorrow, etc. [And I’ve been told by at least half a dozen of them that I’m not really saved at all since I do not ascribe to the points of T.U.L.I.P., as if that was a superior mark of knowing whether one was saved than simply trusting God in faith.]

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Well said Jenai

         Concerning the psychology of Calvinists – over the years I have observed it.
         And it becomes clear that the psychological burden imposed on them requires the mind to compartmentalize into what I call *AS-IF* thinking patterns.

         [X] is true *AS-IF* false
         or
         [X] is false *AS-IF* true

         This burden is put upon them by virtue of embracing determinism.

         To deal with it – Calvin instructed his disciples to -quote “Go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part”.

         No one can live out this type of belief system with rational coherence. Every determinist who believes he has no degree of autonomy has to live AS-IF he does. Every determinist has to at some level make-believe he can think for himself.

         Every determinist has to at some level make-believe when he approaches a fork in the garden path; the ability to go in either direction is truly available to him. Even though determinism stipulates one single predestined future for every event.

         Every determinist Christian has to (at some level) make-believe that when God commanded Adam not to eat the forbidden fruit, God in fact made choosing obedience an available option to Adam – and not simply present it as an illusion that didn’t really exist, because whatever is not rendered-certain does not exist.

         The Calvinist who is a purist rejects “mere” permission as it pertains to the divine will.
         He rejects any degree of creaturely autonomy
         And he rejects divine foreknowledge via observation.

         But they can’t actually live without these things – because they see them as part of the pattern weaved throughout the language of scripture.

         So they use subtle language tricks to SNEAK in camouflaged form – these things back into their system.
         This behavior pattern becomes a red-flag that they internally recognize things are wrong with their system.
         But yet unable to be honest with themselves and admit it.
         And I suspect that is probably due to spiritual pride.

         Loading...

   2. br.d writes, “it follows no Calvinist has any certainly of his own election.”

      Of course he can simply in the work God is doing within him to remove the works of the flesh and instill the work of the Spirit, increasing his desire for the word, to know it and understand it, an increasing dependence on God’s word, being at peace with God and not his enemy, and many other affects of God’s working in him that would have been present had God not saved him. Any believer knows what he was, what he is, and where God is taking him.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. br.d writes,
         “it follows no Calvinist has any certainly of his own election.”

         rhutchin writes:
         “Of course he can simply in the work God is doing within him to remove the works of the flesh and instill the work of the Spirit, increasing his desire for the word, to know it and understand it, an increasing dependence on God’s word, being at peace with God and not his enemy, and many other affects of God’s working in him that would have been present had God not saved him. Any believer knows what he was, what he is, and where God is taking him.”

         Alas, there are many who at one time had such assurance, and all the appearance of being an elect child of God, only to fall away, proving – according to Calvinism – that they never were. Calvin has some gross explanations of how God does this deliberately, presumably for some sort of cruel thrill. As Calvin put it:

         “ . . . though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption . . .

         We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy.285 In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.“

         So, you may have true assurance, or you may just have ‘a confused sense of grace’ or evanescent grace; who knows?

         Loading...

      2. TS00, Rhutchin,

         I had a friend who was one of the leaders of a Bible Study. He was a Calvinist in soteriology, but a humble one who chose to be the support rather than the teacher. He even helped lead a three hour ‘can of worms’ discussion where the class debated Calvinism and we had a decently amiable time plastering a large white board with verses, and this discussion included preservation of the saints and the argument (from him and others) that only Calvinism offered true assurance of salvation, while others must necessarily be unsure. Over the years his spiritual growth in various areas was obvious, and if someone was down he was the first to come alongside to encourage. He seemed to have a deep and growing relationship with Christ, and he was very involved in worship. At some point, he decided to become a missionary. Great so far, right? Only he took the Perspectives course, and for whatever reason decided that Christianity was not defensible. So he publicly held an event and announced a bit later that he was no longer a Christian – and it was pretty obvious, to, as he no longer had that gift of encouragement and was now oblivious to the needs around him and far more consumed with self than I had ever seen him prior. I’ve only seen him a few times since, where he was now doubtful and, oddly enough, considering becoming Catholic because he found the thought of the rituals and history attractive.

         Now, one could debate endlessly about what it all means. Was he a believer who gave up when the world got tough, like seeds on rocky soil? Was he never a Christian to begin with, and just pretending to us all? Was he only intellectually a Christian but never had a relationship with Christ? Was he one of Calvin’s reprobates that merely had a ‘confused sense of grace?’ Etc.

         The point is, however, that his Calvinism – even his belief that he personally was assured of salvation and that God would keep him to the end, wasn’t enough to actually keep him in the faith. He claimed he felt assurance, but it was a false assurance – whether one views that as him being a deceived unbeliever or a temporary believer who failed to endure to the end in faith.

         So how does Calvinism give a better or more secure assurance than the assurance that comes from simply believing that as long as one has faith, he is saved?

         Which is all a different topic, I suppose, but a very interesting one.

         Loading...

      3. JR: “So how does Calvinism give a better or more secure assurance than the assurance that comes from simply believing that as long as one has faith, he is saved?”

         Calvinism does not provide assurance of salvation. The Scriptures provide that assurance (i.e., faith) Calvinism is a body of knowledge that helps one understand the Scriptures. When one studies the Scripture and arrives at the same conclusions as Calvinism teaches, he essentially becomes a Calvinist. If one believes in Calvinism without studying the Scriptures to see if the Scriptures support that which Calvinism says, he is on shaky ground. That could have been your friend’s problem – he understood Calvinism; he did not understand how the Scriptures support Calvinism concepts.

         Loading...

      4. Jeani
         So how does Calvinism give a better or more secure assurance than the assurance that comes from simply believing that as long as one has faith, he is saved?”

         rhutchin
         Calvinism does not provide assurance of salvation. The Scriptures provide that assurance…etc

         br.d
         Jeani – do we see how rhutchin evades the question.

         The TRUTH:
         In Calvinism no man knows who the “elect” are because that is SECRET
         And that is “supposedly” derived from scripture.

         So the answer is – any assurance of salvation one derives from scripture – Calvinism removes.

         In the context of DARK truths – Calvinists are taught a form of altruistic dishonesty.

         Calvin’s god designs the MANY for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
         And thus the MANY of the population of every Calvinist fold.

         Calvin himself called the Calvinist fold a -quote LARGE MIXTURE of those who are deceived by Calvin’s god into a false salvation in order to magnify their torments in the lake of fire.

         But each Calvinist (in regard to his personal self) is taught to AUTO-MAGICALLY assume he is a part of the FEW
         While he questions the salvation of everyone else.

         And they call that :”doctrines of grace” ! :-]

         Loading...

      5. I have noticed a unique and tragic event within Calvinist circles. I have been in evangelical circles my entire life, and I have seen people fall away or ‘backslide’ as it used to be called. But never have I witnessed, outside of Calvinism, the tragic crisis of faith that leads a person, in the strength of their walk with God, deliberately decide to reject him, based on what they have come to believe is true.

         This is one of the reasons I believe it is important to testify to my own experience, and encourage others who may be under the thrall of Calvinism without fully understanding its necessary assertions. Most decent folk will not continue to embrace a God who deliberately curses men with an inability to not sin, brings evil into existence, punishes people for sins he ordained them to do, etc. Thus, when they become brainwashed and convinced that the things Calvinism asserts are true, many turn from faith in such a monstrous god.

         My desire is to assure people that these assertions are false, and do not represent the living God, who is the epitome of love, mercy, kindness and justice. If your picture of God is appalling, you have been given a false portrait.

         Loading...

      6. TS00,
         I have also shared here several times the story of my nephew.

         Raised in a Baptist home, later baptized, and later the youth-age leader of the youth group. When the new youth pastor came he (the pastor) share early and often about his new-found treasure, the “Doctrines of Grace.” Turmoil in the youth group and in my nephew. His parents told him it was not true but the newly-minted YRR pastor insisted it was.

         In that case, my nephew found God utterly un-gracious (ironically), fickle, untrustworthy, and very much not like the Jesus everyone talked about. He has been an agnostic for 17 years.

         Loading...

      7. This reminds me of the debate between William Lane Craig and a leading Atheist who asserted that Christianity has no answer for the its god being the “Author of evil”.

         During that debate, Dr. Craig pressed him to explain – what he ended up describing was in fact Calvinism.

         Dr. Craig was able to easily defeat his argument by showing that Calvinism is a minor view in Christianity – and the Atheist had erroneously assumed otherwise.

         But you can see how this relates to TS00’s point – and how a Calvinist can reject the god he believes exists.

         Loading...

      8. Wonderful post TS00!

         Out of John Calvin’s own mouth – Calvin’s god deceives Calvinists in to believing they are saved.
         And with that – it follows not one Calvinist can have any spiritual discernment.
         False hope – false salvation.

         It logically follows – according to his own doctrine – the probability the Calvinist you are talking to – is TOTALLY DEPRAVED, :-]

         Loading...

      9. br.d
         it follows no Calvinist has any certainly of his own election.”

         rhutchin
         Of course he can simply in the work God is doing within him to remove the works of the flesh and instill the work of the Spirit..etc

         br.d
         And yet he has no certainty of the “work Calvin’s god” has in mind for him.

         As John Calvin teaches – Calvin’s god could simply be deceiving him into believing he is saved .
         Holding out salvation to him as a -quote “scepter of greater condemnation”.
         And then at some point later to -quote “strike him with greater blindness”.

         Thus the Calvinist has zero spiritual discernment of who is saved and who is not.

         Loading...

9. test

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Not sure BrD why your last post was put on hold.

      Loading...

      Reply

10. Yes God is the initiator I agree this is another great article/resource to help formulate questions to engage others who cling to this notion that a noncalvinist/nonarminian are by default a pelagian this is absolutely a self righteous tactic!!! Fear of man will prove to be a snare!!!

    This is clear;
    “A fallen human hearing the gospel message about the Savior and subsequently turning in repentance and faith to Christ in no way makes that human the initiator of salvation. It is a logically absurdity, a contradiction in terms; the initiate cannot be considered the initiator.”

    “1: To cause or facilitate the beginning of: set going, such as to initiate a program”

    I think the programmer analogy is great He is the programmer He is the initiator, but He is MUCH GREATER than an actually computer program therefore He doesn’t manipulate this invitation to be excepted by a select few He irresistibly programmed & to presume that He does would require one to conclude; He isn’t that amazing, but rather a manipulator of the program He set in motion. There is nothing meritorious about being completely broken & crying out to something that at the time was a hopeful notion that God enen existed or another’s conversion maybe was 6ft 290lb man (worldly images) with a child like faith!!! If you conclude “total inability” then you leave out responsibility to His clear revelation within creation etc.. and His appeal to the Gospel message itself.

    Galatians 5:6 NASB — For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

    Loading...

    Reply

11. Yes, God is the initiator of the salvation. And God did take that initial step without anyone asking for it. Without God taking that initial step, we wouldn’t have been able to save ourselves. And God never stayed away from doing it. He gave us all the rational and emotional faculties to look at our experiences to come to the conclusion of what is right and wrong. He gave us the free will to choose right over the wrong. He gave us the Law and gospel. He gave His Spirit in abundance to all those who seek it to strengthen them to follow His commandments. The Bible says, ‘fear of God is the beginning of wisdom’. Once you believe in God, God gives us His wisdom and Spirit changes our hearts.

    Loading...

    Reply

12. Meme Monday – Calvinism Mysteries :-]

    https://godisopen.com/2019/05/27/meme-monday-calvinism-mysteries/

    Loading...

    Reply

13. In yesterday’s through-the Bible I came to 2 Samuel 9-11.

    11:26 When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 27 When the period of mourning was over, David sent for her and brought her to the palace, and she became one of his wives. Then she gave birth to a son. But the Lord was displeased with what David had done.
    ————-

    Now, according to the Determinist-Calvinism-Reformed position, every time we encounter one of the hundreds and hundreds of passages like this (“the Lord was displeased”) we are to understand:

    God decreed/ willed/ wanted/ desired/ ordained that David lust after Bathsheba, He decreed/ willed/ wanted/ desired/ ordained that David kill Uriah, and He decreed/ willed/ wanted/ desired/ ordained that he would be displeased with what David had done.

    This is not a straw man. This is Calvinism 101.

    Is that the message of the Bible?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. That is one of the many elements of Calvinism that are self-contradictory, as well as contradictory to the revealed character of God.

       God sets the standard, the “target” of righteousness. If God decrees for an individual man to do something, then that target would be righteous. If the person fails to hit that target, then the individual sins. (When God gave statutes and decrees to Moses for Israel to follow, that didn’t make the Israelites necessarily obey. They could still disobey, and often did. However, because the law was given, God was just in punishing those who disobeyed. The force of a decree of God is not in somehow constraining people to act according to it, but in the authority behind the decree to punish wrongdoing.)

       But in Calvinism, God can decree an individual to sin or that an individual not obey. This makes no sense – as whatever God decrees is the “target” and, by God’s own character, righteous. Sin is missing that target. If God were to decree that a specific individual sin or not obey, then that individual would be hitting the target God set by not obeying, and so wouldn’t be sinning, and so God couldn’t punish them, and we would end up with a God who is by nature unrighteous.

       Now, there are things God knows will happen. And there are events in history that God forordains will happen. But there is a difference between God’s sovereign plan of redemption, which included Jesus dying on the cross, and God decreeing for individuals to obey or not obey, to believe or not believe, etc. Calvinists such as John Piper treat these two concepts (sovereign plan and will of decree) as synonymous when they are very different. I completely agree that every point of God’s sovereign plan of redemption has come and will come to pass. This is why scripture refers to Christ as the lamb slain “from the foundation of the world” – God planned to send Christ as a redeemer for man from the beginning. That doesn’t imply or mandate that God must have decreed the fall of man, or decreed the individual sins of man, etc. as Piper seems to think they do. God didn’t have to decree Pilate hand Jesus over to the guards to be crucified to know that he would when the Jews threatened his position with Ceasar. God didn’t even have to decree that Judas betray Christ to know how Judas’ heart worked, and hence give Judas to Jesus as one of the Apostles so that scripture would be fulfilled.

       John Piper takes the revelation of God’s sovereign plan of redemption in scripture and incorrectly thinks that is synonymous with his theory that God “decrees” all things that happen, and indeed that God must necessarily end up both desiring some things to happen and willing them “not to happen” at the same time. John Piper tries to make the contradiction work by treating God as if He has a “Will of decree, which will necessarily come to pass” and a “Will of command, which does not necessarily come to pass.” Putting aside that decree and command are pretty much synonyms (a decree is basically a command with the force of law behind it,) this is a very strange way of imagining God. Though he claims that this doesn’t lead to a God divided against Himself, none of his explanations are satisfactory.

       He completely misses that God has levels of desire. Jesus desired to escape the cross, even sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. But He had a greater desire to do the will of the Father, and looked forward to the “joy set before Him” so He could endure the cross. God decreeing that Christ die on the cross, then, was not God willing something by ‘decree’ that He did not want by ‘desire.’ God did desire Jesus to die for us.

       And this is not a contradiction of character. God created us in His image, and even humans will go through temporary suffering (toil, labor pain, physical therapy, etc.) for the sake of a greater desire (financial security, children, fitness, etc.) So why can’t God weigh desires? Why couldn’t Jesus endure the cross “for the joy set before Him?” And God, being all-wise, could weigh the benefits far more clearly than any human!

       So in scripture we see that God does have a Sovereign plan, which seems to be a mix of things He knows will occur plus things He deliberately steps in to History to influence or do. And we see that God is able to put a lesser desire aside for the sake of a greater desire (Jesus suffering something He would otherwise rather avoid for the ‘joy’ set before Him and the plan to redeem man; God not punishing the wicked immediately, even though it would give relief to the oppressed, for the sake of mercy and wanting all to come to repentance; God not rescuing believers from all trials, even though we are His children, as He knows adversity will build our faith; etc.) And we see people frequently disobeying the commands, decrees, orders, and revealed desires of God from old testament to knew, and placing themselves under judgement because of that.

       But the one thing we do not see is God decreeing that individuals must sin, or that some individuals must not obey, etc. If God were ever to do such a thing, it would damage His character AND remove His authority to judge, since no one can be lawfully punished for doing exactly what the sovereign decreed. The responsibility for their action would actually fall on the one who decreed the deed.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Jenai,
          You have exposed Piper’s faulty thinking well. Thanks. We have done that in scores of places on this site.

          Were your post to be read by many Calvinists, I am sure they would quickly hit you with the “you are proposing the heresy of Open Theism” line.

          This is their typical line of attack: name calling (heresy, universalist, semi-Polynesian, works-based). Take no heed to that. They do not get to decide what is “heresy”. Just repeating it over and over does not make it so.

          I trust the Scriptures when they describe —in detail— God interacting personally with His creation. I do “need” Him to “be a certain way” because we “know a ‘real’ God has to be like that.”

          Nah….like I say, it aint a “personal relationship” if He has decreed every move we will ever make!

          Loading...

       2. JR: “But in Calvinism, God can decree an individual to sin or that an individual not obey.”

          That is because God is omnipotent and has ability to prevent any person engaging in sin. God’s decree not to prevent a person sinning is a decree that the person sin. The most notable examples being the death of Christ and of Stephen. This does not require that God be omniscient. God knows the thoughts of people in present time and could easily influence those thoughts, even preventing them.

          Then, “God planned to send Christ as a redeemer for man from the beginning. That doesn’t imply or mandate that God must have decreed the fall of man, or decreed the individual sins of man, etc. as Piper seems to think they do.”

          God must have decreed the fall of man as He had the power to prevent it but had chosen not to do so. Satan could not have entered the garden without God decreeing that he do so. God was present as Satan tempted Eve and as Even handed the fruit to Adam. God could have intervened to stop either Eve or Adam eating the fruit. God had made a decision not to do so. Thus, in Calvinist lingo, God decreed the fall.

          Then’ “…and indeed that God must necessarily end up both desiring some things to happen and willing them “not to happen” at the same time.”

          God decreed the law and then instructed (decreed) Israel to keep the law. That decree included the provision for Israel to deviate from the law if it wanted. Because God could have acted to ensure that Israel keep the law, God’s decision not to prevent Israel disobeying the law id by decree.

          Then, “Putting aside that decree and command are pretty much synonyms (a decree is basically a command with the force of law behind it,)”

          Under Calvinism, a decree is any decision made by God. As God knows all that happens, He necessarily decrees all that happens since He is the final arbiter of all that happens.

          Then, “So in scripture we see that God does have a Sovereign plan, which seems to be a mix of things He knows will occur [naturally without His influence] plus things He deliberately steps in to History to influence or do.”

          This is the Calvinist understanding. In each case, an event happens by God’s decree (or decision

          Then, “the one thing we do not see is God decreeing that individuals must sin, or that some individuals must not obey, etc.”

          That God decreed Adam’s descendants to inherit his corrupt nature (the Doctrine of Original Sin under which a person could not not-sin), and then decreed Adam’s descendants to act voluntarily according to that corrupt nature without interference form Him, was a decree that individuals must sin. As Paul said, “All have sinned.”

          Then, “The responsibility for their action would actually fall on the one who decreed the deed.”

          Only if the one decreeing the deed then had to coerce tat outcome against the will of those so decreed to sin.

          Loading...

       3. rhutchin
          That is because God is omnipotent and has ability to prevent any person engaging in sin. God’s decree not to prevent a person sinning is a decree that the person sin.

          br.d
          Divine prevention is non-problematic in a world with Libertarian Free will. But it is highly problematic in a world of determinism where every event is either RENDERED-CERTAIN and therefore cannot be prevented – or NOT-RENDERED-CERTAIN – and therefore not going to come to pass anyway.

          In the Calvinist version of divine prevention – Calvin’s god creates (i.e., causes) events for himself to prevent.
          He choreographs the whole puppet show! :-]

          Loading...

       4. God is omnipotent and technically capable of preventing anyone from engaging in sin. That He does not interfere (at least in any way we can perceive) in the majority of cases, however, is hardly a “decree” that they sin.

          “God’s decree not to prevent a person sinning is a decree that the person sin.”

          If I notice my three year old going over to sneak a cookie, but don’t immediately go over and tackle her to prevent the action, does that mean I in any way, shape, or form decreed that she steal a cookie? Of course not. She took the cookie, without permission. As her mom, I have the right to either overlook the incident, talk to her, punish her, etc. as I think best in response. Even though I have the knowledge she is likely about to commit a sin (in God’s case, He would know for sure whether she will give in to temptation or stop) and even though I didn’t stop her, that didn’t mean I decreed she do the act. And it is precisely because her act goes *against* my decree that she needs permission first, I can punish her if needed.

          Calvinists take it as an axiom, not a proven fact, that things can only occur if God “decrees” them to. Since they take this as a premise, and there being sin in the world is a premise, they conclude that God must decree that all sin occurs. Even a cursory examination of scripture (Jer 19:5, Jer 7:31) should show the flaw in this premise, but unfortunately it is clung to with fervor and used as the basis for further reasoning.

          God doesn’t have to “decree” Himself to prevent a person sinning. God can, and in many cases will, punish that person for the sin. They will be punished for violating God’s law of righteousness! Third, not interfering is not equivalent to mandating something or ensuring it occurs.

          That is because God is omnipotent and has ability to prevent any person engaging in sin. God’s decree not to prevent a person sinning is a decree that the person sin. The most notable examples being the death of Christ and of Stephen. This does not require that God be omniscient. God knows the thoughts of people in present time and could easily influence those thoughts, even preventing them.

          “God must have decreed the fall of man as He had the power to prevent it but had chosen not to do so.”

          Again, choosing not to stop something or interfere with something doesn’t mean one decreed for something to happen. God knew the fall would happen and planned for it, hence Jesus being set up as redeemer from the foundation of the world, and the implied promise of a redeemer even made to Eve in the garden. Simply insisting that a presupposition is true is not the same thing as proving it.

          “Satan could not have entered the garden without God decreeing that he do so.”

          Entering the garden wasn’t a sin for any of the animals. Entering the garden wasn’t a sin for Satan. God may have indeed decreed for Satan to enter the garden, but not for the reasons you give:

          “ ‘You were the seal of perfection,
          full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
          You were in Eden,
          the garden of God;
          every precious stone adorned you:
          carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,
          topaz, onyx and jasper,
          lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.
          Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
          on the day you were created they were prepared.
          You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
          for so I ordained you.
          You were on the holy mount of God;
          you walked among the fiery stones.
          You were blameless in your ways
          from the day you were created
          till wickedness was found in you.” Ezek 28:12-15

          While this prophecy is overall for the King of Tyre, many see reference to Lucifer in it since the King of Tyre was obviously never perfect or in Eden. God, then, ordained Lucifer as a guardian cherub, possibly even over Eden. But is God decreeing a job for Lucifer and decreeing the ways Satan was to follow the same as decreeing that Lucifer must disobey?

          “God was present as Satan tempted Eve and as Even handed the fruit to Adam. God could have intervened to stop either Eve or Adam eating the fruit. God had made a decision not to do so. Thus, in Calvinist lingo, God decreed the fall.”

          Calvinist ‘lingo’ is the key here. There is no logical reason that “not intervening to stop” means “God decreed it happened!” Furthermore, God did intervene in His own way – by sending a redeemer, the last Adam, to bring life where Adam’s fall had brought death.

          We have no idea all the reasons that may go into God’s various decisions to interfere or not at any given time, but He is omniscient and all-wise. Imagine he *had* interfered and no one since ever disobeyed. We all would be able to sometimes talk to God and live in a perfect garden – but would we have the indwelling Holy Spirit? A personal relationship with Christ? A home in a future kingdom where we will dwell with God in our midst? Nope. Eden is Paradise compared to anything we have no on Earth, but the Tree of Life is only *part* of the far superior New Jerusalem.

          “God decreed the law and then instructed (decreed) Israel to keep the law. That decree included the provision for Israel to deviate from the law if it wanted. Because God could have acted to ensure that Israel keep the law, God’s decision not to prevent Israel disobeying the law id by decree.”

          This makes no sense. God could have acted to ensure Israel keep the law – but why? He made a *covenant* with Israel. It was up to them to continue to follow God to show their willingness to remain in the covenant and receive its blessings. If God somehow forced them or bound them over to obedience, it would not be real obedience. And then the “blessings” would just be doing nice things because God had made them do nice things. God wants a relationship with His people, not a set of dolls. And when Israel did disobey, they had no excuse like “but God decreed it by not stopping us!” – on the contrary, God would generally punish them or send them into captivity because they *broke* his laws and decrees, not because they followed His decrees.

          The New Covenant is even simpler. Since man can’t obey perfectly, all humans have to do is enter the Covenant by faith, trusting in Christ’s obedience and not their own works. If God were to force some to believe, it wouldn’t be real belief.

          “Under Calvinism, a decree is any decision made by God. As God knows all that happens, He necessarily decrees all that happens since He is the final arbiter of all that happens.”

          Yes, Calvinism redefines a lot of things. (Decree, sovereignty, etc.) But even if one takes decree to mean ‘decision made by God’ and not its typical meaning of an ‘authoritative order having the force of law’ that would not mean God “decides” sin must happen by not stopping it, let alone decides a sin must happen before time. While non-action can be seen as a type of decision, as in, “I will take no action at this time,” it wouldn’t make one the decider that the situation itself happened.

          For example, consider one of the variations of the Trolley Ethics problem. As a bystander, you see some people tied to the railroad tracks, presumably through no fault of their own. On one track, the one a trolley is coming towards, five people are standing who do not see the train. On another track you could switch the trolley over, only one person person is standing. The switch, which is on a middle track, is in your reach. No one is tied up there, but if you move the switch to the middle track you know that you will be unable to escape being hit by the train yourself. The ethical problem – do you sacrifice your own life; sacrifice the one to save the five; or do nothing?

          Now, people often claim that sacrificing the one to save the five is the best option on the view that to “not act” would somehow make one personally responsible for the death of the five. (Ironically, there is little crossover between people who answer the problem in this way and people who actually hold utilitarian ethics as a whole.) To people who answer in this way, ‘doing nothing’ is really the “decision to murder five people.” It doesn’t matter to them that the bystander is not responsible for people standing on train tracks who should presumably have been warned not to mill about on even inactive tracks; it doesn’t matter to them that actively pulling the switch would be the bystander, personally, taking an innocent life.

          The Calvinist thought is a lot like that. God not stopping adversity which comes from a broken world (man’s fault) or stopping people from sin (man’s fault) is treated as a “decision” by God that *what He chooses not to stop should happen* and hence hold the idea that God “decrees everything,” even murder, rape, starvation, etc. But why take this view? Why believe a decision of non-action, if you want to put it in those terms, must mean God chooses what is happening?

          Interestingly enough, the Trolley Problem does have a solution. The bystander *can* choose to sacrifice himself to save the others. But this is not a requirement. It’s noble, not required. (By extension, this informs the solution of the traditional two track problem: if one is not required to lay down their own life to save others, even if it is noble, one cannot legitimately “choose” for someone else to make a noble sacrifice to save more people. So the bystander must do nothing.)

          In the same way, God chose the “solution” of sending His own Son to die to win final victory over sin. Noble, not required. If the bystander does not turn the track onto the one, he is not personally responsible for the death of the five – he does not cause it, decree it, or choose it. In the same way, when God does not immediately interfere with sin and evil that doesn’t mean he decrees it must happen or chooses for it to happen or decrees it. What he “chooses” is the long term solution: the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, over the short term solutions of stopping evil immediately.

          What do you think is a more ideal solution? Stopping every single instance of sin and pain from the outset, knowing that will lead to man never realizing they even need a Savior since nothing ever goes wrong, and knowing that it will essentially lead to people being like inert rocks that only move as you push or allow; OR being grieved at the sin and pain you know will happen, so much so that you put a plan in place that over the long term will both eradicate sin and pain entirely and bring you into a loving relationship with countless adopted children who will freely choose good?

          Why does God opting for the second solution over the first mean he must “decree” the very pain and sin He is grieved over and plans to eliminate in the New Heavens and New Earth?

          “That God decreed Adam’s descendants to inherit his corrupt nature (the Doctrine of Original Sin under which a person could not not-sin), and then decreed Adam’s descendants to act voluntarily according to that corrupt nature without interference form Him, was a decree that individuals must sin.”

          The corrupt nature is due to Adam and Eve breaking God’s commandment and eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God didn’t “decide” they would eat or that men would be corrupt; what He “decided” and warned them of was that the fruit of the tree would grant them the knowledge of good and evil. Future generations aren’t corrupt because God has to decreed we be corrupt (the curse for eating was toil and labor pain, not God making people corrupt,) we are all corrupt because we have the knowledge of good and evil. And where there is any knowledge of law, there is the temptation to sin (see Rom 7 for an example of that.) And breaking the law, we all end up under the penalty of death.

          Loading...

       5. JR: “If I notice my three year old going over to sneak a cookie, but don’t immediately go over and tackle her to prevent the action, does that mean I in any way, shape, or form decreed that she steal a cookie? Of course not.”

          Not so. It was you who placed the cookies in the first place (even as God placed the forbidden fruit in the garden); it was you who observed the actions of your daughter as she moved to take the cookies (even as God observed Eve and Adam moving to eat the fruit); it was you who effectively knew the desires of your child that explains why you set the cookies within her reach (even as God knew the desires of Eve and Adam); it was you who could easily have called to your child to distract her and point her in a different direction. You did all this without being God who knew Adam and Eve intimately more than you know your daughter. Given your position and ability to prevent your daughter eating the cookies, you decreed that she eat them through no coercive action on your part simply because you did nothing to stop her. How much more does God decree all things because He is infinitely greater than you.

          Then, you state, ” And it is precisely because her act goes *against* my decree that she needs permission first,…” By “…needs permission…” you mean that she had to ask you first. It also means that you had decided that she should be able to take cookies without asking you first (you sought to avoid this by explaining to her the consequences of such action). By those actions you decreed the final result. Obviously, we disagree that you decreed all this – especially, your child’s acting against your will. That’s fine. Give. me another word to describe what you did and we can use that word. In your mind, that word will not mean “decree” and in my mind it will. You understand this as you say, “Calvinists take it as an axiom, not a proven fact, that things can only occur if God “decrees” them to.” We have defined our point of disagreement and that disagreement affects the whole discussion between us.

          Jeremiah 31 (and Jeremiah 7) can be understood to say, ““Because they have forsaken Me,,,and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind [to command or speak such things]:” There is nothing new to God. He knew that Israel would do these things before He created the world.

          Then, “Third, not interfering is not equivalent to mandating something or ensuring it occurs.”

          It is if you are God and have infinite power to do anything you want. You disagree saying, “choosing not to stop something or interfere with something doesn’t mean one decreed for something to happen.” We differ on that point.

          Then, “God knew the fall would happen and planned for it,”

          God did not just plan “for” it; He planned it. God put Adam in the garden and then placed the tree in the garden with instructions not to eat it. God protected Adam and Eve from Satan until He removed that protection giving Satan freedom to enter the garden and tempt Eve. God observed every second of the temptation including Eve eating the fruit and giving the fruit to Adam who also ate. God did not intervene to stop Adam’s sin even though He could have done so. God knew al that would happen before He created Adam. All that happened was according to God’s plan as God had already decided that Christ would be slain. Everything that happened from the creation onward was known to God because it was according to His plan.

          Then, “God may have indeed decreed for Satan to enter the garden, but not for the reasons you give:”

          God knew exactly what Satan would do if given freedom to enter the garden and it was for this purpose that God removed His protection of Adam and Eve.

          Then, “But is God decreeing a job for Lucifer and decreeing the ways Satan was to follow the same as decreeing that Lucifer must disobey?”

          Yes. God decreed that Satan acting according to his nature would purposely disobey God and entice Eve to eat the fruit and then use eve to get Adam to eat also because that is exactly what Satan wanted to do.

          Then, “There is no logical reason that “not intervening to stop” means “God decreed it happened!”

          God is omnipotent and thereby the final arbiter of all that happens. By either action or inaction, God determines all that happens and given that God knew what He would do before He created the universe, God decreed all that was to happen. How do you, or anyone else, avoid this conclusion (other than by saying that God really did not know what would happen and only planned Christ’s death as Plan B)?

          Then, “Yes, Calvinism redefines a lot of things. (Decree, sovereignty, etc.)”

          Calvinism defines its terms. So, instead of defining “decree” to mean, “decision made by God,” let’s define it to mean, “authoritative order having the force of law issued by God.” There is no difference in meaning between the two. So, let’s use your definition.

          Then, “Why believe a decision of non-action, if you want to put it in those terms, must mean God chooses what is happening?” (as pertains to the Trolley example.

          Because the Trolley example is inadequate to describe God’s role in the affairs of His creation. God never chooses between two bad outcomes. God chooses what He will do among all possible outcomes to achieve His purposes acting directly in some cases (.e.g., the flood of Noah, the impregnation of Mary) or through secondary means in others, (e.g., the death of Christ and of Stephen). Every evnet in the history of man can be tied to one or the other.

          Loading...

       6. Agreed. I too have tried to explain how Calvinism’s determinism makes sin impossible. If God ordains/decrees/causes (or whatever euphemism preferred) any action, then man cannot possibly be said to sin for fulfilling said decree. Conventional, handed down understandings of ‘sin’ and other biblical terms often make it very difficult for people to reason through the logical implications of their assertions.

          Loading...

       7. William Lane Craig agrees:
          -quote:

          Universal, divine determinism makes reality into a farce. On the deterministic view,…..there are no free agents in rebellion against God, whom God seeks to win through His love, and no one who freely responds to that love and freely gives his love and praise to God in return. The whole spectacle is a charade whose only real actor is God Himself.

          Loading...

    2. FOH writes, “Now, according to the Determinist-Calvinism-Reformed position, every time we encounter one of the hundreds and hundreds of passages like this (“the Lord was displeased”) we are to understand:

       God decreed/ willed/ wanted/ desired/ ordained that David lust after Bathsheba, He decreed/ willed/ wanted/ desired/ ordained that David kill Uriah, and He decreed/ willed/ wanted/ desired/ ordained that he would be displeased with what David had done.”

       Which is to say that God had the power to intervene and produce the opposite outcome had He chosen to do so. Even FOH must believe that God could have done this.

       Loading...

       Reply

14. In yesterday’s through-the Bible, in addition to 2 Samuel 9-11, we had John 15.

    15 “I am the true grapevine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch of mine that doesn’t produce fruit, and he prunes the branches that do bear fruit so they will produce even more. 3 You have already been pruned and purified by the message I have given you.4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. For a branch cannot produce fruit if it is severed from the vine, and you cannot be fruitful unless you remain in me.
    —————-

    Christ goes on and on saying “If you remain in Me” many times.

    What does that mean that He “cuts off a branch”?

    What does that mean “Remain in Me and I will remain you”?

    Why over and over “If you remain in Me”? Why does Christ talk to His disciples in “if” statements?

    Loading...

    Reply

15. Today’s reading picks up in 2 Samuel 12.

    ​2 Samuel 12: 7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are that man! The Lord, the God of Israel, says: I anointed you king of Israel and saved you from the power of Saul. 8 I gave you your master’s house and his wives and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. And if that had not been enough, I would have given you much, much more. 9 Why, then, have you despised the word of the Lord and done this horrible deed?
    ————–

    The Lord says He “would have”.

    Why does God EVER say “I would have”?? That implies that things could have been different and He “would have done” something different if the person in question had done something different.

    God gives the appearance here that despite Him doing all that for David….. David did something that God did not (in any way) want. David despised the Lord and did a horrible deed.

    In what way can Calvinists say that this despising, horrible thing was the “Secret will of God”?

    It makes no sense and make God’s words meaningless.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Well said.

       Loading...

       Reply

16. Further in 2 Samuel 12…

    11 “This is what the Lord says: Because of what you have done, I will cause your own household to rebel against you. I will give your wives to another man before your very eyes, and he will go to bed with them in public view. 12 You did it secretly, but I will make this happen to you openly in the sight of all Israel.”
    ———–

    “Because of what you have done”

    Calvinists often say that God does “evil” things to prove that every act/ thought/ sin is from God. Their most famous one is in Acts 4 where they say that God did something evil that led to the crucifixion. (They also use Isaiah 10 repeatedly). Rinse, repeat.

    But you notice here (and throughout Scripture) that what God does (that they call evil) is in judgement for something man did.

    Meaning: God DOES “cause rebellion” on David’s house. He DOES do in public what David did in secret…..but always, always as a judgement.

    The point is that He never says He causes the initial sin of David. They superimpose that idea back ONTO the situation because God uses “evil” means to judge David.

    Human examples:

    The government will catch a criminal guilty of kidnapping and lock him up. This is essentially “kidnapping” on the part of the government.

    Some governments will catch a criminal guilty of “taking a life” and execute him. This is essentially “taking a life” on the part of the government.

    Some parents will spank a child guilty of hitting a sibling. This is essentially “hitting” the child.

    But most people can see the difference between God using “violence” to judge David, and David using “violence” to acquire Urriah’s wife.

    It is illogical and unbiblical of Calvinists to make this kind of connection.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. FOH writes, “Calvinists often say that God does “evil” things to prove that every act/ thought/ sin is from God.”

       No, Calvinists say that God works through people who do evil things and does so to accomplish His purposes. Thus, God worked through the death of Christ to bring salvation to the gentiles. God worked through the death of Stephen to evangelize the world. God works for the good of His elect even using the evil actions of people in bringing about that good.

       Then, “The point is that He never says He causes the initial sin of David.”

       Because God is sovereign making David subordinate to Him, anything David does must be decreed By God making God the remote (ultimate) cause and David the proximate cause of David’s sin.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Jenai,
          Just a tip. Dont ever fall for this kind of Arminianism cloaked as “Calvinism”. First of all RH speak very incorrectly for Calvinism. Secondly, this is a statement right out of the Arminian play book.

          Calvinists (consistent ones) make no such statement as this:
          Calvinists say that God works through people who do evil things and does so to accomplish His purposes. Thus, God worked through the death of Christ to bring salvation to the gentiles. God worked through the death of Stephen to evangelize the world. God works for the good of His elect even using the evil actions of people in bringing about that good.

          Arminians say that God works THROUGH people who do evil things and STILL accomplishes His purposes….. God worked through (in spite of) the death of Stephen (but did not ordain or desire it) to evangelize the world.

          Calvinists say that God decrees all things (good and bad) and does so to accomplish His purposes. Thus, God decreed the death of Stephen to evangelize the world. Period.

          Let all readers of Sot 101 take note that no such idea of “working through people who do evil things” exists in true Reformed theology and RH knows it. He’s just trying to muddy the waters.

          I honestly feel silly bringing this to everyone’s attention for the 1000th time.

          Loading...

       2. FOH writes, ‘Let all readers of Sot 101 take note that no such idea of “working through people who do evil things” exists in true Reformed theology and RH knows it.’

          Let the readers of SOT101 red what Calvin, and Calvinists, draw out of God’s omnipotence/omniscience/sovereignty. I bet even FOH knew these things at one time but seems to have forgotten them.

          Loading...

       3. FOH
          ‘Let all readers of Sot 101 take note that no such idea of “working through people who do evil things” exists in true Reformed theology and RH knows it.’

          br.d
          It is the phrase “working through” that is ambiguous and misleading language for Calvinism.
          Because this language is designed to SNEAK IN a inference of “mere” permission.

          Paul Helm’s makes it much more clear in Calvinism:
          -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.

          Loading...

       4. br.d
          And Paul Helm holds the JI Packer chair of theo at Regents.

          I am not sure I understand what they spend all day teaching!?

          I mean one of their students shows up with his paper not finished….. was not God’s will! I mean honestly what argument can they make? How could it have been otherwise? Since it was all baked in /decided by God before time.

          Loading...

       5. FOH
          I mean one of their students shows up with his paper not finished….. was not God’s will! I mean honestly what argument can they make? How could it have been otherwise? Since it was all baked in /decided by God before time.

          br.d
          I agree FOH – this is where we see Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern.

          Its their way of evading the conundrums they are burdened with.

          Dr. Flowers gets an emotional backlash from James White every time he brings this up.
          White gets all huffy and demands that he stop saying it.

          Ignoring it and making-believe the opposite – is the way they learn to live with the irrational.

          Like Calvin instructing his disciples: “go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
          When that is the opposite of what he believes.

          Loading...

       6. FOH – Yes, I realize he is not presenting a Calvinist worldview! It’s a bit confusing, since I thought he was trying to defend Calvinism, but seems unaware of core beliefs of the theory.

          Hi Rhutchin,

          Are you unaware of what Calvinism says on this topic?

          “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” – John Calvin

          “Inasmuch as God elects some and passes by others, the cause is not to be found in anything else but in his own purpose … before men are born their lot is assigned to each of them by the secret will of God … the salvation or the perdition of men depends on His free election.” – John Calvin

          “. . . how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission…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…Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.” – John Calvin

          “He is a “faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he” (Deuteronomy 32:4, NIV). God never does evil.
          Yet this is not to say that God does not create, send, permit, or even move others to do evil, for Scripture is clear that nothing arises, exists, or endures independently of God’s will…it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Exodus 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Hebrews 12:3-11; James 1:2-4).

          This includes — as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem — God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4, NASB). “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Ecclesiastes 7:14, NIV).” John Piper
          https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/all-the-good-that-is-ours-in-christ-seeing-gods-gracious-hand-in-the-hurts-others-do-to-us

          “The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” – Westminster Confession

          Calvinism is not the view that God uses even the actions of the wicket to serve His eternal plan and bring good to His people. Rather, Calvinism rests in the idea that God gives evil permission to occur, decrees that individual sins and evils *must* occur, carries the universe in such a way that they will inevitably occur, and bounds the will of the individual so there is no opportunity or choice for the individual to do otherwise than the decreed sin. (The last statement, that all of this is done in such a way where God is neither author or approver of sin, is merely an appeal that people accept a logical contradiction, A, but in such a way that A is not A, as if it were logically coherent.)

          I think a far simpler and less contradictory view of God in relation to sin can be found in Ha 1:12:

          “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil;
          you cannot tolerate wrongdoing.
          Why then do you tolerate the treacherous?
          Why are you silent while the wicked
          swallow up those more righteous than themselves?”
          Hab 1:12

          And Ezek 18:23:
          “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?”

          God doesn’t decree that individuals must commit more evil. He doesn’t morally permit evil to occur. He does not will or want evil to occur. But God *does* delay judgement on evil people. He doesn’t usually interfere when people are doing wicked things, even to His own children. (He can interfere, such as the angel breaking the chains of Paul and Silas; giving power to a rival kingdom to discipline or punish the Israelites; raising the dead; miracles providing food, etc. – but He does not always.) The reason God delays judgement and temporarily puts up with the wicked are several: He hopes even the wicked will repent and be saved, adversity builds the faith of a believer, He wants the world to recognize that it is broken and in need of a Redeemer, etc.

          But the Day of the Lord where He pours out His wrath will indeed come! The Calvinist notion that any evil which occurs must have been decreed and bound to happen by God would, even if they claim otherwise, logically make God the source of evil, and would remove any just reason God would have to punish sin.

          I also find it interesting that those most phobic about any perceived implication that man might have anything at all to do with salvation (even in such passive, non-saving roles as acknowledging that we need rescue or our accepting the offered deliverance) have no such phobia when it comes to making God incline the hearts of men to evil or decree that men sin, partnering God together with evil as its true guide, mastermind, and commander.

          Loading...

       7. Jenai
          Hi Rhutchin – Are you unaware of what Calvinism says on this topic?

          br.d
          There is an aspect of Calvinism that takes people quite by surprise – which is the degree of Double-Speak within its language.
          Eventually you recognize it – and you understand the reason for it.

          But here are some quotes concerning it:

          Dr. Jerry Walls, in his presentation What’s wrong with Calvinism:
          -quote:
          “If Calvinists didn’t rely so heavily on misleading rhetoric, their theology would lose all credibility within two years.”

          Norman Geisler in his book Chosen but Free:
          “Some Calvinists use smoke-and-mirror tactics to avoid the harsh implications of their view” (pg 104)
          “This is done by redefining terms and Theological Doublespeak” (pg 261)

          Micah Coate in his book “The Cultish side of Calvinism”:
          -quote
          “Calvinists arguments are buried in theological and grammatical doublespeak.”

          The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – in its article on Theological Determinism:
          -quote
          “Paul Helm, another staunch theological determinist of the Calvinist variety, simply says that God’s providence is ‘extended to all that He has created’ (1993, p. 39). The problem with such characterizations is that they are subject to multiple interpretations, some of whom would be affirmed by theological indeterminists.”

          Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely in his book “Calvinism a closer look” explains the reason for the Double-Speak
          -quote
          This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse….. I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions, which in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.”

          Loading...

    2. This thread is getting pretty tangled, but I want to say I love these examples!

       “The government will catch a criminal guilty of kidnapping and lock him up. This is essentially “kidnapping” on the part of the government.

       Some governments will catch a criminal guilty of “taking a life” and execute him. This is essentially “taking a life” on the part of the government.

       Some parents will spank a child guilty of hitting a sibling. This is essentially “hitting” the child.

       But most people can see the difference between God using “violence” to judge David, and David using “violence” to acquire Urriah’s wife.”

       When God pours His wrath out in scripture, it is treated as a judicial sentence for sin. But God is not described as judging “pre-crime.” That is, He isn’t shown doing things like punishing people, judicially, before they commit a crime. Even though God in His omniscience knows someone will commit a crime, He doesn’t punish it before it happens or (generally) move to stop it before it occurs. [It is possible God might even view the use of force to stop someone from sinning before they actually do as a crime/sin of itself? We all agree He technically has the ‘power’ to stop people or even change their thoughts before they engage in sin, but would God’s character even allow that? To flip around your examples, the government that executes citizens who have yet to commit a crime is tyrannical. The parent who spanks a child when the child has yet to do anything wrong is abusive. Even the excuse that God “knows” a crime will be committed doesn’t seem enough to overcome the problem that a judge who punishes before the crime occurs is not upholding justice, but perverting it.]

       But regardless, I fail to see why God in His wisdom and eternal view deciding to not personally stop someone from sinning or stop them or punish them mid sin would be logically equivalent to deciding that someone commit a sin.

       I find it interesting that Rhutchin likes using the word ‘arbiter of all that happens’ to describe God. I would agree that God is the arbiter of all things! But again, it comes down to defining terms:

       Arbiter:
       “One whose opinion or judgment is considered authoritative or worthy of respect. To act as arbiter between; judge.”

       God “decreed/decided” how justice would operate in His universe, according to His own character as mercifully just. The justice He displays in scripture is not something that happens “before” the crime, but after. And because He is also merciful, He does not always immediate punish, does not always punish as severely as a crime deserves, and He even provides ways someone can throw themselves on the mercy of the judge to escape punishment through forgiveness. Also, he mercifully gives warnings about the consequences of sin. Those are the things God decides. But if God were to decree that an individual sin in His role as arbiter and judge, then He would both lose the just reason to punish (they were only doing as God decreed they would, after all, and thus were obeying) and would no longer be righteous. As a righteous God He sets the target which man may or may not hit (and will never hit perfectly every time.) But He cannot decree that a man hit a different target without that becoming the new, true target, and hence righteous.

       And God shows that He delays judgement. Sin is not decreed, it is the breaking of one of God’s decrees. As such, God has every right to punish sin in His own time or forgive it according to His own rules. That is why God is the arbiter of all things – because He is the standard of good and sets the rules of righteousness and judgement; NOT because He decrees that individuals break His revealed decrees and commands and sin.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Jenai
          I find it interesting that Rhutchin likes using the word ‘arbiter of all that happens’ to describe God.

          br.d
          Linguists call this “distancing language”.
          It is language used to evade culpability – which in most cases means personal culpability.
          However in rhutchin’s case – the ‘target’ he seeks to protect from culpability is Calvin’s god.

          Loading...

       2. JR: “Even though God in His omniscience knows someone will commit a crime, He doesn’t punish it before it happens or (generally) move to stop it before it occurs…We all agree He technically has the ‘power’ to stop people or even change their thoughts before they engage in sin, but would God’s character even allow that?”

          We agree on this. The issue is whether God decrees the sin that He had the power to prevent by His decision not to prevent it. Thus, you ask, “I fail to see why God in His wisdom and eternal view deciding to not personally stop someone from sinning or stop them or punish them mid sin would be logically equivalent to deciding that someone commit a sin.” God decides not to stop a person from sinning – e.g., God does not stop Adam from eating the fruit. Is that the same as God deciding that a person should sin – i.e., That Adam should eat the fruit. Is God’s decision to watch Adam eat the fruit equivalent to God deciding that Adam should eat the fruit. I think it is.

          Then, “I would agree that God is the arbiter of all things! But again, it comes down to defining terms:”

          let’s use the definition relevant to this discussion: “a person with power to decide a dispute.” God has the power to decide every event and because He is God, necessarily decides every event. God is somewhat more than “One whose opinion or judgment is considered authoritative or worthy of respect.” I don’t see a reason to reduce God to one who offers opinions worthy of respect.

          then, “But if God were to decree that an individual sin in His role as arbiter and judge, then He would both lose the just reason to punish (they were only doing as God decreed they would, after all, and thus were obeying) and would no longer be righteous….He cannot decree that a man hit a different target without that becoming the new, true target, and hence righteous.”

          God establishes the target – the law – and requires that people keep the law, and then decrees that people be able to disobey that law if they so desire. As the final arbiter who could stop all sin, God decides not to intervene when people want to disobey His law.

          Then, “That is why God is the arbiter of all things – because He is the standard of good and sets the rules of righteousness and judgement;”

          An arbiter actually makes decisions. God decided that people should be able to sin and do so without interference form Him..

          Loading...

       3. rhutchin
          The issue is whether God decrees the sin that He had the power to prevent by His decision not to prevent it.

          br.d
          1) if Calvin’s god decrees [X] making the STATE of [X] is immutable – then he has made [X] such that he CANNOT prevent it
          2) However if he prevents himself from decreeing [X] and thus making [X] immutable – then there is nothing to prevent.
          3) Obviously Calvin’s god does not like restraining himself from decreeing sin! :-]

          rhutchin
          An arbiter actually makes decisions. God decided that people should be able to sin and do so without interference form Him..

          br.d
          Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN all sin which comes to pass.
          And he CANNOT alter/change/interfere that which he has made IMMUTABLE.

          If he did not FIRST-CONCEIVE and then RENDER-CERTAIN that sin – it would have never have existence.

          John Calvin says – Calvin’s god decrees sin FOR HIS GOOD PLEASURE
          Obviously Calvin’s god does not like restraining himself from HIS GOOD PLEASURE! :-]

          Loading...

       4. Rhutchin –

          An arbiter isn’t just someone who makes decisions. An arbiter makes *judicial* or authoritative decisions, or decides the rules, or makes decisions regarding the rules. Judges and referees are both arbiters in different ways.

          Now, imagine a referee is watching a match that is being played according to rules he himself devised, but this referee is prescient. He knows that guy on the red team is going to foul the guy on the blue team. But he doesn’t interfere before the foul is committed. Once the red team player lays hands incorrectly on the other man, the referee still doesn’t go over to physically stop him, just blows a whistle to alert a foul has been committed. Does that mean the referree decreed the foul would be committed by deciding “not” to interfere? Of course not. The referee already ‘interferred’ in many ways: Setting up the rules of the match (definition of what fouls are, warning fouls would be punished); blowing the whistle during the foul (what we can liken to conviction by the Holy Spirit, since the whistle merely alerts the person they are committing a foul and doesn’t actually stop them physically; in some sports games it is several minutes before fighting players might heed the whistle); punishing the foul according to the rules of the game, which may not be an immediately paid penalty. Etc.

          Your philosophical idea that if God does not directly and immediately “stop” someone that that is a decision of non-interference and equivalent to “decreeing” the sin occur makes no logical sense. For one, God already “interferes” in countless ways – setting the rules/standard of righteousness, His *actual* laws and decrees, the Holy Spirit convicting the world of sin, punishing the wicked at times immediately and at times deferring judgement to a later date – but still reserving the right to judge the crime, etc.

          God never set up a rule that if He does not immediately stop or punish that is equivalent to decreeing the sin. And the idea (very similar to John Piper’s view) that God has two types of decrees – one of revealed will or personal desire (the target of righteousness) and one of decree (that ensures all things including heinous sin will definitely come to pass exactly as they do) undermines the very nature of Justice and Righteousness.

          “The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The decisions of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether.” Psa 19:9

          ***

          On the parable of the soil:

          You are reading an assumption into the text (fallen humans can’t respond to the word/seed/gospel in faith) and trying to glean information from a figurative parable on that assumed point, ignoring what Jesus actually said the parable was about. (It is one of the parables He specifically explains.) Then, to ‘prove’ your point, you just point to other figurative verses and claiming they say something not mandated by context, and to yet other verses which are clearly in context about other things (like the new life he believer is given by God through baptism) and trying to treat them as parallel scriptures to the point you assumed.

          As someone else already mentioned, that is ‘eisegesis’ – when you come to a text with presuppositions/axioms that you ‘read into’ the text. Because of this, each new scripture you try to make be a parallel scripture to the first merely compounds the error, rather than strengthening your point. Three verses/passages out of context, etc. are not stronger than one verse/passage out of context.

          You see the Parable of the sower about the “good soil” needing regenerated first – which isn’t at all what Jesus is talking about. Furthermore, I would assume in your view that you see only the “good soil” as having been regenerated – but in such a case, why were there three other types of soil and not just one, the hardpan road which no seed could penetrate fast enough before it was snatched away? How would you explain the seed on rocky soil, “Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They have faith for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.”

          How can “dead soil” in your view still “receive” the seed (The Greek dechomai, to receive in a welcoming/receptive way.) See I Thess 2:13 for the same word in action: “For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.” In your view, isn’t the ‘dead sinner’ unable to welcome anything because you see them as a spiritual corpse vs. a corrupt sinner under the penalty of death?

          How could this “dead soil” in your view, manage to believe for a while? Jesus clearly says they do believe (present active tense) for a time/season, but it’s because they “hold no root” (present active, so they may have had a root for a time, but not a firm or strong one since they did not continue to hold a root,) but in a time of testing or temptation they fall away. [Note that James 1:2-3 shows that the believer should embrace the testing of their faith since it develops perseverance so the believer can grow to be mature and complete – like the plant on good soil was!]

          Jesus isn’t making some claim that people should hope they are the special ones to get their “soil regenerated” before they can believe, and tough luck if they aren’t; such a thought is alien to the text.

          Loading...

       5. You go Jenai!

          Loading...

       6. Excellent analogy with the referee. It is a mere philosphical opinion, and a faulty one, to assert that foreknoweldge demands fore-ordination. If a sovereign, omnipotent, prescient being, like God, created rational creatures with the freedom of choice, like man, then he must have, by his own choice, limited the use of his potential power to interfere in foreseen events. We can only theorize on how this works, as we are not sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent beings overseeing a created mass of beloved, free creatures, who we are determined to offer a second chance when the first one is blown.

          Of course God could make the decision to never limit his own control of events, but that would require never creating free, rational beings. The most a controlling, deterministic God could do is create seemingly free, seemingly rational beings who mimic, like automatons, free, rational choice while actually performing only pre-programmed actions. This is the view Calvinism holds of reality, however they prefer to describe it.

          I would grant that God could, had he so chosen, have created this sort of robot creation. What he could not do, in justice, is hold said robotic automatons responsible for the actions he pre-programmed them to perform. There can exist no such thing as sin in a universe in which the creator determines whatsoever comes to pass. So yes, I deny the inspired inerrancy of the Westminster Confession. Which is preferable to upholding its logical inconsistency.

          Loading...

       7. William Lane Craig – on Universal Divine Causal Determinism

          What truly distinguishes the Calvinist view is that its embrace of the philosophical view of Universal Divine Causal Determinism. The Calvinist thinks that God causally determines everything that happens. However Universal Divine Causal Determinism nullifies human agency.

          In other words, there really are no human agents on this view. Since our choices are not “UP TO US” but are determined by God, human beings cannot be said to be real agents.

          Rather, they are like mere instruments by means of which God acts to produce some effect much as a man might use a stick to roll a stone. The stick is a mere instrument in the hands of the man who functions as the true causal agent in this case.

          Of course, secondary causes like the stick will retain all of their properties and powers as intermediate causes and the Reformed divines will often remind us of this. But this is just to say that the stick retains all of its properties and powers which make it suitable for the one who uses it to do something like move a stone.

          The stick has properties – such as rigidity, weight, and density which make it useful for the one who uses it as an instrument to bring about a certain end. But these intermediate causes are mere instruments…in the employ of that one agent who alone has the power to initiate action.

          This makes it inexplicable why God would then treat us as agents holding us morally responsible for the things that he himself caused us and used us to do. The fact that on Universal Divine Causal Determinism there really is only one agent in the world (and that is God) I think makes real nonsense of Christian theology.

          Loading...

       8. JR: “An arbiter isn’t just someone who makes decisions.”

          We seem to agree on that God is omni this and omni that and what God does, or can do, with all those omnis. We seem to disagree on the proper terminology to describe what it is that we agree on. I am content to leave it at that rather than go back and forth disagreeing on proper terminology.

          Loading...

       9. “On the parable of the soil: Jesus isn’t making some claim that people should hope they are the special ones to get their “soil regenerated” before they can believe, and tough luck if they aren’t; such a thought is alien to the text.”

          We know that Jesus called it “good” soil and contrasted it with the lack of soil by the road, rocky places that did not have much soil, and soil filled with thorns. What we have are four different reactions by people to the word. Some simply don’t understand the word; some receive the word with joy but this joy does not last, some let worldly desires crowd out the word, and some receive the word and bear fruit. It is “good” soil so it isn’t the other soils. For example, “this is the man who hears the word and understands it (or accepts it per Mark).” That this person bears much fruit tells us that is not affected by affliction or persecution because of the word, not does he let the cares of the world prevent him bearing fruit.

          We as believers reading this parable would likely think, “Why am I good soil when I know that I was one of the other soils.” Maybe I am the only one who thinks like this. Jesus doesn’t tell us how the good soil turned out to be “good” but Paul said, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth,” so we ought to think that God had something to do with the soil in the parable being fruitful. Or would that also be reading an assumption into the text? Is it exegesis or eisegesis to take truth from one Scripture and incorporate it into other Scripture. I think it is exegesis. Perhaps, I have ignored context in my analysis of various Scriptures being applicable to the parable of the seed.

          I agree with you that, “You see the Parable of the sower about the “good soil” needing regenerated first – which isn’t at all what Jesus is talking about.” That doesn’t mean that Jesus failed to understand that the difference between the “good” soil and the other soils was something God did for the good soil that He did not do for the other soils. One can certainly take that and look through the Scriptures to see if they spoke on this issue. That is what JTL has done and that is what I have done. Did you mean to say that this is not legitimate exegetical Bible study?

          Loading...

       10. Jenai,
           You are right. If Calvinism is correct (everyone is dead until they are made alive) then there should be only 2 soils (dead and “good”).

           But Calvinists quote verses in the parable without even listening to them…..

           “…. some receive the word with joy but this joy does not last…”

           Repeatedly Calvinists tell us that men are dead….. not “receiving.” (can’t receive what is not intended for them).

           They cannot respond in any way….except as dead men…. rejecting.

           And yet…. and yet….here the Bible says clearly (even quoted from the Calvinist version) some “receive the word with joy.”

           With joy? That is not the image of a dead man not hearing a thing.

           That makes zero sense.

           Loading...

17. FOH, my Semi-Pelagian friend posted this :

    “Where did you get the idea that the soil is changed by anyone? There is no mention of that in the parable or in the explanation by Christ. You are just showing your bias to “read into” a passage what you want it to say.”

    “Not a good idea, friend.”

    FOH, my friend… hahaha… you know the Bible declares that all humans are sinners, and no one is righteous or good enough. Why do you think this type of soil was described as good? when this good soil was formerly as bad as the rest, then who transformed them into a new status that is good and ready to be planted with the seeds?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. But….JTL you are reading into the text.

       19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart.
       [why does the evil one need to snatch it away if they are dead?]

       This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy.
       [How can they hear and receive with joy if they are dead?]

       21 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away.
       [they fell away? I thought you said they were dead?]

       22 The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful.
       [That does not sound “dead” either!]

       23 But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it.
       [this verb can mean understand, perceives, synthesizes]

       No where does it say there is any intervention from the outside (except the evil one). The only difference mentioned in the whole parable is the action taken by the “hearing” soil.

       You can’t just add to the text!! Wow. Bad hermeneutic!

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. FOH, my friend: You are correct by saying “:No where does it say there is any intervention from the outside (except the evil one). The only difference mentioned in the whole parable is the action taken by the “hearing” soil – I Agree. Why ?

          1. The action of hearing taken by all of the types of soil differs through the outcome. Only the good soil as the legitimate beneficiaries becomes successful while the rest still perish. Remember what Jesus said: “My sheep hears my voice…”- This skill of hearing is particular/true only among the true sheep.

          2. “{No one can snatch them [the true sheep, true believers in Christ] out of My hand” – Jesus said this in John 10:28. The rest of the types of soil, the seed that falls on them have been snatched, therefore they are not legitimate beneficiaries of Christ’s death on the cross, not chosen.

          3. How can they hear and received with joy is they are dead? – My friend FOH, They are spiritually dead because even if they are able to hear but they don’t understand it. [maybe it was a prosperity gospel that is why they are so quick to grab it] The true message was still unveiled to them. Why? because they are spiritually blind and they cannot unblind themselves. Only God can do that for them [the rest of the types of soil].

          Loading...

       2. Sorry man,

          This is just you repeating over and over what you say.

          Every one of the 15-20 verses that you and RH repeat over and over could have alternate interpretations than you offer. And many times those alternate interpretations are explained.

          What happens when we do explain those verses? You guys start repeating a couple other of the verses and the process starts all over.

          When I was a Calvinist I lived that way too.

          What I am trying to do now is show that we can choose to filter the WHOLE Bible through a few verses if we want (Calvinism). Or we can look at the thousands of places in the Bible where it seriously does not look like the “Good News” of the Bible is that 98% of humanity was created for destruction for the glory of a deity that has no personal relationship with people because he has determined before time their every move.

          That’s the Good News?

          I know, I know….. the typical Calvinist response is “But FOH, we ALL deserve death and the Good News is that He saves some.”

          Baloney! A fundamental, inescapable part of the “Doctrines of Grace” for Calvinists is that God decided before time to condemn all of mankind and save a few. There is nothing “good” about that news.

          Loading...

    2. jtleosala
       when this good soil was formerly as bad as the rest, then who transformed them into a new status that is good and ready to be planted with the seeds?

       br.d
       Where in the text does it EXPLICITLY state the attribute of the soil (i.e., good vs bad) was changed?

       Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one’s own presuppositions, agendas or biases.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. br.d asks JTL, “Where in the text does it EXPLICITLY state the attribute of the soil (i.e., good vs bad) was changed?”

          The parable establishes that there are four different soils identified with people. Luke 8 offers this information, “the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.” We can identify those with “an honest and good heart” as believers. Paul offers a contrast in Ephesians 4, “I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality, for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.” In Ephesians 2, Paul said, “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.” What happened to them, “God made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).” God changed believers from dead to being alive. We can extend this to the parable of the seed to say that good soil – those with an honest and good heart – is good because God has changed it from bad to good (from death to life).

          Loading...

       2. br.d asks JTL, “Where in the text does it EXPLICITLY state the attribute of the soil (i.e., good vs bad) was changed?”

          rhutchin
          The parable establishes that there are four different soils identified with people.

          br.d
          Right – the answer is – it doesn’t state the attribute of the soil is changed – thus the Eisegesis.

          rhutchin
          We can identify those with “an honest and good heart” as believers.

          br.d
          This is FALSE in Calvinism also
          Calvin teaches the “elect” status (those that are not TOTALLY DEPRAVED) is a SECRET – no man knows.

          rhutchin
          God changed believers from dead to being alive. We can extend this to the parable of the seed to say that good soil – those with an honest and good heart – is good because God has changed it from bad to good (from death to life).

          br.d
          Thank you for providing the example of eisegesis.
          What you have is a FORCED presupposition of “regeneration precedes faith” upon one text – which is then FORCED upon another.

          You’ve provided an excellent example of what eisegesis looks like! :-]

          Loading...

       3. Indeed, it pretty much demonstrates how one can import a concept and create an entire new meaning to any verse or passage, as desired. As so many have done. Many have begun to see the weakness, the falsity really, of claiming to be all about sola scriptura, biblical inerrancy, literal interpretation, etc. No matter what terms are used, people appear to be deluding themselves that their particular interpretation of scripture is conclusive and inerrant.

          I get it, because I was in that club for so long, but eventually the rational, honest, self-reflective person begins to realize that they have simply been legitimizing their own views. If we are honest, we will admit that there are multiple interpretations to words, and that any single one, however convinced we are of its veracity, may not be entirely correct. In fact, we can be assured that it is not, as we all see through a glass darkly, and it is likely that, at best, we can grow in knowledge and understanding through the years.

          This does not leave us without an anchor, but leads us to a place of humility, as well as grace toward those who view things differently than do we. Rather than assuming that we can provide the ‘One, true meaning’ of each and every verse of scripture, we may have to content ourselves with grasping its overarching themes.

          It just may be that complex theology is not required to know and have a relationship with the living God. Simple faith just might do the trick.

          Loading...

       4. Wonderful post TS00! I heartily agree! :-]

          Loading...

       5. br.d, and his god, the neurological impulse man : Here is my response…

          The parable speaks of the inclusiveness of the total human race on earth – represented by the 4 types of soil. It is undeniable in the Bible that all humans are sinners, meaning all belongs to “bad soil” – as their attributes, whether elect or non-elect.

          Where in the text does it explicitly state the attribute of the soil i.e.: good or bad? this is your question… – well, the contrast of “good soil” is bad right ?

          Loading...

       6. jtleosala
          br.d and his god, the neurological impulse man : Here is my response…

          The parable speaks of the inclusiveness of the total human race on earth – represented by the 4 types of soil. It is undeniable in the Bible that all humans are sinners, meaning all belongs to “bad soil” – as their attributes, whether elect or non-elect.

          br.d
          This does not answer the question – where in the text does it EXPLICITLY state the attribute of the soil (i.e., good/bad) was changed?

          jtleosala
          Where in the text does it explicitly state the attribute of the soil i.e.: good or bad? this is your question… – well, the contrast of “good soil” is bad right ?

          br.d
          So your answer is – nowhere in the text does it EXPLICITLY state what you claim it does.
          Thank you for providing a good example of eisegesis

          However, scripture does command man:
          -quote
          “Break up your unplowed ground; for it is time to seek the LORD, until he comes and showers his righteousness on you.”

          Who in this text does it EXPLICITLY state is to change the status of the soil?

          Loading...

       7. br.d,
          You can show 100 verses about man seeking God and can even quote…

          Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

          Calvinists will always, always superimpose their idea that (even though it looks like it) man cannot do any of the things the Bible tells him to do. Nope. They just filter it all through the same verses (interpreted their way)….. and they whisk away those verses.

          Rinse. Repeat. Here it comes…. just watch.

          Loading...

       8. Yes I agree FOH!
          Talking scripture with a Calvinist is an act of futility
          Their feet are cemented in eisegesis concrete! :-]

          Loading...

       9. They approach clear, easy passages and change the message. Here’s one:

          Genesis 4:6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

          Clearly the Sovereign, Creator God is telling sinful Cain that sin is coming….but if does what is right (that is an option or God is lying) then he will be accepted. He is told that he must rule over sin (which is an option or God is tricking us).

          Now, we have heard convoluted interpretations by Calvinists superimposing their theology into the passage. In a nutshell they say that Cain could NOT have done what was right, and he could NOT have ruled over sin (impossible from before time).

          So…. that only makes a mockery of the words of God in this passage. What can we ever know to be true from Him at that rate?

          Loading...

       10. ‘Do not’ I was taught by my Calvi-pastor, ‘trust in the Holy Spirit to bring you into understanding of God’s word’. This was contrary to all of the teaching I had ever had in various evangelical churches and denominations throughout my lifetime. It took me some time to realize that Calvies dispense with the Holy Spirit and replace him with the authority of respected teachers, be it John Calvin, John Piper or John MacArthur. (They are not all Johns, but you get my drift.)

           Aside from the lip-service required by scripture, the Holy Spirit is essentially out of work within the Calvinist fold. Followers are commanded to submit to the authority of men, to be ruled over by ‘officers’ and to accept the ‘discipline’ of self-righteous superiors, rather than to trust and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit into greater wisdom and maturity. They have simply re-imaged the authoritarian hierarchy of the Roman Church they so decry.

           Loading...

       11. TSOO says, Aside from the lip-service required by scripture, the Holy Spirit is essentially out of work within the Calvinist fold.

           Reggi . Interesting observation!! this is what I thought I was seeing too!! very dangerous indeed☹

           Matthew 12:31 NASB — “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
           Hmm🤔☹

           Loading...

       12. That’s why Calvinists have no authority over – and no ability to war against – principalities and powers. Eisigetically strong – and spiritually neutered.

           Loading...

       13. It’s fairly easy. Simply convert the call to all men to ‘Believe’, which appears countless times throughout scripture, into ‘God will, unsought by the individual, regenerate certain dead men who could not believe into ‘living’ men who then can and irresistibly will ‘Believe’.

           Of course, scripture nowhere teaches this philosophy or chronology, but have you no imagination? Just read it in, man, it’s not that hard! Before you know it, every time you see God imploring men to ‘believe’ in him and all that his love provides, your subconscious will auto-correct it to ‘those whom God has chosen and enabled to believe’.

           You won’t even notice how illogical it is for God to assert that the eternal destiny of men rests upon their ‘willingness’ to believe the gospel message when he himself has cursed them with the inability to do so. Before they were ever born. With no chance of ever doing otherwise than as he has determinitively decreed. You won’t even feel the ‘tension’ of a God who supposedly ‘so loved the world’ irrevocably destining most of them for damnation, because you will not really have to think about it. Just let the auto-correct do its job, and you can float calmly through the logical inconsistencies and blatant contradictions without the least dis-ease.

           Any time a passage asserts God’s pleas with men to follow him, or states his desire that none perish, you simply re-purpose it to say ‘If, and only if, God has preselected one for this special privilege.’ Whenever God says ‘If you will’, ‘Because you’ or ‘If only’, you will simply gloss over it as if it can indicate something other than men having free choices that determine their destiny. Poof, all discrepancies vanish, and one’s bedrock foundation remains, undisturbed. Because the bedrock foundation is a man-made tradition, which scripture is forced to bow to.

           Loading...

       14. Indeed….. now go read Hebrews 11.

           The whole chapter is full of real names of real people that accomplished exploits for God by their faith. Simple. Not fuzzy or hazy.

           But no…… but no……..

           They must infuse back onto each verse and each name the idea that —— the faith mentioned was given to them and they had no choice but to do what they did.

           What….. in ….. the ……world …..is…..the …..point ….. then?

           It cannot strengthen our faith…. since we are just like them….. we have faith foisted on us or we dont. If we do, we have no choice but to use it. If we dont…… well…. too bad, that was decided before the foundations.

           Again, what then is the point of the chapter?

           Loading...

       15. Excellent point!

           Why does Calvin’s god communicate what he knows is FALSE?

           Loading...

       16. The key that unlocked my chains was the Spirit of God bringing me to face the question, ‘If Calvinism is true, what is the point?’

           What is the point of the cross, if the elect have been predetermined to be saved?
           What is the point of prayer, if God has personally, irrevocably ordained whatsoever will come to pass?
           What is the point of encouraging the lost to read scripture, if they are too dead to understand it?
           What is the point of living, if your every action has been orchestrated, an unchangeable script, written and assigned to you by someone else?
           What is the point of giving men the power of reason, if they have been assigned a predetermined script?

           I could go on and on, but I realized that, under Calvinism, life had no point or genuine meaning. Once I realized the meaning of its doctrine, I had to either bow to the cruel, harsh manipulative Calvi-god or reject him. Many, seeing the choice as Calvi-God or none, turn from faith altogether. Having once known, loved and followed God apart from the reinterpretation of Calvinism, I knew there was another God than the Calvi-god, and I fled to him in relief and joy.

           Nor do I jest. I recall one woman from my Calvi-church who was considering moving a few hours away, and the Calvi-pastor was recommending a church for her to attend. ‘Is the pastor as strict as you?’ she asked. ‘Worse’ the Calvi-pastor joked. She turned from God altogether, abandoned her children and returned to her life as a sex slave of her cousin and his friends. Because that was preferable to the image of God she had been presented with.

           Loading...

       17. Wow all great questions and your authenticity is greatly appreciate!

           Loading...

       18. Wonderful Testimony TS00!

           This is why we observe the Calvinist double-think mentality.

           He is taught to believe [X] is TRUE – but he knows he must live *AS-IF* [X] is FALSE
           And he knows the general narrative of scripture is contrary to his 40+ proof-texts.

           So in order to retain an alliance with scripture he is forced into Calvinism’s Double-Speak tap-dance.

           Loading...

       19. br.d writes:
           “So in order to retain an alliance with scripture he is forced into Calvinism’s Double-Speak tap-dance.”

           Which would never be mistaken for an interpretive dance. 😉

           Rather than encouraging believers to study, think and prayerfully seek the Spirit’s leading, they generate and hand out an authoritative script to be followed, just as they falsely imagine God doing. When a challenger says A, respond with A-1, and so on. I’m more a thinker than an automaton, so I never was willing to be restricted to parroting someone else’s talking points. (There is no way on earth anyone could share my ‘theology’ one hundred percent. I don’t even agree with everything I believed a month ago.)

           I tend to view meaningful conversation as an exchange of ideas, with the goal of understanding one another and perhaps gaining new insight. I think through ideas by writing about them, and interacting with other informed thinkers of various stripes, live or in their writing. But I heard the Calvi-script recited endlessly, and can usually predict what’s coming next.

           Loading...

       20. TS00
           your subconscious will auto-correct it ….
           Any time a passage asserts God’s pleas with men to follow him, or states his desire that none perish, you simply re-purpose it to say ……
           Poof, all discrepancies vanish, and one’s bedrock foundation remains, undisturbed. Because the bedrock foundation is a man-made tradition, which scripture is forced to bow to.

           br.d
           Yes that is exactly my observation also!
           The Calvinist knows he is not supposed to PHYSICALLY alter the text.
           So he alters the text in his mind when he is reading it.

           His mind is trained to read his philosophy into 40+ proof-text verses
           And then he can claim those verses require reading that philosophy into the rest.

           Loading...

18. jtleosala
    It is undeniable in the Bible that all humans are sinners, meaning all belongs to “bad soil” – as their attributes, whether elect or non-elect.

    br.d
    FALSE
    Still other seed fell on GOOD soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.”
    Mark 4:8

    Who gives a man the authority to call BAD what Jesus calls GOOD?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. jtleosala
       “It is undeniable in the Bible that all humans are sinners, meaning all belongs to “bad soil” – as their attributes, whether elect or non-elect.”

       br.d
       “FALSE
       Still other seed fell on GOOD soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.”
       Mark 4:8

       Who gives a man the authority to call BAD what Jesus calls GOOD?”

       Indeed! Had Jesus meant that all soil was bad and some had been made good, that is exactly what he would have said. He had a fair deal of familiarity with the human language he had created.

       Instead, he taught that the REASON why some believe and some don’t – the question rhutchin so loves to ask – is all a matter of the condition of the soil. jtl is correct in reasoning that, were Calvinism true, we would have to assert that all soil was ‘bad’ – directly contrary to what Jesus taught. In reality, NONE of the soil was declared inherently ‘bad’. Man was created ‘good’, in the image of his creator. And since this was pre-Monsanto and factory farms, there was not even an example of soil that had been robbed of its nutrients and/or poisoned by toxic chemicals. It is the deception, the cares and the lures of this world, that causes soil that was inherently good, and capable of producing fruit to not produce fruit.

       This, was explained later by Jesus himself.
       He did not say that All soil was bad and some was regenerated, as Calvinism falsely asserts.
       He did not say that any soil was bad.
       He said that good soil, for various reasons, had been rendered fruitless. And this was what Jesus came to prevent. He came to rescue us from the deceits of the evil one, the cares of a hard life and the enslavement of our flesh to various pleasures. Because none of these things were what God desired. And certainly did not decree. He allowed men to rebel, to wreak havoc upon his good and lovely creation and to inflict his once perfect creation with suffering, oppression and death.

       What a travesty, what a crime against God, to assert that it is He who afflicts us with the suffering, oppression and death that our own free, rebellious choices create. And what an affront to the gospel of love and redemption which Jesus manifested, to assert that some, perhaps most, are not included in God’s merciful desire to rescue mankind from deception, evil and death.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. TSOO posted this one: “In reality, NONE of the soil was declared inherently ‘bad’. Man was created ‘good’, in the image of his creator.”

          “… It is the deception, the cares and the lures of this world, that causes soil that was inherently good, and capable of producing fruit to not produce fruit.”

          ————–

          My Response : Adam and Eve was created “good” before they sinned -This was their original status but was not maintained. They become bad after the fall due to the sin that was in them.

          For TSOO, the cares and lures of the world was causal to the soil to become good and become fruitful. – This false assertion of TSOO is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I don’t know where TSOO got his doctrine. My goodness…

          Loading...

    2. jtleosala
       It is undeniable in the Bible that all humans are sinners, meaning all belongs to “bad soil” – as their attributes, whether elect or non-elect.

       br.d
       FALSE
       Still other seed fell on GOOD soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.”
       Mark 4:8
       ——–My Response to br.d and his god, the neurological impulse man———–
       Saying FALSE to my statement above that : “all humanity are sinners” is to embrace the doctrine of Ed Chapman that he was born righteous when he came out of this world.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Jtle and Br.D… tone it down alittle Brothers. Love one another as Christ has loved you. Thx.

          Loading...

       2. will do!
          Thanks Brian

          Loading...

19. I have been thinking about the idea that humans are made in the image of God (“Imago Dei” for the Latin loving Calvinists).

    What does that mean?

    You may know that Barth and Brunner (spiritual capacity for relationships) differ from Augustine and Calvin (rationality, cognitive abilities), but no matter, they agree that it is true in some way.

    So if all humans are “created in God’s image,” how does that square with the idea that most of them were created (solely for the purpose) to be hated and the vessels of destruction?

    How about the non-elect children of the elect?

    How about the baptized babies of the elect — who are really non-elect? I mean you can’t just baptize your baby and impose on God that this means election, right?

    So imagine an “elect” couple who gives birth to a “non-elect” child (It has to happen sometimes right? Calvinists can’t just say that all our children are automatically elect, right? Even Piper preached about some of his kids possibly being non-elect).

    An “elect” couple gives birth a “non-elect” child and baptizes him.

    This child is now :
    made in the image of God
    born into a “covenant home”
    baptized into the covenant
    taught the Word of God his whole life.

    But not “elect.” So, hated by God and created to be a vessel of destruction.

    Good News! Good Theology!

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. FOH
       This child is now :
       made in the image of God
       born into a “covenant home”
       baptized into the covenant
       taught the Word of God his whole life.

       But not “elect.” So, hated by God and created to be a vessel of destruction.

       Good News! Good Theology!

       br.d
       Good one FOH!

       Yes – in Calvinist thinking.- created specifically as a vessel of wrath – for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure.

       But on top of that – Calvinists AUTO-MAGICALLY assume each of themselves “elect”
       Yet the doctrine stipulates whether “elect” or TOTALLY DEPRAVED – is known only to Calvin’s god.

       However that doesn’t stop them from going about their office *AS-IF* they are “elect”.
       And they think Jesus words: “My sheep hear my voice – all that the father draws will come unto me” *AS-IF* that applies to them.

       But then it gets even more interesting.
       Since in Calvinism only the “few” are “elect” – it follows the Calvinist you are in dialog with right now with has the preponderant chance of being TOTALLY DEPRAVED.

       Where can I sign up! :-]

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. FOH posted this one:

       An “elect” couple gives birth a “non-elect” child and baptizes him.

       This child is now :
       made in the image of God
       born into a “covenant home”
       baptized into the covenant
       taught the Word of God his whole life.

       But not “elect.” So, hated by God and created to be a vessel of destruction.

       Good News! Good Theology!
       ——-My Response———

       My friend FOH, you might not overcome your emotions anymore. Downloading your sentiments have made you compose the litany above. Have you done that thing when you are still a Calvie?, but I don’t

       Loading...

       Reply

20. You called “bad” what Jesus Called “good”
    That is what I called FALSE

    You then ignored the part of your statement which contradicted Jesus – and focused on the sinners part of your statement.

    Another example of a lack of honesty.

    Loading...

    Reply

21. Thanks Brian, My Big Brother in Christ. Yes I will with Br.D

    Loading...

    Reply

22. It is another example of finding what you want to find in scripture, rather than seriously reflecting upon and grappling with what is there.

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, before the days of industrialization and chemical poisoning, all soil was healthy and able to produce fruit with proper tending. Anyone who has a yard understands how difficult it is to keep things from growing in areas in which you wish to not have grass or plants. Give a weed or grass seed the least bit of soil and it will grow.

    What Jesus describes is why some soil, which should be expected to produce fruit, being as capable as any other soil, does not. He goes on to explain rocks and weeds, in other words, impediments that have been introduced, either by an enemy or poor choices. This is the question ruhtchin always asks, as if his presumed answer is the only alternative, ‘Why do some believe and others not?’ He assumes that one must be inherently incapable – dead soil, if you will. He has not read or understood the parable of the sower, which explains that it is outside impediments that prevent the living soil from properly producing fruit, not its latent inferiority.

    I would be very surprised if any commentators interpret this passage as suggesting ‘good soil’ and ‘bad soil’. If one did, a la Calvinism, he would still be left to explain how such a thing as ‘good’ soil came into existence in a sin-cursed world that supposedly left nothing but ‘bad’ soil, as well as how the ‘bad’ soil produced fruit, however short lived.

    Under Calvinism, God sprays Roundup on the entire earth, rendering all soil poisoned. Only specially generated seed can survive this toxic environment and produce fruit. It is interesting how Calvinism set the stage for all of the similarly faulty philosophies that arose in the social, political, economic and physical sciences. Survival of the fittest, and similar philosophies that seek to legitimize the oppression and murder of others, would never have been deemed thinkable in a pre-Calvinist world.

    Loading...

    Reply

23. Under Calvinism’s definition of “God Loving the Non-elect” it is easy to make the case that Hitler loved the Jews as well… at least as much as God loves the non-elect.

    First of all Hitler did not create the Jews for the Concentration camps, he didn’t start off creating people he could later destroy for his own pleasure…however he did come across people he could destroy for his own pleasure. When Hitler sent the Jews off to Auschwitz Birkenau and Triblinka death camps he did not make them walk naked all the way there…instead he gave them a train ride the train passed through fields and cities where there was sunshine, rain, oxygen, and the beauty of creation. Yes, they were headed for the concentration camps but on their way there it was at least better than already being in the camps. No Hitler did not permit them to get off his train or in anyway could they change their destination, Hitler irresistibly Rendered-Certain their destination and their end. Hitler controlled their destiny, orchestrating, determining and decisively causing them to end up in the concentration camps…yet he gave them a train ride through some wonderful picturesque fields where there was sunshine and lots of beautiful things growing…you see Hitler really did love the Jews.

    We could make the case that the concentration camps were much better than hell itself so Hitler’s love for the Jews must have exceeded even God’s love for the non-elect, since Hell is a 1000 times worse than Auschwitz.

    This was a repost…I posted elsewhere as well.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. GraceAdict
       Under Calvinism’s definition of “God Loving the Non-elect” it is easy to make the case that Hitler loved the Jews as well… at least as much as God loves the non-elect.

       br.d
       Great post!

       Calvinism evolved from Augustine synchronizing Gnosticism, and NeoPlatonism, into Catholic doctrine.
       Bot Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism were DUALISTIC belief systems in which there is no clear line of demarcation between good and evil. What we know today as the doctrine of Yin/Yang also evolved from this system.

       In this world-view good and evil are CO-EQUAL, CO-NECESSARY, and one COMPLIMENTS the other.

       It is this aspect that most non-Calvinist Christians find objectionable when they get their first introduction to Calvinism.
       How-be-it since Calvinism claims to be bible based – Non-Calvinists don’t consider the possibility it has Gnostic components.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. BR.D
          Calvinism evolved from Augustine synchronizing Gnosticism, and NeoPlatonism, into Catholic doctrine.
          Bot Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism were DUALISTIC belief systems in which there is no clear line of demarcation between good and evil. What we know today as the doctrine of Yin/Yang also evolved from this system.

          GA
          To BR.D would you consider doing a post that outlined with greater detail the specifics of Gnosticism NeoPlat… and how it iis manifest in Calvinism… I have done little study on that but have noticed how the Stoics influenced Augustine in his understanding of Sovereign meaning “meticulous determinism”… It was simply a matter of syncretism — taking what the Stoics believed and just attributing it to God… So his former Stoic belief did not change but he simply attributed “meticulous determinism” to God instead of the stars. If you could do a post outlining those beliefs that were adopted by “Calvinism” I would love that.
          I see error and syncretism all over the place in Calvinism however I am not always sure where it came from because it is so foreign to the God of the Bible. Identifying these sources and beliefs might also help some who are deceived by the likes of Piper and JMac. Now I realize many of them have NO desire whatsoever to learn anything outside of what their Calvinist leaders say but it would be a help for others not to get deceived by their fine sounding arguments as the New Testament says.

          Loading...

       2. Here are a number of quotes from various academic sources on the subject of Augustine’s dependence upon NeoPlatonic and Gnostic doctrines within his own doctrines – and also his influence in spreading them.

          “What role did NeoPlatonism play on Augustine” – David Morrison
          “NeoPlatonism played a vital role in St. Augustine’s conversion to Christianity. As Augustine himself states quite explicitly in the Confessions, it was only when he came under the influence of the Neoplatonist Bishop Ambrose that he began to take Christianity seriously.”

          “Neoplatonism_and_Christianity” – wikipedia
          “Neoplatonism was a major influence on Christian theology throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages in the West. This was due to St. Augustine of Hippo, who was influenced by the early Neoplatonists Plotinus and Porphyry, as well as the works of the Christian writer Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who was influenced by later Neoplatonists, such as Proclus and Damascius.”

          “NeoPlatonism and Christianity” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
          Through Augustine (354–430) in the West and the 4th-century Cappadocian Fathers (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus) in the East as well as the pseudo-epigraphic writings of Dionysius the Areopagite (early 6th century), Neoplatonism profoundly influenced the emergence of mainstream and not so mainstream Christian theology.

          – “The Influence Of Plotinus Traced In St. Augustine” – Stephen MacKenna
          “One of NeoPlatonism’s most prominent pagan teachers Plotinus taught that a person must turn inward to find God, who is identical with the inner reality of the soul. Plotinus was considered a monist, intellectual mystic, and a genius in argumentation. Within Augustine’s confessions one can observe evidences of at least two mystical meditation experiences, which clearly follow the NeoPlatonic model. Mystic meditation was a practice emphasized by the NeoPlatonist’s to aid the believer in becoming assimilated into the “ONE”.

          Microsoft Encarta Concise Encyclopedia – Neoplatonism
          “Neoplatonism is a thought form rooted in the philosophy of Plato [transformed into religios form]. Neoplatonism sought to locate the “ONE”. In Christian Neoplatonism the NeoPlatonic “ONE” equates to the Christian God. The NeoPlatonic Christian seeks to locate the “ONE” in the finite world and human experience. –

          Neoplatonism in Augustine’s Letters – Mateusz Stróżyński
          Augustine corresponded by letter to a close friend Nebridius, who praises how Augustine’s letters: “speak of Christ, Plato and Plotinus”

          Plotinus – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
          Is not the “One”, as the Good, the cause of evil? In one sense, the answer is definitely yes. As Plotinus reasons, if anything besides the “One” is going to exist, then there must be a conclusion of the process of production from the “One”. The beginning of evil is the act of separation from the “One” by Intellect, an act which the “One” itself ultimately causes.

          “Augustine, Manicheism and the Good” – Kam-Lun Edwin Lee
          The Manichaean contribution to the success of Augustine’s conception of predestination is both undeniable and indispensable. By engaging the Manichaean question of unde sit malum he was able to achieve what other Christian leaders of his time could not: a Christian theory of the inevitability of personal evil and the cosmological implications for the role played by predeterminism in the doctrine of predestination.

          Augustine’s notion of concupiscentia is also linked directly to the Manichaean idea of evil as a disturbance of a person’s inner tranquility. By the time he wrote De uera reliqione, Augustine had imported into that notion a strong sexual overtone by equating concupiscentia with the Manichaean term libido, which implies sexual desire.

          But gradually, due to his conviction that personal evil is inevitable (a view shared by the Manichees and demonstrated in his conceptions of consuetudo and concupiscentia), Augustine assigned determination of one’s destiny to the jurisdiction of God. –

          Loading...

       3. Thanks BR.D this will help.

          Loading...

24. All you have to do to see how much Calvinist-determinist Piper lives and talks like an Arminian is visit his website!!

    Another missionary sent me this one today from a guest article on Piper’s site

    https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/youll-never-wish-you-did-less

    Here are a few quotes (totally sanctioned by Piper, and repeated by him in other articles). My short comments in brackets.

    “For the first time in my life, I looked into the eyes of a people that had most likely never heard (or had a chance to hear) of a Savior named Jesus. They were not unbelieving because they had said no to Jesus, but because they had never had an opportunity to do so. ” [They were unbelieving—- because they were non-elect? Nope. They had not heard. Implication: had they heard that might have been different.]

    “I had never heard the title “Bibleless peoples” either. I knew people who choose not to read a Bible, but I had never heard of the 210 million who might have a desire to read God’s word, but could not, because one did not exist in their language.” [Those 210 million have a desire to read? Or are they “dead”?]

    “And the “unengaged”? I knew of unbelievers, but I had no awareness of the groups in the world who are silently wasting away, waiting to hear about their sin and Savior. Presently, they have no church, agency, or Christian with a plan to get the gospel of Jesus Christ to them.” [Are they waiting to hear….or are they “dead”?] [It is because there is no human plan that they are perishing….not because they the “un-elect”.]

    “But for those believers who do know of these peoples, we must ask a penetrating question, “Is it that you can’t do something, or that you won’t?” Most are unaware, but heaven forbid that the others are unmoved.” [Implication: if you are moved….it changes people’s spiritual outcome.]

    “Jesus knew there were many unknown peoples who were unknowledgeable of a God worth knowing.” [But you —your actions—-can change that!]

    “You don’t have to stay uninformed. If you knew that 141,000 new unbelievers enter the world’s global cities every day but that 80% of them will never meet a Christian, or that for every unreached people group there are 78,000 evangelical believers that will hardly ever reach or even notice them, how would it affect you?” [If you are affected….moved…. it could change their outcome. Stay unmoved and they perish.]

    “We grieve that many who hear do not go to him, and that many do not go to him because they never had the chance to hear.” [Because they never had the chance to hear??? That is why they are “un-elect”? That would change if they had a chance, right?]

    “Jesus’s compassion came as a result of the people’s lostness coupled with the lack of laborers to find them. When only 1 out of every 5,000 professing Christians goes overseas (a mere 0.02%), when there are over three billion harassed and helpless unreached souls at large, we must constantly “pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest” (Matthew 9:38). Buy a map. Open it. Pore in prayer over its people and places.” [Give more money…. do more, pray more….that is what will change things…. your part makes a difference in the outcome.]

    “Let us fix our eyes on him and pray, give, go, and send in joyful anticipation…… Let us walk in such a way that our heavenly joyfulness will one day include today’s unknown and unreached peoples.” [Let us anticipate that our (increased) participation will make a difference in the outcome.]

    “But 99% of Christians have kept puttering around in the homeland.” May we not be added to them, but may we boldly risk for the sake of the nations. We can rest assured that no one will ever enter heaven saying, I wish I had done less for the nations.'” [Dont be a lazy puttering believer! You can make a difference!! Take a risk for the nations! Cuz if you do….that changes the outcome!]

    ———

    Written like a true Arminian!!

    This article is written entirely to convince (and even guilt) young people that you do make a difference in the outcome of souls.

    This kind of article (that is all over the Piper site) proves that they live —-really live their lives— like Arminian. Truly this is an example of Piper wanting his cake (be a leading Calvinist) and eating too (tell people if they dont go, people will perish).

    Calvinists dont seem to care that this whole article –if written on an Arminian site— would be accused of robbing God of His glory since…. (for them) no human effort affects in the least way the choices He has made.

    What I really can’t believe is that true Calvinists do not call him out!! RH and JTL should be blasting Piper as a man-influences-salvation (God’s-glory-stealing) Arminian!!

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. FOH posted this one:

       “What I really can’t believe is that true Calvinists do not call him out!! RH and JTL should be blasting Piper as a man-influences-salvation (God’s-glory-stealing) Arminian!!”

       My Response : Piper is not claiming for himself any share in reaching out the lost sinners. It is FOH who falsely insinuate that Armenian charges for John Piper. The truth is that John Piper actually believes that God is giving him the opportunity to keep his efforts always aligned/coherent in accomplishing God’s decree in the Salvation plan for the lost. Piper, RH and myself all believe that God is the initiator of Salvation, not man. FOH actually insists, that the fallen man is not totally depraved, thus the fallen man is capable to access salvation on his own.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. JTL:
          You are so funny!

          My point is simple. Calvinism says it is not just God who initiates, but God 100% from start to finish with no part “whatsoever” (your words to me) being from man (either the from man being saved or the man leading him to the Lord). Man has NOTHING to do with it (your words to me). Period.

          Yet, you defend a fellow Calvinist when he says the following things that obviously “rob God of His glory” and imply that man is not “too-dead”.

          “They were not unbelieving because they had said no to Jesus, but because they had never had an opportunity to do so. ”

          “…..but I had never heard of the 210 million who might have a desire to read God’s word, but could not, because one did not exist in their language.”

          “but I had no awareness of the groups in the world who are silently wasting away, waiting to hear about their sin and Savior. ”

          “and that many do not go to him because they never had the chance to hear.”

          “May we not be added to them, but may we boldly risk for the sake of the nations. ”

          It is not surprising to me that you defend Piper. He says he is a Calvinist…. so Calvinists let him say whatever he wants. But, anyone with an objective eye can see that these statements (and many, many more statements in his books and articles) declare that if man gives more, works more, risks more, then he can do a “better” job of reaching the “210 million have a desire to read the Word of God” or who are “waiting to hear” or who “need a chance to hear.”

          Of course the article is a beautiful statement trying to rouse a lazy church to go “for the sake of the nations”…. but that certainly does imply that man has “something whatsoever to do about it.”

          I am afraid you cannot even hear my point and hear what you are defending.

          Loading...

       2. Calvinists are eager to prove that they have a heart for missions, but are so tunnel blind that they do not recognize how absurd that is, given their doctrine. Beginning with the premise that they are the ‘means’ by which God reaches the lost ‘elect’, they do not see how their language inevitably reveals their charade.

          Piper constantly speaks ‘As-if’ men can refrain from being the means to spread the gospel to those who have been irresistibly ordained to receive it, when under Calvinism, both the spreader and receiver have been irresistibly ordained to perform God’s will. With false, comic urgency, they urge men to take the path that is irresistibly before them. As if they won’t, without fail, do so. They, as it were, urge the sun to rise, birds to fly and men to breathe, imagining that their preaching is ‘the power’ that brings about the inescapable decrees of God.

          They convince themselves that in believing themselves God’s ‘means’ they can borrow the language of free will and choice. But one cannot let that horse run without quickly arriving at the suggestion that men have meaningful choices to make, with eternal consequences.

          It is difficult for those on the outside to grasp the twisted logic that allows Calvinists to suggest that irresistible, pre-ordained events are meaningful and important. But imagine taking it away from them. They would be left with ‘Welcome to Day 9723 of your life. Enjoy, or not, the events God has scripted for you, which, as always, will take place without fail, for his purpose and glory.’

          No one can really think like that, although it is the logical conclusion their assertions demand. So they build workarounds, to fool themselves into believing that life is meaningful, rather than mere theater. Their speech, writing and behavior reflects a purpose and meaning that their doctrine does not dictate. Otherwise they would likely reject their faith altogether, due to the meaningless of such a fatalistic religion. Sadly, this happens all too often.

          Loading...

       3. TS00,
          Other places on this site I have taken Piper’s book “Dont Waste Your Life” and quoted from it extensively.

          Every one of the quotes I list could and would be said by an Arminian.

          He talks about man’s urgency, strategy, necessity, “if we don’t then” “the world needs” when talking about the Gospel. An enormous amount of credit and responsibility is placed on men to bring others to Christ (which of course is fine by me, but not Calvinistic).

          The entire book is predicated on the idea that WE EVEN CAN waste our life. Now, how is that possible in the Deterministic-Calvinistic philosophy? I mean, imagine a leading Arminian writing that book.

          The Amazon-review, Calvinist, trolls would go and do what they do to all non-Calvinist books: find the book, go to the review section, give it one star, and in the “review” they would (a) trash/name call the author (b) go on and on about Calvinism (not even addressing the book). There are such trolls in every “review” section of non-Calvinist books. Shameful.

          Loading...

       4. jtleosala
          God is giving him the opportunity to keep his efforts always aligned/coherent in accomplishing God’s decree

          br.d
          Here the Calvinists *APPEARS* to DENY what is stated – while proceeding to actually CONFIRM it

          In TRUE Calvinism:
          The creature is NOT PERMITTED to do otherwise than what Calvin’s god’s decrees.

          Therefore – it is a logical impossibility to NOT be aligned with accomplishing Calvin’s god’s decree.

          So here you simply provide an ARMINIAN example of what FOH was describing.

          Loading...

       5. The reason Calvinists don’t call-out John Piper’s DOUBLE-SPEAK – is because they are just as DOUBLE-MINDED as he is! :-]

          Loading...

    2. FOH
       What I really can’t believe is that true Calvinists do not call him out!!

       br.d
       Great post FOH!

       Calvinists learn to exist in a DOUBLE-THINK world – and they therefore communicate a DOUBLE-SPEAK language.

       On one side of the DUALISM Theological Determinism is held as TRUE.
       On the other side of the DUALISM Theological Determinism is held as FALSE

       Eventually this mental conditioning of DOUBLE-THINK becomes NORMALCY – and he speaks it without even thinking.

       Calvinist James White says this aspect of the system is what makes it -quote “Fully Orbed”.

       The Arminian does not embrace the DUALISM.

       Therefore – in the Calvinist mind – the Arminian can’t possibly mean the statement the way the Calvinist does.
       Therefore it must be rejected.

       Loading...

       Reply

    3. FOH writes, “What I really can’t believe is that true Calvinists do not call him out!!”

       Perhaps, Piper gets some things right and is working out other things. Piper’s problem may be that he is a pastor whose congregation includes many people (e.g., visitors) still drinking milk and not able to handle meat. As 1 Corinthians, where Paul tell us, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.” Remember Paul also said, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth,” so he knows that He is God’s vehicle to bring God’s elect to Christ.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. rhutchin
          Piper’s problem may be that he is a pastor whose congregation includes many people (e.g., visitors)

          br.d
          NAH! Piper has been speaking DOUBLE-SPEAK forever – and everywhere – all of his books included.
          Calvinist’s don’t call Piper out – because they are just as DOUBLE-MINDED as he is.

          All one need do is read Calvinist posts here – to observe the pattern!
          Double-Speak is an integral part of Calvin’s belief system.

          What to look for:
          – “Mere” permission doesn’t exist *AS-IF it does
          – Foreknowledge via observation doesn’t exist *AS-IF* it does
          – And all things are determined by the THEOS – and in every part – *AS-IF* they aren’t

          Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern.

          Its just DOUBLE-THINK! :-]

          Loading...

       2. rhutchin writes:
          “Piper’s problem may be that he is a pastor whose congregation includes many people (e.g., visitors) still drinking milk and not able to handle meat.”

          What rh is careful to couch as providing milk to the immature, I would posit as masking and deceit. Calvinist pastors and teachers know full well that not only guests and newbies, but even long-term members would run from the church screaming if they knew what Calvinist theology genuinely asserts. When I first realized that this tactic had kept me confused for over a decade, I was shocked, hurt and angry.

          I have mentioned that even though in active leadership at this Calvi-church from its formation, I avoided confronting the pastor with my personal questions, as he always ‘thanked’ us for being the ‘only ones’ to not constantly call him out on his sermons. When my questions became too big to remain silent, I was stunned to hear my Calvi-pastor openly acknowledge that he did not say what he really believed about many things, or ‘everyone would leave’. So much for his oft-touted claim that he only taught what scripture said, without avoiding difficult issues.

          To be clear, we were not discussing Calvinism, but another controversial topic on which we had shared views, however the admission was still troubling. While I am a firm believer in diplomacy and graciousness, I am a firm believer in honesty and frankness. Only later did I come to see that this acknowledged masking of his real views applied to how he presented Calvinism as well.

          I am sure that the pastor, like rh, assured himself that he was simply providing milk for those not ready to handle the meat (ugly truths) of Calvinism – which is nearly everyone for all time. Thus, like Piper and most contemporary Calvinist teachers, the ugly truths are shelved, and language with known Arminian (non-Calvinist) meanings is employed.

          Once my eyes were opened to this, I could sit through a sermon and hear something entirely different from what my spouse heard, because I knew the underlying Calvinist redefinition of familiar scriptural terms and concepts. Nor did it stop with mere equivocation; I felt as if many statements were deliberately misleading, and occasionally outright lies. For example, after weeks of reading ‘sovereignty’ into every single passage of scripture, the pastor stated: ‘What we [Calvinists] mean by Sovereignty is simply that God allows certain [evil] things to happen.’

          In my opinion that was a blatant lie; an attempt to hide the determinism of Calvinism and assure naive, trusting members that Calvinism taught the same ol’ things we had always believed. (None of the congregation were life-long Calvinists. All had come for reasons other than doctrine, and stayed mostly in spite of, rather than because of Calvinist theology.)

          It became increasingly clear to me that this dissimulation was not an exception, but the rule in this pastor’s teaching. He knew full well that none of us would abide a clear honest presentation of Calvinism in all of its glory. In fact, in the over twelve years he had pastored, he had resisted repeated appeals by various members for an in-depth Sunday School or bible study series on Calvinist teachings. It was, by far, the most requested topic. I eventually realized he had no intention of presenting Calvinism fully and honestly. Perhaps ever, but certainly not before the members were deeply committed to the community.

          Loading...

       3. That’s right too – I hadn’t thought of that.

          As a matter of fact – my first contact with Calvinism was a pastor teaching it – but not telling his congregation he was teaching them Calvinism. I asked one of the brothers in that church how long the pastor had been teaching Calvinism – and he told me he didn’t even know what Calvinism was.

          I think that’s typically classified as “stealth” Calvinism.

          Loading...

       4. That sort of stealth-Calvinism (well, 4 point Amyraldism and compatabalism) happens a lot in my local church (albeit mostly of the inconsistent Amyraldian variety.) I found out over the years that the reason all the official teachers were Calvinists, despite our SOF not saying anything about Calvinism or the various points or assumptions of TULIP, was that there was a secondary, more detailed list of beliefs that official teachers had to adhere to and Calvinism was an essential on that list. They didn’t proclaim ‘I’m a Calvinist’ for the class, but their soteriology was obvious. And it’s only ramped up over the years – lately my Sunday school group has been going through series by J.D. Greaer (Ephesians) and other Calvinists (though the term is never mentioned) which interpret texts through that worldview and claim, even ignoring the context or lying over Greek words if needed, that their interpretation is what the Bible states.

          We have a new Pastor now as the last just retired, who for his first major sermon series that he gets to pick is going to go through Romans. My husband and I are still evaluating what to do as the push toward Calvinism gets stronger over the years. For now, we are sticking with the church group as someone has to speak up, and from psychology if even one person voices a second-guess on a teacher’s interpretation, it will make a whole group more likely to double-check/study for themselves – but if no one speaks up, the psychological tendency for the group is to treat the teacher as the authority. And for the lay-people in the church, most have either no opinion on Calvinism, reject the theory, or are OK with the stealth terms the Pastor uses but likely would define them differently or reject the theory if they knew everything that was meant by it (such as man being unable to respond in faith, being born again happening prior to faith, etc.) So it was good we stuck through the Ephesians class and others – we were able to have great table discussion on what the text actually said in context vs. how it was being portrayed.

          Loading...

       5. Jenai,
          It has been stated many times that “being a Calvinist” is the latest fad. Remember the Jesus people and “being open to the gifts” and “being charismatic” was all the rage in the 70’s- 80’s (and beyond)?

          I mean many churches are “going Calvinist” just like many once-generic churches “have gone charismatic”.

          Speaking of which if is amazing to watch Calvinists go after each other on other topics: MacArthur vs Piper on the charismatic gifts (Hey JTL, did you Piper is charismatic?). MacArthur is so mad at him!

          Sproul and MacArthur debated on infant baptism (of course Sproul being a “real” Calvinist was a staunch infant-baptizer!!)

          MacArthur (premil) argues with Ligon Duncan and CJ Maheney (amil) on eschatology.

          Loading...

       6. It makes sense that Piper is pulling converts from the Charismatic movement.
          Statistically – its the fastest growing Christian population on planet earth – has been for a few generations.

          Loading...

       7. Wow – it sounds like your group has some independent thinkers in it – along with yourself and your husband!

          I can understand why you would want to stick it out there – for that reason – especially if there are enough other like-minded believers with beliefs you both embrace. That kind of fellowship can be wonderful.

          The one thing I can’t abide by is a pastor who lords over people. And a Calvinist is more likely than a non-Calvinist to do that because of the “DON’T THINK – JUST BELIEVE WHAT I TELL YOU” mentality that comes with Calvinism.

          Loading...

25. Brian, FOH, TS00 and BrD,

    Late to the dance, but in response to the June 4th comments way above in this thread.

    And its even worse than that. In Calvin-land, even “the elect” don’t love Him. Not really. God changed them, against their will. All God would have to do is push that toggle switch back to where it was before, and His elect would go right back to hating Him.

    Deep down, the elect don’t truly love Him. They didn’t want anything to do with Him either. The whole relationship is nothing more than a facade. And God knows it.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Oh but Phillip “you misrepresent Calvinism!”

       You are “setting up a straw man.”

       Here is the Calvinist answer to that:

       We DO love Him! He makes us alive and calls us and we freely choose to love Him!

       Yeah….right….. And your doctrine is called TULP, right?

       The “I” is for “irresistible grace” —- so not so freely after all. So…hummm… I guess you are right Phillip!

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. A good point – about Calvin’s god simply flipping a switch – and the Calvinist would go right back to what he was before.
       That does make sense!

       Loading...

       Reply

    3. Good point, although FOH is right about the nonsensical reply the Calvinist will make. He very much desires to believe he has that ‘free will’ he so hates, rather than admit that he is a mere sock puppet.

       Loading...

       Reply

    4. phillip writes, “Deep down, the elect don’t truly love Him. They didn’t want anything to do with Him either. The whole relationship is nothing more than a facade. And God knows it.”

       Give a blind man sight and he will be eternally grateful. Phillip lost it here.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Were I one blind man among a million, and God randomly picked me and a few others to give sight, when he could have opened the eyes of all, I am not so sure I would be falling all over him. Frankly, I would either be horrified or terrified at such a cruel master. Or do we suppose that everyone just cares about themselves, the rest be damned?

          Funny how God commands us to love others as self, but in Calvinism it’s every man for himself.

          Loading...

       2. TS00
          Funny how God commands us to love others as self, but in Calvinism it’s every man for himself.

          br.d
          We haven’t had this conversation much here at SOT101 – but its really quite important.
          And I do agree – Calvinism appears to be a totally cold-hearted and self-centered belief system.

          Loading...

       3. TS00 writes, “Funny how God commands us to love others as self, but in Calvinism it’s every man for himself.”

          At least in Calvinism, God is helping His elect. It’s even worse in non-Calvinism where God doesn’t help anyone leaving they to figure it out themselves. Lucky for TS00; he is one of the brighter ones.

          Loading...

       4. rh:
          “It’s even worse in non-Calvinism where God doesn’t help anyone leaving they to figure it out themselves.”

          Oh really? Does rhutchin want to charge God with ‘not doing enough’? Let’s see, all of creation shouts the power and glory of its designer, we were given prophets, the written word, and most important of all, the Living Word, Jesus. God’s own Son, accompanied with wonders and miracles, attested to the love and power of God. Lastly, to all who believe the promises of God is given the very Spirit of God to dwell within and provide comfort and guidance.

          How does that compute to being left on our own, or requiring ‘smart’ guys to figure it all out? No, all it requires is the faith of a child, easy for each and every one of us. Being given the freedom to choose does not equate to being abandoned to fend for oneself.

          Loading...

       5. TS00 writes, “Does rhutchin want to charge God with ‘not doing enough’?”

          Doing enough would require that God save His elect (Calvinism) or all people *Universalism). Non-Calvinists do not allow God to save anyone except those who “freely” choose to be saved. Calvinists allow God to save some additional people who do not want to be saved. Universalists have God saving all people regardless whether they want to be saved.

          Loading...

       6. Rhutchin writes….. “Give a blind man sight and he will be eternally grateful.”

          Agreed. Unfortunately, in Calvin-land, God consigns the majority of “blind men” to eternal damnation, when they would have been eternally grateful if God had given them sight instead.

          Sad.

          Loading...

       7. Phillip
          Agreed. Unfortunately, in Calvin-land, God consigns the majority of “blind men” to eternal damnation, when they would have been eternally grateful if God had given them sight instead.

          Sad.

          br.d
          Well Said Phillip!

          As Dr. Jerry Walls points out – in Theological Determinism (with its definition of freedom based on compatibilism) – Calvin’s god could make THE MANY “freely” desire Jesus as their savior and be saved. But instead he designs THE MANY for eternal torment in a lake of fire.

          Supposedly for his good pleasure and for his glory.

          Interesting way for a deity to glorify himself! And I find it interesting that the ancient Gnostics had a very similar doctrine for their DEMIURGE god.

          Loading...

       8. phillip writes, “Unfortunately, in Calvin-land, God consigns the majority of “blind men” to eternal damnation, when they would have been eternally grateful if God had given them sight instead.”

          In non-Calvinland, we observe the ssme thing. Does this make phillip an Universalist where God does not consigns the majority of “blind men” to eternal damnation. If not, what’s the issue?

          Loading...

       9. phillip
          Unfortunately, in Calvin-land, God consigns the majority of “blind men” to eternal damnation, when they would have been eternally grateful if God had given them sight instead.”

          rhutchin
          In non-Calvinland, WE observe the same thing. Does this make phillip an Universalist

          br,d
          Here we have the “Black and White Thinking” fallacy.
          The fallacy tries to force you to choose either black or white when gray is an available alternative.
          The mind lacks discernment of color.

          And who is “We”?
          rhutchin you do love to play shifty language games! :-]

          The key word in Phillip’s statement is the word CONSIGNS.
          The concept of a theos CONSIGNING people to a destiny is also rejected in Non-Calvi-Land.

          Loading...

       10. br.d writes, “And who is “We”?”

           Given that my comment was to phillip, “We” would include myself and phillip. However, whether Calvinist or non-Calvinist, one can say, “God consigns the majority of “blind men” to eternal damnation, when they would have been eternally grateful if God had given them sight instead.” Unless one is Universalist, this seems necessarily so.

           Then, “The concept of a theos CONSIGNING people to a destiny is also rejected in Non-Calvi-Land.”

           In favor of what? What do you put in its place?

           Loading...

       11. What we “put in it’s place” [in place of God just consigning people to a various pre-selected destiny of His arbitrary choosing] is God choosing from the foundation of the world that He would graciously grant salvation to all those who believe. God choosing before time that all the faithful in Christ Jesus would be made Holy, adopted as sons, conformed to Christ, redeemed, justified, called by His name, etc. God choosing before time that He would send man a redeemer so they could approach Him by faith where they couldn’t (due to the fall He knew would happen) approach God via works of the law or personal righteousness.

           Neither universalism or a puppet God required. Just God’s sovereign choice predestining that salvation would be only by grace through faith and not by man’s works.

           **
           As for ‘people being eternally grateful’ for being able to see –

           “For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.” Matt 13:17

           Did the Pharisees not see Jesus? Of course they did. They didn’t *want* to see/believe that He was the Messiah so they refused to believe.

           Acts 28:23-28
           “They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus. Some were being persuaded by what he said, but others would not believe. They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your ancestors when he said through Isaiah the prophet:

           “ ‘Go to this people and say,
           “You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
           you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
           For this people’s heart has become calloused;
           they hardly hear with their ears,
           and they have closed their eyes.
           Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
           hear with their ears,
           understand with their hearts
           and turn, and I would heal them.’
           “Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!””

           Could they not see? Of course they could! But they “shut their eyes” and didn’t let what they heard penetrate their hearts (Back to Matt 13 and Luke 8 there and the parable of the sower. Because the seed could not penetrate quickly, Satan could easily snatch it away.)

           “Jesus said, a “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”
           Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”
           Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.” Jn 9:39-41

           This exchange happened after the incident where Christ healed an actual blind man. Is Jesus saying that all are spiritually blind from birth and that He just picks some to make see so they then can be saved? No! He is saying those who claimed to see (Israel in general, especially the Pharisees and other religious leaders who thought they were the keepers of all spiritual light as the chosen people of God) would ‘become blind’ – they would not understand his teachings, because they thought they already had the light. They couldn’t recognize the light of Christ because of that. But anyone who recognized they were spiritually blind and needed to see would flock to Jesus. That’s part of repentance – the acknowledgement that one is a lost sinner in need of rescue. Those people would treat Jesus as their teacher/rabbi.

           There is another aspect of this chapter that is very important. The ‘blind man’ showed faith by following Jesus’s instruction. He then washed in the Pool of Silom (interesting that He describes this as “was washed” rather than “I washed” – recognizing that the washing came from without him) and only *after* did he see.

           Only *after* faith and baptism does one actually gain ‘spiritual sight’ since they now have the indwelling Holy Spirit. But all people can “see” scripture and hear the gospel so as to be influenced by its testimony. But some will close their eyes and plug their ears deliberately – they do not want it to be true, for various reasons.

           One last thing to know about open eyes/ears: This is a Hebraism/idiomatic language for ‘attending to something so as to respond.’

           “May You hear from heaven, Your dwelling place, their prayer and petition, and may You uphold their cause. May You forgive Your people who sinned against You. Now, my God, may your eyes be open and your ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place.” II Chron 6:40

           Is Solomon saying that God is blind or can’t hear, or that He doesn’t know about their plight or request? No, he is asking God to mercifully hear the plea *and respond to it* with forgiveness and protection.

           So people that open their eyes and ears to the gospel respond to it in repentance and faith. Those that shut their eyes and plug their ears resist the persuasion of Christ’s work on the cross. And for those that do repent and turn to God in faith, God washes them in baptism and grants them the indwelling Holy Spirit, so going forward they now have spiritual sight and can discern the deeper things of God, such as in I Cor 2.

           Loading...

       12. Good explanations, once again. It appears disingenuous to pretend to not see the difference between being offered the chance to receive sight and refusing it or never having a choice, but being irresistibly, unchangeably consigned to eternal blindness. However they may defend it, the Calvinist has no choice but to acknowledge this distinction. Yet many try to ignore, distract from or outright deny the clear difference between perishing by an external divine decree and perishing due to self-chosen, stubborn resistance to the legitimate, free offer of salvation.

           Loading...

       13. Wonderful Post!

           Loading...

       14. JR: “What we “put in it’s place” …is God choosing from the foundation of the world that He would graciously grant salvation to all those who believe.”

           Calvinists subscribe to this but add that faith is required before one can believe and God provides the faith for one to believe. Naturally, if one has faith (involving both assurance and conviction), he will naturally believe. How does faith work in your system?

           Then, “Did the Pharisees not see Jesus? Of course they did. They didn’t *want* to see/believe that He was the Messiah so they refused to believe.”

           They were without faith. As Jesus said in John 10, “you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.” You say, “But anyone who recognized they were spiritually blind and needed to see would flock to Jesus,” not adding that it is these who received faith.

           Then, “So people that open their eyes and ears to the gospel respond to it in repentance and faith.”

           The Calvinist says, “So people who receive faith can open their eyes and ears to the gospel and respond in belief and repentance.

           Loading...

       15. br.d
           “And who is “We”?”

           rhutchin
           Given that my comment was to phillip, “We” would include myself and phillip.

           br.d
           That would presuppose Phillip also falls in the error of the Calvinist’s “Black & White thinking” fallacy.

           rhutchin
           – However, whether Calvinist or non-Calvinist, one CAN say, “God consigns the majority of “blind men” to eternal damnation
           – Unless one is Universalist, this seems necessarily so.
           – when they would have been eternally grateful if God had given them sight instead.”

           br.d
           – Another irrelevant red-herring – no one said they CAN’T
           – And thus the “Black & White Thinking” fallacy
           – And thus to my point – In Calvinism’s case this would be — RENDER-CERTAIN a person be eternally grateful and don’t permit otherwise – and he will be. Just as – design a person to function robotically and don’t permit otherwise – and he will do what he is programmed to do. :-]

           The concept of a theos CONSIGNING people to a destiny is also rejected in Non-Calvi-Land.”

           rhutchin
           In favor of what? What do you put in its place?

           br.d
           Simple LOGIC
           If one rejects [X] then one does so in favor of [NOT X]

           In favor of a THEOS who does not design the vast majority of his creation to eternal torment in a lake of fire for his “so called” good pleasure.

           Loading...

       16. Yes,

           Calvinism isn’t just a simple, “God gives them sight, so the human responds with gratefulness” but closer to “God gives the person love potion number 9, so the human now sees God as the most wonderful being ever and can’t possibly do otherwise. Meanwhile everyone else still sees God as ugly, and that’s their fault, even though God decreed it would be so and rendered certain that they would, indeed never could, see God differently.”

           One of my favorite books of the Bible is Hosea. Gomer wasn’t forced to return home with Hosea, and Hosea wasn’t forced (though he was told) to redeem her. Hosea submitted to God and redeemed a rebellious wife who had broken her first covenant with her husband and fallen back into her old ways of sin and adultery, much as Christ submitted to the Father to redeem a rebellious and fallen human race.

           But Hosea didn’t redeem Gomer by spritzing her with magic perfume that allowed her to see him as wonderful. He redeemed her by paying the price to do so, and then giving her the offer of returning to live with him in a marital covenant so long as she did not turn aside to prostitution or adultery.

           While Hosea symbolizes Israel’s relationship with God, it also foreshadows our relationship with Christ. Christ shed His blood to become the kinsman redeemer of man, even though we were sinners. Anyone can be freed by that redemption price from slavery to sin. We can then be the bride of Christ and the children of God. But that relationship is conditional: it’s by repentance and faith in Christ. God doesn’t make us enter relationship with Him or otherwise irresistibly contrive that we end up in relationship. Rather, God draws us by the death of Christ and the gospel and all His other graces to reveal to us our sin and reveal to us how relationship with Him is better and the way to have that relationship.

           Calvinism, from my perspective, doesn’t seem to trust that Christ’s work on the cross was sufficient enough to woo anyone, let alone sufficient enough to woo everyone, and so takes the position that humans literally can’t be wooed no matter what Christ did on the cross or what God does unless God does some supernatural act of regeneration or other specific act of irresistible enlightenment on a chosen few so they not only get the special privilege of being able to understand God’s wooing but must necessarily respond positively to it. Which isn’t really wooing, but more like mind control and forced affection.

           For any sci-fi fans out there, it’s like in Stargate SG1 with the Gou’ld leader Seth, or in Stargate Atlantis in “Irresistable” with Lucius. In both cases people are “irresistible” attracted to a person by mind control/a drug that makes them see that person as wonderful/the best ever, and how could they not love and serve them?

           Why would an all powerful loving God need to resort to such a trick – is He and His character and His work of redemption not enough to persuade anyone to follow Him?

           Loading...

       17. Great post Jenai!

           And I totally agree about the “Love potion number 9” parallel with Calvinism’s irresistible doctrine.
           However I think that doctrine also falls back on itself.
           If love for Christ is “irresistible” simply as a consequence or byproduct of Theological Determinism – then it works as a model of divine control. And as such it follows that everything man does he does because Calvin’s god makes it “irresistible”.

           I’m not that familiar with Stargate – but if you are a sci-fi buff – you may enjoy reading this article here at SOT101

           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

           Loading...

       18. JR: “…closer to “God gives the person love potion number 9,…”

           I think this is a great illustration with “faith” being the love potion number 9.

           Then, “Meanwhile everyone else still sees God as ugly,”

           Yes, this the consequence of Adam’s sin. So Paul writes, “…does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?”

           Then, “Hosea submitted to God and redeemed a rebellious wife who had broken her first covenant with her husband and fallen back into her old ways of sin and adultery,”

           I heard a preacher once identify Gomer as a temple prostitute so that she was committing adultery against both God and Hosea. As Gomer was an illustration of Israel who had prostituted itself before Baal, it seemed a reasonable observation to me.

           Loading...

       19. It makes perfect sense to me that Calvinism would embrace that which is of the occult.

           Adam’s sin?
           More like Calvin’s god’s sin

           Since he FIRST-CONCEIVED it in his mind.
           And didn’t permit Adam to refrain from it.
           And didn’t permit any alternative be available to Adam.

           Calvin’s god should own it.

           Loading...

       20. br.d writes, “In favor of a THEOS who does not design the vast majority of his creation to eternal torment in a lake of fire for his “so called” good pleasure.”

           Now, you just need to write a bible to support your belief.

           Loading...

       21. br.d
           “In favor of a THEOS who does not design the vast majority of his creation to eternal torment in a lake of fire for his “so called” good pleasure.”

           rhutchin
           Now, you just need to write a bible to support your belief.

           br.d
           I’m not a Calvinist – so that’s not my way – but I understand that’s what you’re used to! :-]

           Loading...

       22. “en Rothnie: Lot Got Drunk…so now if a man is drunk and rapes a woman he is no longer at fault…or if any father got drunk and had sex with his daughters he would not be at fault because he was drunk… how does that work? Lot got drunk…his sins kept piling up one is a result of the last one. It all started by choosing to love the things of the World (the riches Sodom had to offer) every one of his sins is another step in his carnal behavior, the next flows out of the last one.
           Lot was a Carnal believer and yes God still saves the Carnal believer. So if a drunk person rapes you or someone you love the worst you can blame them for is getting drunk? Not sure the Bible would back you up on that.”

           It’s a bit of a side topic, but where in the passage do you see Lot raping his daughters and blaming it on being drunk? It was the other way around.

           “One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

           That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

           The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

           So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.”
           Gen 19:31-36

           They came up with the plot. They got him so drunk he wasn’t aware of much (although he did need to agree to drink/keep drinking, so he is responsible for that part.) He *wasn’t even aware* of when the girls lie down or got up. This isn’t ‘he raped them while drunk and forgot about it.’ They both conspired to basically drug and rape their own father so they could get pregnant.

           If you still can’t see it in the passage, imagine the genders were swapped and two sons conspired to get their mom drunk to the point of near unconsciousness, on two different days, so they could each sleep with her.

           Lot does not bear blame for that crime, the daughters do.

           Now, Lot *did* stay in Sodom even though it was wicked – perhaps he erroneously thought he could convert them to is ways, or his wife refused to leave, etc. Though it could just as easily he stayed there because it was easier than forging his own way or a prosperous area to live. And Lot did allow his daughters to get him drunk. Even there we can give him some grace though – his wife had just died and the city he had lived in, and presumably many other towns, had been destroyed. They could have easily played on that and given him wine in commemoration or to forget, etc. That doesn’t make it right, but our first thought shouldn’t be that he was just a drunken wastrel of some kind.

           Loading...

       23. My original point is that Lot made many carnal choices which led up to what happened with his daughters…Each of the steps was a choice and a bad one (selfish in nature) Carnal choices… Carnal choices have an affect on people sometimes not right away but it always affects people even the children of a family are affected by the Carnal choices of the parents.
           I’m sorry Jenai… I just don’t see a picture of a man walking with God… I see lots of selfishness, bad choices that lead to other bad choice and actions do his daughters play a part right at the end… of course they play a part but Lot was NOT passive or even fighting what took place… he was NOT resisting evil…he did not flee evil. That is my point…ONE bad choice leads to ANOTHER and you get DEEPER and DEEPER into sin. Lot was a justified man so yes he is declared Righteous in the court of God. That is NOT the same as living a Holy life. The difference is between being Justified and being Sanctified in your walk. I do not see Lot as a man who Resisted sin and walked in Holiness…. Yes he is delivered from the destruction of Sodom…Which is a testament to the FAITHFULNESS of GOD Not a testament to Lot’s Faithfulness. Read these passages below and see if you would Praise your pastor for doing these same things… If you would then I have nothing further to say.

           Gen 13:11  So Lot chose for himself all the Jordan Valley, and Lot journeyed east. Thus they separated from each other.
           Gen 13:12  Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled among the cities of the valley and moved his tent as far as Sodom. 
           Gen 13:13  Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the LORD.  

           Gen 19:8  Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 

           Gen 19:15  And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. 
           Gen 19:16  And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city. 
           Gen 19:17  And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed. 
           Gen 19:18  And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord: 

           Gen 19:35  So they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 
           Gen 19:36  Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. 
           Gen 19:37  The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab. He is the father of the Moabites to this day. 
           Gen 19:38  The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-ammi. He is the father of the Ammonites to this day. 

           ” You reap what you sow, more than you sow, and later than you sow.” C. Stanley

           Loading...

       24. Sure, Lot did many unwise things. That doesn’t make him a rapist. Furthermore, in II Pet 2:7-9 calls Lot a righteous man, shows that he was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless, and tormented in his soul – not that he was ‘giving in’ to sin.

           “and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the devout from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.” II Pet 2:7-9

           Considering Lot is compared to Noah in this passage, the implication is that they were among the righteous of their times – not just counted righteous by God, but more righteous than others around them. The passage is not “Because Lot was counted righteous…” but his righteousness is tied in with his sorrow over the sin around him. Lot is used as an example to make the point that the Lord knows how to rescue the devout/God-fearing from trials – something which would make no sense if Lot himself or Noah himself were not considered God-fearing.

           Also, his choosing the Jordan Valley was only ‘carnal’ in the sense of considering worldly concerns, which is not a sin of itself. It was a fertile land – great for pasturing sheep. It wasn’t a sin or even greedy to choose it. Look at the proverbial woman in Prov 31 when she considers a field and buys it – does she have to buy the worst field? Or is it wise to choose the best?

           The reason Abraham’s choice to let Lot choose first was superior is because it was rooted in trust of God – no matter where he ended up, bad or good, God could be relied upon to keep his promise to make him a nation which would inherit all the land he saw.

           I know many modern pastors like to add a *lot* to the story of Lot, assuming motives as they pleased. He didn’t flee evil, that makes him responsible! Etc. But we do not know all his circumstances. Was Sodom as evil when he first moved near? Was Sodom as big, or did the town grow up around him and eventually encompass where he had first pitched his tend? Had he taken a wife in Sodom before he knew the extent of the city’s depravity, and so he was forced to choose between abandoning wife and children or staying even though grieved by the wicked city? Etc. In Jewish tradition (though it came far after, so no way of knowing) Lot actually had four daughters. Two were already married and living in Sodom with their husbands, while the last two were betrothed. If such a thing is true, then he would have been in the area at least a couple of decades. Perhaps the wickedness of Sodom grew. We just don’t know. We can’t just assume we know all of Lot’s motives or concerns.

           Now, Lot offering his daughters to the mob is a big deal. However, it’s not as evil a thing as us westerner’s are inclined to first view it. From the moment Lot first invited the strangers in, he was treating them as lords and himself as servant. This was because to invite a guest was to make them master of the household for the night, and you and your household by extension became their servants, giving assurance that you would protect that guest at any cost. Even if it cost Lot his own life and the life of his whole family, they would ensure the safety of the guests. So Lot was right in his motive of trying to protect his guests even at the cost of harm to his household or even to his daughters – but definitely wrong in how he did it. This is likely why Jewish tradition holds that Lot’s rape by his daughters was a punishment for his own offering of them up to be used against their will.
           [Jewish tradition also holds sympathy for the daughters by speculating that they thought the entire world, not just Sodom, had been destroyed, and so that sleeping with their father was the only way to replenish the Earth.]

           I don’t disagree with your overall points. I just don’t think Lot is the best example of a ‘carnal’ person who is not walking by the Spirit, vs. someone trying to follow God and do right who sometimes makes mistakes or sins, like all of us do.

           Loading...

       25. rhutchin
           Give a blind man sight and he will be eternally grateful. Phillip lost it here.

           br.d
           In Calvinism’s case this would be — RENDER-CERTAIN a person be eternally grateful and don’t permit otherwise – and he will be.
           Design a person to function robotically and don’t permit otherwise – and he will do what he is programmed to do. :-]

           Loading...

26. It is obvious that if Man looks at the object of salvation, he is of course the initiator, the one who made the way of salvation and the actual savior.
    IIsa 45:22  Look unto me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 
    Num 21:8-9  And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.”
    So you can see MAN is the initiator and Savior of His own soul. NOT !!!! 

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. You are correct. The framing of the argument is deliberately confusing in order to manipulate. No system of faith within christianity, that I am aware of, claims that man is the initiator of salvation or the author of his own salvation. All believe that salvation is all of God. The fact that Calvinism will not even treat such subjects with honesty is telling.

       Scripture declares that salvation is needed, and is fully and wholly provided by God alone. It also asserts that God demands a response from man. Again, Calvinism cannot deny this. They simply invent a totally unscriptural concept that claims man is unable to respond to God’s proffered salvation, which is unsupportable and untrue. The entire purpose and premise of God’s revelation to man is that they can and must – if they are to be saved from sin and death – respond in faith.

       Calvinism chucks the entire purpose of the gospel out the window, falsely asserting that salvation for a select few has been irresistibly pre-determined, and that countless men, women and children were never intended to be its recipients. In other words, they were intentionally, helplessly, hopelessly created for destruction. The promises, blessings and hope of scripture were never intended for them. All of life is simply an outworking of God’s carefully scripted agenda, which is not optional, changeable or open to rejection. This is the crux of their theology, and it should be openly addressed at every teaching of it. All other teaching is simply smoke to hide their hideous assertions based on a monstrous view of God.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. TS00,

          You said, “it should be openly addressed….”

          British writer, AW Pink (who studied one year at Moody, then pastored, then wrote) has become quite the leader in the Calvinist world.

          I urge you to read his stuff on monergism.com to see what Calvinism teaches. In no uncertain terms he makes it very clear that God purposely created, denied grace to, and “reprobated” the masses “for His glory.”

          He urges Calvinists to stand up and “own” this concept…. He tells them not to just talk about the beauty of saving the elect, but to embrace the beauty of His purposeful creating-expressly-for-damnation of the non-elect. Both are equally glorious!!

          Beautiful! Good News!

          Here is just one gem….

          “Should it be asked why God does this, the answer must be, To promote His own glory, that is, the glory of His justice, power and wrath. ‘The sum of the apostle’s answer here is, that the grand object of God, both in the election and the reprobation of men, is that which is paramount to all things else in the creation of men, namely, His own glory.'”

          Loading...

       2. Pink was the first consistent Calvinist I ever came across. What amazes me is that they truly believe their horrendous system is glorifying to God. Personally,I can’t imagine how anyone could construct a systematic that is more defaming to the character of God. Note Pink, and Calvinism, promote the ‘power’, ‘justice’ (so-called) and ‘wrath’ of God. Apparently they find God’s true gloriousness, displayed in his incredible love and mercy, and manifested in Jesus, wanting.

          Loading...

       3. Calvinists seeing evil as glorying – all made perfect sense to me after I studied Gnosticism.
          That is exactly the view the Gnostic’s held.

          Good and evil are CO-EQUAL and CO-NECESSARY – and CO-COMPLIMENTARY.

          Evil exists to bring about a contrasting compliment for good – and good exists to bring about a contrasting compliment for evil.

          Augustine states this as “Antithesis” and is beautiful to contemplate.

          Loading...

27. Some more on the idea of AW Pink’s insistence that Calvinists own and embrace the concept that God “reprobates” and damns people on purpose “for His glory.”

    I have shared many times that a national pastoral colleague of mine in the country where we served for 30 years “converted ” (his words) to Calvinism in recent years (his 20-something, educated son got to him…. in stead of the reverse).

    His 30-something, baptized daughter married an unbeliever and eventually told him that she no longer believed in Christ.

    Of course she was the object of prayer at many of our small and large meetings. But why?

    Was she not equally serving as a vessel of wrath for God’s glory? Could he not take Pink’s words and say, “We rejoice in brother so-and-so that has come to Christ, giving Him glory. We rejoice equally in my daughter who was ‘reprobated’ by God for His greater glory!”

    Of course he could and should say this (according to Pink).

    But…. alas…. we begin to see the stupidity of such an idea.

    When….. I ask you when…..ONE TIME have you heard a Calvinist preacher from the pulpit proclaiming to his flock that their (dead) unsaved loved ones were “reprobated” purposely for His glory?

    When….. I ask you when…..ONE TIME have you heard a Calvinist preacher from the pulpit proclaiming to his flock that their (living) unsaved loved ones may just be “reprobated” purposely for His glory?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Let alone that he, and/or they, may be equally reprobate. For which they must be ever thankful and sing God’s praises should it prove to be so. Why would anyone care one way or the other, if it is all for God’s glory, and that’s all that matters? Let the saved be saved, and the damned be damned – it’s all for God’s glory. Frankly, such thinking would cause me to become atheist.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. And as you know from my personal story that DID cause my nephew to become an atheist around 18 years ago (when the YRR wave hit his church with the newly-minted Calvinist youth pastor).

          Pink and true Calvinists openly embrace double-predestination (an idea that most “normal” Calvinists will dub “A terrible idea that I certainly dont believe in!”). ((They just dont know they do!!!))

          They have to… since they stack all the inferences, and deductions piece by piece on the foundation of Total Depravity (not found in Scripture). Notice in Pink’s articles how often he says things like “so by logical conclusion…..” Of course that is “concluded logically” if you start with a false premise!

          Loading...

       2. Perhaps my major motivation in thinking and writing on Calvinism is so that those who do NOT understand what the inescapable, logical conclusions of the system are; those who would cringe in horror at such things, just as we do, would come to know what their teachers are, for the most part, withholding from them.

          If pastors taught openly and honestly, like Pink, declaring the horrible ‘truth’ of Calvinism’s assertions concerning God, then people would have the opportunity to look the theology full in the face and decide if they believe such things. In my personal experience, and from the testimony of many others, this is not often taking place. Calvinists soft-pedal or completely hide the more unpalatable aspects and tout God’s ‘glory’ and all matter of things that any believer can support. It is time for Calvinists to come clean and own their horrid theology in all of its hideous ‘glory’.

          Loading...

       3. TS00
          Calvinists soft-pedal or completely hide the more unpalatable aspects

          br.d
          And that serves as a RED-FLAG that they INTERNALLY know there are aspect of their system they need to become experts at hiding.

          A clear indicator that it can’t be Holy Spirit inspired.

          Loading...

    2. If I remember – AW Pink is noted has being head and shoulders above the rest – in terms of being an HONEST Calvinist.

       Loading...

       Reply

    3. FOH writes, “His 30-something, baptized daughter married an unbeliever and eventually told [her father] that she no longer believed in Christ.”

       What other purpose do you think she had in marrying an unbeliever?

       Loading...

       Reply

28. What I have found with Calvinists is they do believe what Piper and Pink believe, they just try to obscure what they really believe by using our vocabulary but a different dictionary…they implicitly teach the exact same things but they are embarrassed to say it explicitly…like Pink does. I respect Pink for his clarity however I disagree with him as it distorts the image of God.

    Pink “When we say God is Sovereign in the exercise of His Love, we mean that He loves who he chooses and God does NOT love everybody.”
    Pink: “Reprobation is before the person comes into the world, or hath done good or evil.”
    Pink: “ Reprobation…should it be asked why God does this, the answer must be, To promote His own glory, that is, the glory of His justice, power and wrath. ‘The sum of the apostle’s answer here is, that the grand object of God, both in the election and the reprobation of men, is that which is paramount to all things else in the creation of men, namely, His own glory.”

    Pink writes: “In the Westminster Confession it is said, “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably foreordain whatsoever comes to pass”. The late Mr. F.W. Grant — a most careful and cautious student and writer — commenting on these words said: “It is perfectly, divinely true, that God hath ordained for his own glory whatsoever comes to pass.” Now if these statements are true, is not the doctrine of Reprobation established by them? If then God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass then he must have decreed that vast numbers of human beings should pass out of this world unsaved to suffer eternally in the Lake of Fire.”

    Pink quotes Luther as support for his views: “All things whatsoever arise from, and depend upon, the divine appointments, whereby it was preordained who should receive the Word of Life, and who should disbelieve it, who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who should be condemned. This is the very truth which razes the doctrine of free will from its foundations, to wit, that God’s eternal love of some men and hatred of others is immutable and cannot be reversed.”
    Pink: “1 Tim. 2:4 cannot teach that God wills the salvation of all mankind, or otherwise all mankind would be saved.”

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Agreed GraceAdict!

       I think if all Calvinists were as honest in their language as Pink – Calvinism would go the way of the dinosaur.
       And that’s why Calvinists work to obscure the evil aspects of their system.

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. GraceAddict writes, “I have found with Calvinists…they implicitly teach the exact same things but they are embarrassed to say it explicitly…like Pink does.”

       I have not found that with Calvin, Sproul, and a host of Seminary teachers who seem to be the sources often cited by Calvinists, If some Calvinist seem to choose their words carefully, it is because they are responsible for congregations whose members share varying levels of maturity and the explicit teaching of doctrine cannot occur without more time that is normally accorded them in a worship service. You cannot preach the entire Westminster Confession in every sermon, so why try. Even non-Calvinists like FOH will concentrate on verses that say, “come unto me all that labor…” without saying that one cannot come without faith. As even FOH knows, men preach and God gives the increase – so God is not necessarily speaking to everyone in the congregation every Sunday but speaks to a few here and a few there. Some will be on the edge of their seat while others see their minds thinking of which restaurant to go to after the service.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. The Problem with Calvinism is that some of it’s most fundamental beliefs must be obscured in order to be accepted.

          Under the TULIP paradigm which includes an unbiblical definition of Sovereignty there are many things that must be hidden from the public in order for the teaching to seem Biblical.
          For instance a Big part of what Sovereignty means under TULIP is not clearly articulated, here is what it really means “Every evil thought, wicked desire and vile, despicable action was First birthed in the heart and mind of God, it was initiated by God and put into motion by God who then transferred it into His secondary causes (men and demons) for His pleasure and His Glory. God did it this way so that the secondary causes (men) would irresistibly do the evil, God’s will, just as God wanted it done. God’s meticulous control is so complete that not even one of Hitler’s ideas or actions came into being outside of God himself, (if that were to happen God would loose His Sovereignty). If something other than God gave birth to any idea or action then God would no longer be the Sovereign of the universe and we could not depend on any of God’s promises to come to pass. Somehow, mysteriously, God is still Holy and man is the evil one because of this “separation of secondary causes” (Much like a man controlling a radio controlled airplane that bombs an orphanage, the man is not responsible the plane is).

          In fact under the TULIP paradigm Reprobation and Evil coming from God is just as important and necessary as Holiness, Goodness and Salvation, one could argue that under Calvinism Reprobation and Evil coming from God is actually more important and more desired by God because what we see here on earth is more Evil than Goodness more Reprobation than Salvation, under Calvinism it is by God’s purposeful design and for His pleasure to be the source of ALL the evil and His Glory demands that most people be created for Evil and Reprobation. ” This is what Calvinism really stands for, however, it tries to say it in softer terms and pretend it isn’t so, it cloaks itself in terms like “Mystery and Paradox” It pretends that true humility will accept this idea of God as fact even though one does not understand how it can be. In relation to the nature of God Calvinism leads us to A.W.Tozer’s conclusion “When adherents come to believe that God is different from what He actually is; that is heresy of the most insidious and deadly kind.”

          At the end of the day you are left with – If I did it or Hitler did it, or Even satan did it, God decisively caused it for His Glory- However scripture is VERY clear that not everything that happens comes from God or brings HIM Glory. Rev. 16:9 …They did not repent and give Him glory. Act 12:23… he did not give God the Glory Joh 7:18 The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory… 1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is NOT from the Father but is from the world.
          Jas 1:13-16  Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.  But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.  Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.   Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. 

          Under the Calvinist system you actually cannot profane the Holy name of God because God is the Author of it ALL. He is ”Meticulously giving birth to every idea and controlling every single detail, orchestrating, determining and decisively causing every evil thought and action ever done” It is All by HIM for His Glory… and Satan laughs because he has now shifted the blame of evil to God…he has deceived even God’s people into believing that his own actions actually came from God for God’s Glory (what a clever lie to hide behind). Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast…

          Loading...

       2. Excellent points, GA.

          Loading...

       3. GraceAdict writes, “[God] is ”Meticulously giving birth to every idea and controlling every single detail, orchestrating, determining and decisively causing every evil thought and action ever done”

          God does not have to “give birth” to every idea. God made man with a functional brain that in able to respond to its environment to frame its own ideas and thoughts. When Genesis 6 tells us, “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” God is described on the outside observing the behavior of men. He is not birthing the intent and thoughts of men’s hearts. As God made man with the ability to have evil intents and think evil thoughts, God can be described as the author or cause of those intents and thoughts but this does not require that God force such intents and thoughts onto a person.

          Loading...

       4. rh:
          ” When Genesis 6 tells us, “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” God is described on the outside observing the behavior of men. He is not birthing the intent and thoughts of men’s hearts. As God made man with the ability to have evil intents and think evil thoughts, God can be described as the author or cause of those intents and thoughts but this does not require that God force such intents and thoughts onto a person.”

          He inadvertently omitted a few verses:
          “And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.”

          And what the heck does he mean that God is ‘on the outside observing the behavior of men . . . not birthing the intent and thoughts of men’s hearts’? Just try squaring that with Calvinism! That is exactly what non-Calvinsts are always mocked for believing, and it also is the only rational possibility in the scenario. But no Calvinist can legitimately make this claim – it is contrary to EVERYTHING Calvinism stands for.

          Gen 6 (and all of scripture) makes perfect sense if man’s thoughts and behaviors are not determinitively controlled by God, and can either be righteous or unrighteous. Rhutchin appears to be making a novel suggestion that men are perfectly free to invent evil thoughts and actions with no intervention from God, but unable to invent righteous thoughts and actions. I find it fascinating that anyone truly embraces such a perspective. Calvi-god makes all people unable to think and do well, then gets ‘grieved’ that ‘every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually’. And what kind of God would curse men with an inability to do well – before they were ever born, mind you – then constantly command them to do well, with threats of punishment for ‘disobeying’? Talk about cruel and sadistic.

          This Calvi-god appears unable to grasp the consequences of his actions, and takes it out on the poor dupes who suffer from his curses and decrees. One can only wonder if Calvi-god is as schizophrenic as his followers appear in trying to defend him. He curses all men with an inability to do good, then throws a hissy fit – great flood that wipes out nearly the entire creation – when they only do evil. Er, hello, you were maybe expecting something else? And yet Calvinists appear to not see how silly their assertions make God appear every time he rebukes, challenges or punishes the people who are only functioning as inescapably decreed. But it was thoughtful of Calvi-god to allow men the freedom to invent evil to their hearts content; until he annihilates them for it.

          Loading...

       5. TS00 writes, “Rhutchin appears to be making a novel suggestion that men are perfectly free to invent evil thoughts and actions with no intervention from God, but unable to invent righteous thoughts and actions.”

          Nothing novel about it – i’s just Total Depravity. This resulted from Adam’s sin – the consequence of his sin being a loss of righteousness and faith; faith is required for a person to choose righteous thoughts and actions.

          Loading...

       6. rhutchin
          God does not have to “give birth” to every idea.

          br.d
          GraceAdict – this is a good example of the Calvinist’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern – taught by john Calvin to his disciples.

          The Calvinist is taught to hold as TRUE:
          Every creaturely attribute that will come to pass – including every neurological impulse – is FIRST-CONCEIVED in the mind of Calvin’s god millennia before creatures exit – (and in every part).

          But Calvin also instructs the Calvinist to -quote “go about your office” *AS-IF* that is FALSE.

          Loading...

29. There never was, nor is, nor never will be, a Calvinist more “honest” than Vincent Cheung who writes (my thought in parenthesis)…

    Why You are Not a Christian

    There are Christian essays and sermons that are titled “Why I am a Christian.” Sometimes this is done in answer to Russell’s “Why I am Not a Christian,” but not always, since the title is often relevant apart from this background. In any case, the “why” is ambiguous, and could be misleading in the context of Christian theology.

    If the word means “how come,” or “for what reason,” or “by what cause” I became a Christian, then the answer, of course, is God’s foreordination in eternity, which he carried out by his omnipotence in history, and which resulted in my conversion by means of his Word and Spirit. If the word means “how come,” or “for what reason,” or “by what cause” I still am a Christian, then the answer, of course, is God’s foreordination in eternity, which he now sustains by his omnipotence in history, and which results in my continuance in the faith by means of his Word and Spirit.

    The word “why” can refer to metaphysical causation or intellectual justification, and it seems a bare “why” is more appropriately associated with causation than justification, especially in a Christian context. This is because the Bible teaches that God is the one who converts a sinner, who causes a person to believe the gospel and to become a Christian. He may associate a person’s conversion and perseverance with arguments in support of the faith, but the arguments themselves are never the cause, or the “why,” of a person’s conversion and perseverance. The truth is there, and there are arguments to support it, but a person’s conversion and perseverance are never credited, in any degree, to his own appreciation of the rational merits of the Christian faith.

    Thus a more apt title for these essays and sermons would be “Why I am right to be a Christian.” Also acceptable is “Why I am rational to be a Christian.” Or, to be more precise, “My communicable intellectual arguments that constitute a rational justification to be and to remain a Christian (although I did not become and do not remain a Christian because of these arguments, but rather by God’s promise and power).” In this case, precision destroys concision, but it is worth it to preserve God’s honor and to avoid misleading implications.

    No matter how much a person likes the cosmological argument, and no matter how much he appreciates the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ, he will not and he cannot become a Christian on the basis of these arguments and on the basis of his own agreement with them. These arguments have no power to convert him, and he has no power to convert himself. If nothing else happens other than his appreciation of these arguments, then the only possible effect is that he would become more convinced than before that he is doomed to hell. He would be just as far from salvation as before. God is the only power that saves, and he saves through the message of Jesus Christ with or without arguments.

    Now, despite his smugness and confidence, the non-Christian has no understanding of the causes of unbelief. He thinks he is a non-Christian because he disagrees with this or that argument, or because he believes in evolution, or some other silly scientific view or stupid religion. But he really has no idea “why” he is a non-Christian. He can only offer arguments as to why he thinks he is correct and rational in being one. As I constantly emphasize, we ought to attack these arguments with overwhelming force, and completely devastate the non-Christian’s pride and his estimation of his own intelligence.

    Here I also urge that we should add to our repertoire essays and sermons on “Why You are Not a Christian.” The Christian can make specific points tailored to his audience, but most of them should fall under three categories:

    First, “You are not a Christian, because you are not intelligent.” A person is a non-Christian because he is stupid. As Paul writes, “Their thoughts are useless, and their stupid minds are in the dark. They claim to be wise, but they are fools” (Romans 1:21-22, CEV). The Christian faith is true, and obviously true, but the non-Christian cannot see this because he is a stupid person. He lacks the intelligence to grasp the simplest principles and to perceive the plainest facts. His mind is broken. He is a defective person. The Bible calls him moros. The non-Christian is a moron.

    Second, “You are not a Christian, because you are not righteous.” A person is a non-Christian because he is sinful, wicked, and evil through and through. This characteristic operates closely with the previous one. As Paul also teaches, the non-Christian suppresses the truth because of his wickedness. That is, because the non-Christian is a bad person, and because he is no good, he refuses to see the truth. When the truth confronts him, or when it surfaces in his mind, he represses it and pushes it from his consciousness, and forces a smile on his face, pretending that nothing is wrong. The non-Christian is indeed a stupid, dishonest, and pathetic person.

    When we witness the vain arguments and base behaviors of a non-Christian, it reminds us that we were once like him, a piece of garbage, intellectually and ethically bankrupt. It reminds us that what Jesus Christ did for us, and what he continues to do for us, is nothing short of a gracious salvation, and a mighty rescue. It is a removal of shame. Looking at the non-Christian, we realize that without Christ, we would be…that. Our Lord teaches us that without him we are nothing. This saying is true, and we do not resent it. Rather, when we are reminded of this truth, gratitude erupts from our hearts, tears from our eyes, and praise from our lips.

    (Now here comes the BIGGIE)

    Third, “You are not a Christian, because you are not chosen.” God has destined and created some people for salvation, and destined and created all others for damnation. This is the doctrine of predestination, or the doctrine of election and reprobation. The Bible says that God is like a potter, who out of the same lump of clay would make some vessels for honorable use and some vessels for common use. Among other purposes, honorable vessels were used as decorations, to display the wealth and culture of the owner. These are like the Christians, the chosen ones, who display God’s grace, wisdom, power, and righteousness. Then, among other purposes, common vessels were used as toilets, to contain the excrements and such things. These are like the non-Christians, who contain the filth of this world and are full of grotesque and repulsive things.

    Just as a lump of clay does not divide itself and make itself into vessels for various purposes, no man chooses what he is to be. Rather, God makes one into a vessel of honor, to be a bearer of his grace and power, and through whom he displays his divine mercy and forgiveness, and he makes another into a vessel of dishonor, to be a container of spiritual and intellectual refuse, and to be a target for his wrath and everlasting punishment. The Bible makes this the real explanation as to why a person is a non-Christian and why he remains a non-Christian. The previous two reasons are also biblical explanations, but they are secondary, and are the effects of this one. A reprobate is stupid and sinful, and remains stupid and sinful, because God makes him so.

    A vessel cannot say to the potter, “Why have you made me like this?” Likewise, no one can challenge God’s decision to make a person into a reprobate, into a vessel of dishonor and of wrath. The person who cries that he is the master of his own soul and the captain of his own fate, says so with his mouth full of feces. That non-Christian who laughs and claims that there are no rational arguments for the Christian faith does it with excrements running down his face. Then, here is one who says he has too much tolerance to become a Christian, as he takes a large gulp of urine. And there is one who says that he has too much education, or that he is convinced of another religion, as he feasts on the mess on the bathroom floor. The picture is both comical and unappealing. When God wants to make a point, he does not do it in a half-baked manner.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. phillip writes, ‘There never was, nor is, nor never will be, a Calvinist more “honest” than Vincent Cheung who writes…”

       Cheung is somewhat correct. There are two reasons a person is not a Christ and those reasons arise from Adam’s sin.
       1. The person is not righteous.
       2. The person has no faith.

       The person cannot become a Christian, as Cheung says, “because you are not chosen.” So, a person is not a Christian because God did not choose him. If God chooses to save a person, He does so by giving the person faith and through that faith righteousness. Of Course, God needs to regenerate the person in order for the person to be able to receive faith. However, if the free-willers want to have their way, then let a person to decide if he wants to become a Christian even if God has not chosen him. If such a person does choose to become a Christian without God’s help, God will accept him.

       When Cheung says that the non-Christian is stupid, the argument relates to a spiritual problem, as 1 Corinthians tells us, “in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God,” and “we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness,” and “we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God,.. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. I will never understand how the Calvinist can God’s gracious work as just some sort of cut and dried mathematical equation. Seriously, reading this and similar descriptions of God choosing, cursing, regenerating, giving faith etc. makes it all appear as some silly charade.

          Why would God go through all these meaningless steps, if he already determined what everyone’s fate is? It is pure theater. Ooh, man sinned. Now he’s dead, now he’s not. Just Calvi-god jerking everyone around, decreeing horrible sin and suffering, when, since he’s controlling it all anyway, he could have just made good little robots and skipped all the ugly stuff. What a drama queen.

          The only way any of it makes sense is if it is real; if people have genuine freedom, and their fates are not sealed in advance. If God is truly being patient, allowing the man-made sin to exist only so that we can see the horrible consequences of unrighteousness. The silly game theory, where the whole thing is scripted and controlled, is not only silly, but cruel and sadistic.

          Loading...

       2. As a Christian, I constantly pray (even beg) for the Lord to return and put an end to all the chaos. If Calvinism is true, what I should pray is for God to stop interfering. Stop decreeing. Stop predestinating. I mean, if God is already “in back of everything, including sin” (Edwin H. Palmer) then exactly what changes when He comes back to set up His earthly kingdom? Nothing. If God is in control of all things (every sinful act including rape, murder, and abortion), then what difference does it make where He is sitting?

          Is man really evil? The book says he is, but now we will never know. God’s finger prints are all over the crime scene. Talk about your “obstruction of justice”.

          Take the following verse….

          Jude 1:6a (NIV)…..
          And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling…..

          Just a casual reading of this would give anyone (well, almost anyone) the impression that these Angels willingly (without any outside influence) forsook their heavenly homes, yet, now, with the corrected vision of Calvinism, we know that God, in eternity past (just how far back this goes, we have no idea; just know it was “a long time ago, in galaxy far, far away”), not only foresaw the fall of these Angels, but even planned it (and caused it). Think about it. You are one of these heavenly Angels enjoying the pleasures of eternal bliss, when, alas, God, in His infinite wisdom, on a whim, and for His good pleasure, decides He has other plans for these poor creatures. God removed their hearts of flesh (they had been worshipping God for eons) and inserted a heart of stone (they sided with Lucifer: another tragic victim of God’s “good pleasure”). Turns out eternal bliss is not so eternal after all.

          I would take credit for this post, but that would be plagiarism. God composed it. I’m just the faithful actor who kept to the script. And, by the way, “faithful” is misleading too, since the odds of being “unfaithful” (or going off script) are zero.

          Loading...

       3. phillip writes, “Just a casual reading of this would give anyone (well, almost anyone) the impression that these Angels willingly (without any outside influence) forsook their heavenly homes,…”

          This is what Calvinism says. Certainly, they were not unwilling. The outside influence would have come from Lucifer

          Then, “…yet, now, with the corrected vision of Calvinism, we know that God, in eternity past…not only foresaw the fall of these Angels, but even planned it (and caused it)..”

          God planned it thereby knew what He had planned.. In creating the angels, God caused His plan to begin working out.

          Then, ” God removed their hearts of flesh (they had been worshipping God for eons) and inserted a heart of stone (they sided with Lucifer: another tragic victim of God’s “good pleasure”).”

          God did not have to remove and replace anything.

          Loading...

       4. phillip
          Just a casual reading of this would give anyone (well, almost anyone) the impression that these Angels willingly (without any outside influence) forsook their heavenly homes,…”

          rhutchin
          This is what Calvinism says. Certainly, they were not unwilling. The outside influence would have come from Lucifer

          br.d
          Philip – you see rhutchin’s response here?
          This is a typical example of the Double-Speak and evasion maneuvers one can expect from Calvinists.

          Its called Altruistic Dishonesty:
          See here: https://soteriology101.com/2019/01/21/why-divine-permission-establishes-free-will/#comment-34483

          Loading...

       5. BrD,

          In the words of “honest” Calvinist Vincent Cheung….

          “The question is, how can they be right without self-contradiction — that God controls all things, but he really doesn’t, that God causes all things, but he really doesn’t? The Reformed is fond of appealing to ‘mystery’, ‘paradox’, and ‘antinomy’, which are nothing but more dignified and deceptive terms for saying, ‘Clearly, I contradict myself, but I don’t care.’”

          Loading...

       6. Exactly.

          Loading...

       7. Yeh – Cheung calls a spade a spade. He’s not full of double-speak.
          He doesn’t care about painting a mask over the face of Calvinism because he TRULY believes Calvin’s god controls all things anyway. And since he’s not double-minded about it – he finds no need air brush it.

          Loading...

       8. phillip
          ‘There never was, nor is, nor never will be, a Calvinist more “honest” than Vincent Cheung who writes…”

          br.d
          Yes I agree – Cheung stands head and shoulders above the norm – in terms of honesty.
          Too bad we don’t have someone of his caliber of honesty to dialog with here! :-]

          Loading...

30. FOH Posted this one :

    “Yet, you defend a fellow Calvinist when he says the following things that obviously “rob God of His glory” and imply that man is not “too-dead”.

    “They were not unbelieving because they had said no to Jesus, but because they had never had an opportunity to do so. ”

    “…..but I had never heard of the 210 million who might have a desire to read God’s word, but could not, because one did not exist in their language.”

    “but I had no awareness of the groups in the world who are silently wasting away, waiting to hear about their sin and Savior. ”

    “and that many do not go to him because they never had the chance to hear.”

    “May we not be added to them, but may we boldly risk for the sake of the nations. ”

    It is not surprising to me that you defend Piper. He says he is a Calvinist…. so Calvinists let him say whatever he wants. But, anyone with an objective eye can see that these statements (and many, many more statements in his books and articles) declare that if man gives more, works more, risks more, then he can do a “better” job of reaching the “210 million have a desire to read the Word of God” or who are “waiting to hear” or who “need a chance to hear.”

    Of course the article is a beautiful statement trying to rouse a lazy church to go “for the sake of the nations”…. but that certainly does imply that man has “something whatsoever to do about it.”

    Here’s My Response :

    1. FOH, you are so quick to insinuate that John Piper is a Charismatic and that he believes in your favorite doctrine, i.e: “Not too dead”. based on the quoted statements to blast Piper. When Piper uttered those statements, he never meant he is robing God of Glory. That could only the product of your hatred towards him as a Calvinist.

    2. Every motorists can still violate traffic rules at their own expense, yet the end result of that violation has been decreed already. [This is how I view the exercise of human will] FOH may have just been seeing the present activities of man [like Piper], but FOH cannot tell the DEAD END RESULT of what God has decreed to come to pass. FOH’s inability to see the future dead end results of God’s decree makes him to quickly conclude that John Piper is a Charismatic.

    3. Calvinists believe in the doctrine of Regeneration [God initiate to bring back to life the dead spirit of sinners elect so that they can engaged with spiritual things] that makes us eager and motivated to bring the gospel to the lost elect. Doing this is to align ourselves with the will of God to the fulfillments of God’s plan for the salvation of the elect.

    4. FOH’s favorite doctrine i.e.: “man is not too dead” – really makes him a semi-Pelagian though he does not accept it, rather he says, “He’s a semi-polynesian.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. If the Calvinist believes everyone before regeneration was fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God with a conscience/spirit able to interact with an inner law from God, as well as with a flesh inclined to sin and that rules that spirit, then they will need to explain how it is impossible for God to communicate effectively to any spirit of man before regeneration.

       After regeneration they know the flesh still influences the spirit, even though it no longer rules it. So why couldn’t the Spirit have been able to influence that spirit while it was being ruled by the flesh?

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. brianwagner writes, “then they will need to explain how it is impossible for God to communicate effectively to any spirit of man before regeneration.”

          God can always communicate with any person before He regenerates them. It is man who will not communicate with God before he is regenerated.

          Then, So why couldn’t the Spirit have been able to influence that spirit while it was being ruled by the flesh?”

          Is this not what happened to Saul when God made him king of Israel? Yet, Saul was never saved (or so it appears).

          Loading...

       2. Samuel to Saul – 1 Samuel 10:6 NKJV — “Then the Spirit of the LORD will come upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man.”

          1 Samuel 10:9 NKJV — So it was, when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, that God gave him another heart; and all those signs came to pass that day.

          Sounds like regeneration to me.

          Loading...

       3. brianwagner writes, “Sounds like regeneration to me.”

          Sounds like it to me, also, if all we had were those two verses. However, if Saul had been regenerated, faith would have ensued. Yet, he seems no different than the Jews in their response to Christ. It is good that you identify regeneration with Saul before faith.

          Loading...

       4. Roger, If being “another man” with “another heart” called the “Lord’s anointed” does not mean being saved in the OT… then how can any favorite passage from the OT about getting a new heart be about regeneration?

          I guess you aren’t one of those Calvinists that believes an elect person can apostacize and still be saved… or remain carnal for all their life and still be saved. 😉

          Loading...

       5. brianwagner writes, “If being “another man” with “another heart” called the “Lord’s anointed” does not mean being saved in the OT… then how can any favorite passage from the OT about getting a new heart be about regeneration?”

          Regeneration is not salvation. It is either a change that enables salvation (Calvinist) or a change that enables sanctification (non-Calvinist). A person given a new heart still needs to hear the gospel and receive faith in order to be saved (Calvinist). In the case of Saul, the sense of the verse may be that God gave Saul a heart to govern and lead as as a king would do.

          Then, “I guess you aren’t one of those Calvinists that believes an elect person can apostacize and still be saved… or remain carnal for all their life and still be saved. ”

          Such would be unusual whether one is Calvinist or non-Calvinist. If it is true that God begins the work of salvation in a person and then puts His Spirit in the person to continue the work of sanctification, then apostacy would seem difficult. However, given that the old nature is always present, carnal behavior is more likely to continue.

          Loading...

       6. Yes, apostacy is impossible after regeneration, Roger, but continued carnality isn’t, like with Saul. Regeneration is salvation… It is a life birthed in a person that never ends and is the righteous life of God imputed through faith. Saul was changed into another man with another heart. But he still heeded the flesh.

          Samson is a good parallel to Saul… remaining carnal all his life, but a man of faith in knowing the true God was his only hope of salvation.

          Loading...

       7. Also I think of Lot in Sodom… he became a ruler in a corrupt city he had no business living in, but his living there also corrupted him he was willing to give his virgin daughters to the men of the city. When Lot had to flee Sodom, he lost all his belongs yet he himself was saved. To me Lot is a picture of a “Respectable Carnal man” who lived in the world and was being conformed by the world. At the end yes he is saved because he is Justified (Righteous) not because he is Walking a sanctified life but because he is Justified.
          His life can be summed up with this new testament passage:

          1Co 3:12  Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 
          1Co 3:13  each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 
          1Co 3:14  If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 
          1Co 3:15  If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. 

          Lot was saved but all that he had worked for was burned up much like the experience a carnal christian will have at the Bema Judgment seat.

          Loading...

       8. GraceAdict writes, “Lot is a picture of a “Respectable Carnal man” who lived in the world and was being conformed by the world.”

          Lot was not a “Respectable Carnal man.” He was not living a carnal life. In 2 Peter, we read, “God rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,…”

          Lot is a picture of Christians today who live in societies that openly murder their babies and promote homosexuality and other perverse sexual conduct as seems to have been the case in Sodom.

          Loading...

       9. Lot made carnal steps from start to finish… which ultimately led him to moving into Sodom, it was not imposed upon him…it was his love for worldly things.
          Yes his soul was justified and he afflicted his soul every day by staying in the midst of that scene where he did not have to stay. Just like if you watch a porn movie you afflict your righteous soul… it does not mean God wants you watch the porn but you afflict the new creation by watching it… You were darkness, Now you are light, WALK as Children of Light. Eph 5:8 When a person does not walk in harmony with their New Identity they afflict their righteous soul. Lot did the same thing day after day. Just like some people
          He was not eager to leave the world and the morals played themselves out even after he was taken out of Sodom.
          Gen 19:36  Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. 
          Gen 19:37  The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab. He is the father of the Moabites to this day. 
          Gen 19:38  The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-ammi. He is the father of the Ammonites to this day. 
          Great example of a Christian walking in Light?

          Loading...

       10. Lot was raped by his daughters. He didn’t know when they lay down or got up. Not the best example, there. Victims of rape arent being carnal. About the worst he can be blamed for in that scenario is letting his daughters get him drunk.

           Loading...

       11. Jen Rothnie: Lot Got Drunk…so now if a man is drunk and rapes a woman he is no longer at fault…or if any father got drunk and had sex with his daughters he would not be at fault because he was drunk… how does that work? Lot got drunk…his sins kept piling up one is a result of the last one. It all started by choosing to love the things of the World (the riches Sodom had to offer) every one of his sins is another step in his carnal behavior, the next flows out of the last one.
           Lot was a Carnal believer and yes God still saves the Carnal believer. So if a drunk person rapes you or someone you love the worst you can blame them for is getting drunk? Not sure the Bible would back you up on that.

           Loading...

       12. GraceAdict
           Great example of a Christian walking in Light?

           br.d
           Good one!
           Perhaps Calvinist pastors teach their congregations to emulate Lot! :-]

           Loading...

       13. Nice question! :-]

           Loading...

       14. The “Lost Coin” in Luke 15:8-10 is a good example to illustrate humanity as God’s image bearer before regeneration, where :

           1. being lost coin like the fallen man is subject to ever increasing damage, tarnished, chemically altered in the ground and eventually losing the superscription upon them. It becomes effaced and tarnished by sin.

           2. The lost coin is subject to be eaten by rust if not found because it cannot return to the original owner at his own expense.

           3. The lost coin can become effective only according to its purpose of being created if it is being disposed within the hands of the Owner/Creator.

           4. There could be some difficulty in finding the lost coin for human agents as to determining the elect from the non-elect, but God in His own dispositions is not limited by the “spiritually dead status” of the lost coin. God deciding on His own can send the light to illumine his darkened soul and spirit. There is a need to sweep the whole house as a means to search.

           5. The lost coin, after finding [regenerated] comes the rejoicing. By the time the lost coin has already returned to the hands of the original owner for disposal, yet like the believers in Christ after having been regenerated, they are still in the flesh and still commit sin. This new status/position we have now is like to what the apostle Paul has declared with himself that :

           “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith of the Son of God who loved me, and gave Himself for me.” – (Galatians 2:20)

           6. The regenerated believers in Christ are human agents having human will. Freedom as used has always reference to what Christ has accomplished for us as our high priest. We never think operating the Christian life apart from Christ’s resurrected humanity and our union with Him. Absolute perfection of the coin found will still come to pass at the second coming of Christ.

           Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. – [This is “Sanctification Process”; “trimming of the branches” being done by God continuously among the believers.]

           Loading...

       15. JTL
           Please tell us when you are quoting (in this case from Coffman on StudyLight.org).https://www.studylight.org/commentary/luke/15-8.html

           Who…by the way….misses the whole point of the prodigal son just a bit lower on that page.

           Loading...

       16. FOH writes, “Who…by the way….misses the whole point of the prodigal son just a bit lower on that page.”

           Of course, FOH has the “father” representing God, so the son would be a believer, but then he turns it around and makes the son an unbeliever.

           Loading...

31. My Friend FOH, I have read Coffman and I agree with his idea as I reflect it in my # 1 comment.

    Loading...

    Reply

32. Bible Reading today is in 1 Kings 15-17.

    “25 Nadab son of Jeroboam began to rule over Israel in the second year of King Asa’s reign in Judah. He reigned in Israel two years. 26 But he did what was evil in the Lord’s sight and followed the example of his father, continuing the sins that Jeroboam had led Israel to commit.”

    We see this kind of constructions hundreds or even a thousand times in Scripture: “But he did what was evil in the Lord’s sight….”

    We are told that it REALLY WAS the “sovereign will ” of God that Nadab behave this way (not God’s “will of command” but God’s “sovereign will/ decree/ desire”.

    Calvinists tell us that it doesnt really mean “God did not want Nadab to do this, because behind it all, He decreed it.” We are told by Calvinists over and over….. “these passages dont really mean what they say.”

    When I point this out, Calvinist tell me (humorously and ironically) that I have to take all of Scripture into account.

    This is simply Calvinist code for “filter you thousand verses FOH through our chosen definition of our chosen 40 verses.” Nothing more. It is a feeble attempt to seize the moral high ground —-indeed— accusing me of not using the “whole of Scripture.”

    Irony.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. FOH writes, “We are told that it REALLY WAS the “sovereign will ” of God that Nadab behave this way (not God’s “will of command” but God’s “sovereign will/ decree/ desire”.

       Calvinists tell us that it doesnt really mean “God did not want Nadab to do this, because behind it all, He decreed it.” We are told by Calvinists over and over….. “these passages dont really mean what they say.””

       I think FOH makes up the stuff about Calvinists since he surely knows better. The verse means what it says, “…he did what was evil in the Lord’s sight…” Despite a knowledge of the Ten Commandments, people will disobey those commands and do so right in front of God with God looking right at them. The Calvinist adds that God had decided way back when that He would not intervene to prevent people doing evil – thus, it was God’s will for people to do evil. We see this in the treatment of Joseph by his brothers, as Joseph explained, “as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.”

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. rhutchin
          Despite a knowledge of the Ten Commandments, people will disobey those commands and do so right in front of God with God looking right at them. The Calvinist adds that God had decided way back when that He would not intervene to prevent people doing evil – thus, it was God’s will for people to do evil.

          br.d
          This is a perfect example of “mere” permission being SMUGGLED back in – in camouflaged form.

          Here we go again with the FALLACIOUS “Calvin’s god intervening to prevent” [X] from coming to pass.

          But what was the STATUS of [X] PRIOR to the point where Calvin’s god Intervened to prevent it?

          Was its STATUS “RENDERED-CERTAIN” which makes it – immutable non-intervenable and non-preventable?
          or
          Was its STATUS “NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN” which means it was never going to come to pass in the first place?

          Calvinist answer:

          rhutchin
          May 8, 2019 at 9:53 am
          immutable and can’t be restrained because it was already restrained.

          CONCLUSION:
          It is IRRATIONAL to expect Calvinists to be RATIONAL :-]

          Loading...

33. More Bible from today:

    1 Kings 16:7
    “The message from the Lord against Baasha and his family came through the prophet Jehu son of Hanani. It was delivered because Baasha had done what was evil in the Lord’s sight (just as the family of Jeroboam had done), and also because Baasha had destroyed the family of Jeroboam. The Lord’s anger was provoked by Baasha’s sins.”

    So God brought violence (as judgement) on the house of Baasha …. because Baasha provoked God’s anger.

    Calvinism:

    1. God ordained, decreed/ willed/ desired Baasha’ evil deeds (see Paul Helm and Calvin on this).

    2. God gets angry (This verse “doesn’t really mean what it says” …..say Calvin/ Augustine because God is “impassible” and cannot have any feelings and emotions cuz that would make Him “change”).

    3. God judges Baasha for the terrible things that He made Baasha do.

    Again…. For Calvin and his followers…. what would be the point of reading any of this?

    Can we learn from it and have faith? Nope. You are given-faith or not given it and besides we all do exactly what God ordained/ decreed we do anyway. So….. again…. the point?

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. FOH
       Again…. For Calvin and his followers…. what would be the point of reading any of this?

       br.d
       Wouldn’t it be so that the Calvinist can *PERCEIVE* himself as biblical?

       Loading...

       Reply

34. The NT section of today’s reading is Acts 10

    10:30 Cornelius replied, “Four days ago I was praying in my house about this same time, three o’clock in the afternoon. Suddenly, a man in dazzling clothes was standing in front of me. 31 He told me, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your gifts to the poor have been noticed by God!
    ———-

    Wait a minute. Woah! An angel tells too-dead, Totally Depraved, Roman-occupier Cornelius that his “prayer has been heard” … and his “gifts to the poor have been” ……ready……. ready…… “noticed by God.”

    1. Is he regenerated? If so…. it’s a long time before he gets saved (ordo salutis not Calvinistic; Sproul says it is right away).

    2. Is he non-regenerated? If so… how can he do ANYTHING good? According to Calvin a non-regenerated, non-saved person is a God-hater. Does Calvin’s position agree with this passage?

    3. The Bible says his prayers are heard by God. In any case, he is not saved yet…. so this is a no-no for Calvinism. Why is God hearing the prayer of a God-hater? Calvinist insist that all men are God-haters until they are regenerated.

    4. His gifts to the poor are “noticed by God”? Not ordained/ decreed by God…. just noticed?

    Calvinists need to read the “whole of the Bible” not just their same 40 go-to passages.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. FOH,

       I was looking for the conversation I had with John Hendryx over at reformation theology several years ago. I can’t find it now.

       Suffice it to say that Hendryx was making the point that both regeneration and faith happen in an instant, but that one still causes the other.

       I immediately took him to the case of Cornelius. I can’t remember the entire conversation, but he insisted Cornelius had to be previously regenerated. I asked him “When? Just how long had Cornelius been regenerated prior to be saved? I thought you just stated that it all happens ‘in a blink of an eye’”.

       Needless to say the conversation got “ugly” after that. I think he even began to question my salvation.

       Typical calvinsistic tactic. If you can’t beat them with scripture, then bully them into submission.

       I know rhutchin can be difficult, but I hope and pray we never do that to him.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Is it this statement here?

          When a pool ball strikes another one, WHICH BALL STRIKES THE OTHER FIRST? Neither. They strike each other at the same time, but only ONE of these, due to motion, was the cause of the other. So likewise, the order of regeneration preceeding faith is CAUSAL

          br,d
          No one in their right mind says the nail struck the hammer.
          It is a LOGICAL impossibility for a motionless object to strike another object – because doing so simply requires motion.

          If the movement of ball#1 (analogous of regeneration) precedes ball#1’s striking ball#2 – and its consequent movement (analogous of faith) yes that is precession and is CAUSAL. But the fact that the two balls come in contact at the same time appears to add nothing to the analgy.

          Loading...

       2. Phillip:

          Sorry to hear that about an ugly conversation. But Cornelius is a real problem for Calvinists.

          1. RH insists that Cornelius is regenerated, but then says “Cornelius’ salvation had to await the resurrection of Christ. His prayer gives evidence of his regeneration.” The story is in Acts 10— so I do not know how much more resurrected RH wants Christ to be!!!

          2. Hendryx gets conflicted.

          3. Piper gives 4 reasons that Cornelius is NOT saved till Peter preaches to him (here: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/what-god-has-cleansed-do-not-call-common )

          But that leaves Piper in a world of hurt cuz because of what the passage says about this “too-dead,” “God-hater”:

          “God-fearing” Gentile…..

          “…he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.”

          his prayers were heard by God…

          His gifts to the poor were seen by God.

          So, either he was a Calvin-described “God-hater” that did good deeds and has God hearing his prayer…. (serious problem for Calvinists)

          Or he was a Calvin-regenerated person that gets saved a LONG time later when Peter preaches to him. (also a problem for Calvinists)

          So much of the “whole counsel of God” poses a problem for Calvinists!

          Loading...

       3. What problem? Just put in a little Calvinist bridge, and you can get from here to there, and back again, ignoring the huge chasm between what scripture says and what Calvinism asserts. They have devised many such bridges, and presume them to be the invisible infrastructure of scripture.

          At the end of the day, I just can’t imagine why (consistent) Calvinists even want to call themselves christians. They despise and reject everything that is truly good, loving, merciful and gracious about God, then wonder why nobody wants to play ball with them.

          Almost weekly I come across another former Calvinist, who has been burned by the authoritarian, spiritually abusive institutions that make up much of the Reformed world, and who has come to see how inconsistent and illogical the theology truly is. Most of these individuals want nothing to do with church anymore. But until things get really miserable, too many simply don’t think for themselves, allowing themselves to be bludgeoned into unquestioning submission to so-called religious authorities who insist their way is the only way.

          Loading...

       4. Brothers FOH/TS00,

          That “conversation”, which was more like a spiritual assault, had to be about 17 years ago (still wish I could find the exchange). I wasn’t near as versed in Calvinism back then as I am now. I just “stumbled” upon reformation theology.com and saw the article and the blog below. Again, I didn’t know much at the time, but I found Cornelius (and Lydia for that matter) in clear contradiction to what they were preaching. When I pointed it out and, then, held my ground, that’s when it got real ugly. Obviously I was taken way back by the response of almost everyone, but especially Hendryx. That was my first experience with a Cold Blooded Calvinist. Since then, I have come across some Calvinists that are as gentle as gentle can be. But then, I don’t remember ever getting “into it” with them either. So….hmm.

          FOH, to your point, here’s another example I like to point out.

          Acts 13:6-7 (NKJV)….
          Now when they had gone through the island to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for Barnabas and Saul and sought (KJV says “desired”) to hear the word of God.

          Sergio Paulus sought/desired to hear the word of God? Must have been regenerated. NOT.

          Loading...

       5. Phillip:
          Yes, one of the great irony in the Calvinist conversation is that they actually USE Lydia on their side.

          Cracks me up to no end!

          They start their commentary here…..

          “The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.”

          Of course (as usual) they ignore the context:

          13 On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God.
          ———–

          Lydia —-the allegedly “too-dead” God-hater, was at the “place of prayer”

          Lydia —-the allegedly “too-dead” God-hater, was a “worshiper of God.”

          Already? A worshiper of God? Since when? When did she get “regenerated”? All those months she was a worshiper of God?

          They have no answer for this.

          And the funnier thing is they use this phrase to make a doctrinal point: “The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.”

          All we know that she did after that was get baptized!!!

          Maybe that was the thing the Lord convicted her of.

          You can’t make this stuff up!

          Loading...

       6. FOH writes, “Lydia —-the allegedly “too-dead” God-hater, was a “worshiper of God.” ”

          The only God that Lydia could have worshiped was the God of Israel. Even the Jews who killed Jesus were worshipers of God. What does that prove? Lydia needed to know Christ and to get that result, God had to open her heart. Had God not opened her heart, she would still be a worshiper of God but would she have been saved? No – the point God makes by saying He opened her heart.

          Loading...

       7. rhutchin
          The only God that Lydia could have worshiped was the God of Israel.

          br.d
          And everyone knows the God of Israel was not really God :-]

          Loading...

       8. br.d,

          Yes. The point is clear enough to a person who is not predisposed to Calvinist…open to discussion, and being logical.

          We are told by Calvinists that everything about God is foolishness, leaving “unregenerated” people to be incapable of any good act…completely “too-dead,” Total Depraved, God-haters. Calvinists tell us they can do NOTHING until regenerated. Nothing. They cannot inquire about the God of the Bible, seek Him, meet for Bible study, meet for prayer. They are 100% God-haters.

          That is certainly not the way that Lydia is described. Paul only meets her because she is “gathering at a place of prayer” (seeking the God of the Bible). The Bible calls her a God-worshiper…. not a God-hater.

          If someone asks you “what does hat prove?” the answer is that it proves that Total Depravity is wrong.

          Either that or Sproul’s oro salutis wrong and she was running around regenerated for quite some time before finally hearing the Gospel.

          Or again, my third option was that God opened her (saved) heart to be convicted about baptism (cuz that’s what she did).

          There is just no way to make a God-hater out of her, who is instantly “force-regenerated” and saved that day. That must be read into the text.

          Loading...

       9. Another possibility for opening eyes:

          In Luke 23:41 Jesus ‘opens the eyes’ of the two men on the road to Emmaus he had been talking to. They *already” had had “burning hearts” due to Christ opening the scripture before that. And in Luke 23:25, Jesus “opens the minds” of the disciples so they could understand the scriptures. So there, opening eyes is clearly linked with a fuller understanding of scriptures one already knows, especially prophecy and how it was fulfilled by Christ who had just risen from the dead. Sort of a ‘hindsight is 2020′ – people who didn’t fully understand Jesus’ words before His death were now given understanding as to what they meant in retrospect. It didn’t mean they couldn’t understand any scripture prior or that it was impossible for anyone to recognize the Messiah (Peter recognized Christ as the Messiah in Mk 8:29) but there was definitely an element in which Christ as Messiah was ‘hidden’ from the Jews before His death, such as His speaking in parables or telling people not to spread certain miracles.

          Lydia, presumably a gentile convert to Judaism and familiar with the scriptures, had her eyes open to give heed/pay attention to Paul’s message. (The same term of giving heed is used of the people giving heed to Simon Magus in Acts 8:11 – isn’t clearly mentioned in scripture, but during his life Simon Magus was deified by a lot of people, especially Gentiles in Rome, and after his death a cult sprang up worshiping him as the incarnation of Zeus – sort of a Gentile messiah figure. And there were many other people who claimed, or were thought to be, the Jewish Messiah.) There had been many people claiming to be the Messiah around that time – the Jews and converts were likely used to ignoring the latest upstart, or even studiously avoiding people claiming someone was the Messiah (Acts 5:36 for an example.) http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12416-pseudo-messiahs

          And another clue is in II Tim 3:12-17:

          “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God a may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” [Note not just the usefulness of scripture, but that Paul throws in a line about imposters linked with this as well.]

          [And in Acts 9, though Saul/Paul’s experience was unique, his literal miraculous blinding and opening of eyes is followed by his getting baptized and preaching that Jesus was the Messiah. Saul, unlike the Pharisees, had a genuine zeal for God and hence was persecuting the Christians because he thought they were promoting a false Messiah (much like the zeal of various prophets who knocked down idols or even killed Baal-worshipers.)]

          So I’ve always seen “opening the eyes” as God revealing to some of those who already studied the scriptures (mostly Jews, but some Gentile converts as well) and who already followed God and feared God that the scriptures really prophesied Jesus. E.g. Jesus, by His death and Resurrection, proved Himself the true Messiah that the scripture spoke of and so they should give heed to the gospel message.

          Luke 1:50: “His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.”

          That is, for some of those in the early 1st century who were already hoping for the Messiah to save them and studying the scripture to look for Him, God opened their eyes to recognize, from scripture and/or the gospel message, that Jesus was the true Messiah as opposed to the many fakes. It was a special mercy for those who already feared the Lord. There isn’t exactly a modern parallel since we don’t have tons of false messiah’s running around, but I guess the modern equivalent would be if some person, similar to Simon Magus, became popular in Israel and deified as the Messiah, but God opens the eyes of a god-fearing Jew reading Isaiah to recognize that Christ and not to new messiah-claimant is the only one who fits a particular prophecy.

          But that doesn’t mean everyone in the world, including those who have never read scripture or people who have read the Bible a dozen times, can’t *trust* Jesus is the Messiah from the gospel message or conviction of the Spirit without God opening their eyes first. And it doesn’t mean that if God does open someone’s eyes to pay attention to the gospel message or understand a prophecy as pointing to Jesus that the person *must* follow Christ, either.

          I see God opening eyes as a special mercy God can give – especially through scripture or to those who already fear God or already seek through the scriptures – to help someone distinguish false from true or recognize how Christ was the fulfillment of prophecy.

          There also may be an even simpler meaning to it. In Eden, the serpent told Eve that her “eyes would be opened” if she ate the fruit, and that she would then know good from evil. But that knowledge did not save them – it only brought the condemnation of death due to sin. Interestingly, though, after the serpent makes this comment and before Eve eats the fruit, she “sees” that the fruit is good to eat. The serpent’s words ‘opened her eyes’ to the desirability of the fruit. [No one would claim Eve never had the capacity to eat the fruit without the serpent tempting her, or that the serpent’s words somehow forced her to eat the fruit.]

          John 1 goes into detail about Jesus being the light of men. Christ draws all things to Him by His death, and the gospel message is essentially a call that “Here, the desire of nations has come. Eat of Him, that you may never hunger again.’

          So to ‘open eyes’ could be as simple as the recognition that the graces of God (scripture, the gospel, Christ’s death and Resurrection, etc.) are enough to show sinners that Christ is desirable and tempt them to partake. Christ as Messiah isn’t something people just come up with on their own – that revelation is only because God prophesied Christ in scripture, sent Christ to be born of a virgin and die, resurrected Christ, and commissions His people to continue to spread the news of Christ through the gospel message.

          Loading...

       10. Thanks Jenai:

           I especially like this one…

           Luke 1:50: “His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.”

           It does not say “His mercy extends to those who HATE Him and causes them to fear Him.” Nah….

           He extends His mercy to those who are fearing/ respecting Him (albeit not really knowing enough about Him)….opening their eyes and hearts further.

           But the point being—- dear Calvinist friends —- that it takes away any sense to your “everyone is a God-hater” idea.

           Loading...

       11. JR: “So to ‘open eyes’ could be as simple as the recognition that the graces of God (scripture, the gospel, Christ’s death and Resurrection, etc.) are enough to show sinners that Christ is desirable and tempt them to partake.”

           We also have Jesus saying, “…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God….” It would seem that being born again must precede opening eyes.

           Loading...

       12. “JR: “So to ‘open eyes’ could be as simple as the recognition that the graces of God (scripture, the gospel, Christ’s death and Resurrection, etc.) are enough to show sinners that Christ is desirable and tempt them to partake.”

           We also have Jesus saying, “…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God….” It would seem that being born again must precede opening eyes.”

           They aren’t even the same Greek words, where to start….

           You use your eyes to see different things, right? You sometimes see a room, sometimes a grass and trees, sometimes a bird, etc. That you have eyes doesn’t mean everything you see is the same thing, right? And there are places you have never seen, right? Like the depths of the ocean, or the reaches of outer space, or even just countries or places near you which you have never been to? If you need something to see those places (plane, submarine, space suit, different physical make-up, etc.) does that mean you can’t learn about them to some extent, such as through photos, testimonies, astronomical calculations, etc. until such time as you have what it takes to actually go visit them?

           Jesus in the context of John 3 is giving a metaphor that one cannot go into or see the kingdom of God until one is born again.

           How the new birth happens, baptism, has already been addressed. See Rom 6 or any of the other passages describing how God brings the believer from death to new life. The born again believer is then able to spiritually participate in God’s kingdom as an heir while on Earth, and someday will be able to literally enter the physical kingdom of God in the new heavens and Earth!

           But you don’t need to enter the kingdom of God to gain knowledge it exists. God’s kingdom has walls.

           “In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah:
           We have a strong city;
           God makes salvation
           its walls and ramparts.
           Open the gates
           that the righteous nation may enter,
           the nation that keeps faith.” Isaiah 26:1-2

           Only believers, those who come through the gate of Christ, may enter and see the city itself. But does that mean that an unbeliever cannot understand the city exists if someone tells him the city exists or if the unbeliever sees it’s distant light?

           “”You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.” Matt 5:14

           Who else is the light of the world? Christ! He is the effulgence of God’s glory, like the rays of the sun that allow humans to see that the sun exists. Would anyone claim that because we cannot “see” the inside of the sun barring some change in the laws of physics, change in our nature, or invention of a device to do so that that means none can “see” the rays of sunlight that hit the Earth?

           Going back to Lydia, who already worshiped God and was *already* listening to Paul, the text does not say that God opened her heart to see His kingdom or enter it (but since she is directly baptized, it can be understood that God gave her a new birth, so she now can enter and see the kingdom in faith.) Rather, “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.”

           In what way do you see “pay attention” to the gospel message as equivalent to “see/enter the kingdom of God?” The gospel message is ABOUT the kingdom of God, it isn’t *actually* the kingdom of God. The gospel is the good news sent out into the world that tells everyone that the way to enter the kingdom of God is through Christ.

           It’s worth giving Gen 21 a read as well. When Hagar was in despair that her son would die from lack of water, God made her a promise then ‘opened her eyes’ – probably a fairly literal opening since she’d been sobbing. After her eyes were opened, she saw a spring of living water. While it might be tempting to assume this was miraculous, such as God opening the eyes of Balaam to see the Angel, and it could have been, it could just as easily be a case of Hagar having overlooked a spring in her distress whether by thinking it a mirage, it being hidden, unable to focus because of the turbulence of her mind, or her tears obscuring her sight. But no matter the method, God did NOT teleport her to the well, dunk her in, irresistibly make her drink, or otherwise effectually give her the water. She had to go get the water and give it to her son. She didn’t know if there would be water after that – God didn’t reveal to her a path of wells or springs – she would have to trust God to provide and fulfill His promise.

           [But it’s crucial to note that Hagar had already received a promise (Gen 16:10,) just as Lydia and the men on the road to Emmaus were believers in the promise of a Messiah. As such, they stand in a separate category, though there is crossover, from people who have never even heard of the promised redeemer or of Christ.]

           The gospel itself reveals Christ as “living water” – but people still have to come and drink. If God chooses to open hearts or minds to understand a scripture pointing to Christ or to take the message more seriously than they otherwise would, then that is gracious, but it doesn’t effectually make the person get faith or enter the kingdom of God.

           Loading...

       13. Jenai, you have a marvelous gift of making things so clear. I hope that you are a pastor or teacher. Honestly, I believe if anyone could be used to ‘open’ rhutchin’s eyes, it would be you. If you have a blog or published books, I would love to hear about them.

           Loading...

       14. Just a laywoman. 🙂 I do moderate for eBible, though, (I get to keep things relatively friendly and ensure answers and comments stick the Statement of Faith) and I have a lot of answers to questions up on that site (many of them discussing issues related to Calvinism.)
           https://ebible.com/users/167400/profile

           However, I am planning to write a book on the study of Salvation but in layman’s terms (the gospel, faith, baptism, promises, the New Covenant, etc.) and would definitely have a section on defining terms and a section going through common verses brought up in discussions on Calvinism examining them in their context. It isn’t strictly going to be a book just against Calvinism, but I do want to clear things up for people who have either never heard of it (so they can recognize it in their church) or are just starting to study it and have heard verses explained from Calvinist presuppositions.

           It’s one reason I am willing to dive into long discussions in hopes of new things I haven’t considered or new verses to look at or questions to address. 🙂 It’s not going to be a fast project considering the amount of research I still need to do, figuring out the structure, etc. while taking care of my three little ones, but on the plus side I already have a lot of content written on eBible, here, and elsewhere that I can pull from when it is time to start putting it together.

           Loading...

       15. I look forward to it. I often wonder if all of my fleshing through in my writing over the years will lead to a book or two as well. But then I read someone like you and think, leave it to her. 😉

           Loading...

       16. JR: “Jesus in the context of John 3 is giving a metaphor that one cannot go into or see the kingdom of God until one is born again.”

           The metaphor “kingdom of God” to be salvation. One cannot be saved without being born again. The Holy Spirit brings about the new birth. Paul, in Ephesians 2, says that this is by the grace of God.

           To “see” the kingdom of God is a spiritual perception. Just as “hearing” in Romans 10 is a spiritual perception. Without the seeing and hearing, Paul tells us that “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.” So, the answer to your question, “But does that mean that an unbeliever cannot understand the city exists if someone tells him the city exists or if the unbeliever sees it’s distant light?” is Yes. If not, how do we explain why atheists, who often have a better grasp of the gospel than some believers, reject the gospel. It is because they cannot “see” the kingdom or “hear” the gospel.

           Then, “Rather, “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.”

           What did Paul preach = “I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you–unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,…” Paul was speaking of the kingdom of God. God had to open Lydia’s heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. Absent that action by God, Lydia would still be a worshiper of God and still a lost worshiper of God.

           Then, “If God chooses to open hearts or minds to understand a scripture pointing to Christ or to take the message more seriously than they otherwise would, then that is gracious, but it doesn’t effectually make the person get faith or enter the kingdom of God.”

           Yes, it does. Paul said, “we are God’s workmanship,” and “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.” In John 6, Jesus told us, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”

           Loading...

       17. When I read the thoughts of so many – particularly Calvinists – on salvation, it appears that they view it as some sort of mechanical process. Push button A, pull lever B and out will pop your cold, 12 oz. can of salvation. Ahhhh . . . just what I needed.

           I increasingly resist using the terminology of ‘being saved’ as it has this distorted perception. I perceive salvation as something Jesus already accomplished, as in saving mankind from the deception and slavery of sin, as well as the inevitable death such leads to. Thus we do not need to ‘be saved’ so much as we need to enter into the new life that the salvation Jesus accomplished has made possible.

           On a second note, we will be ‘saved’ from the second death when the final day of judgment arrives, if we have put our trust in the redeeming work of Jesus and turned onto the path he has set before us.

           Loading...

       18. TS00
           When I read the thoughts of so many – particularly Calvinists – on salvation, it appears that they view it as some sort of mechanical process. Push button A, pull lever B and out will pop your cold, 12 oz. can of salvation

           br.d
           Yes – that’s exactly the mode of physics one finds consistent with Determinism.
           It very mechanical in nature
           Everything is programmed to happen within a causal chain, like precisely placed dominoes arranged in a specific pattern to ensure a specific outcome.
           The first one is moved, causing each sequential movement to cause the next until the final outcome is produced.

           All first-conceived by Calvin’s god
           All arranged by Calvin’s god
           And the first movement directly forced to occur by Calvin’s god.

           Force is then propagated through the causal chain.

           Loading...

       19. “The metaphor “kingdom of God” to be salvation.”

           Salvation is deliverance. Specifically, it’s *from* our state of condemnation under the law *to* our state as righteous children of God by faith by means of baptism in the death and Resurrection of Christ (which God gives to those with faith. The Kingdom of God is the “destination” of salvation, not the beginning! The Kingdom is what the sinner is rescued for and delivered unto. The believer spiritually participates in the kingdom of God while clothed in flesh – doing the work of God, obeying God’s commands, spreading the gospel, etc. The believer’s true citizenship is in heaven. The final blessings of salvation, including literally entering the New Jerusalem, are conferred at the Resurrection when God gives the believer a new spiritual body.

           “One cannot be saved without being born again.”

           Salvation is not synonymous with faith. Salvation cannot be completed without the new birth, but that doesn’t mean the new birth is required to begin the process and accept the work of the Savior.

           By analogy, take the parable of the king who invited people to his wedding feast and only some came. But when the king came to inspect his guests, one man was without wedding garments! In that culture, wedding garments would have been provided to those who came but did not have them – there was no excuse to be without. So the man was tossed outside.

           So a change of garments was required to attend the feast – but the garments were NOT required to come when invited. Indeed it would be nonsensical to demand they come with the very clothes on that they would later be offered!

           “If A and B, then C ” or “if B, then C” say nothing of the logical precedence or order of A and B must be acquired in. Yet your argument is that B (being born again) is required for C (entering the kingdom), therefore B (born again) must precede A (faith), which doesn’t follow. There is no logical basis for that claim. There is no scriptural basis, either. Faith can be required for God to grant the new birth (Rom 6) without undermining or contradicting the teaching that we must be born again to enter the kingdom of God.

           “The Holy Spirit brings about the new birth.”

           Yes, as it is God’s will to baptize believers and give them new life in Christ. Rom 6, Gal 2, Gal 5, and other passages detail baptism and how a believer dies and is born again. One could say in shorthand that God baptizes the believer into the death and Resurrection of Christ, by the will of the Father, and gives new life through the power of the Spirit. The believer then, afterwards, walks by the indwelling Spirit, putting on the mind of Christ, and seeking the will of the Father going forward.

           ” Paul, in Ephesians 2, says that this is by the grace of God.”

           Eph 2:6-8 shows that salvation is by grace through faith, yes. The salvation God grants us is by His grace, not our accomplishment or merit or philosophy, etc. But salvation being “by grace” does not contradict or circumvent or have to precede faith. Our faith doesn’t “merit” salvation: it was God’s gracious choice to will, plan, promise, reveal, and accomplish salvation, and likewise it is His gracious choice to grant salvation to those with faith. His choice to make faith the gracious condition doesn’t make salvation by grace through faith somehow less gracious.

           [If a stranger gives you a check for a million dollars and you, trusting that it’s genuine and not a scam, cash the check at a bank and receive a million dollars – does the fact you had to trust and cash the check make the gift any less “gracious”?]

           “To “see” the kingdom of God is a spiritual perception.”

           It is both literal and figurative:

           We receive a figurative new birth and figuratively see the kingdom while on Earth (our sin nature is not yet eradicated, but it is ‘circumcised’ and we are to treat it as if we are dead to sin. We aren’t sinless, but we receive the imputed righteousness of Christ. We do not see “face to face,” but have the indwelling Holy Spirit. We are part of the universal church, the body of Christ. We act as servants to perform the will of God while on Earth, using the talents he gives us, all while understanding that we are not really servants in the end but rather friends and children/heirs.

           The literal meaning comes into play at the ressurection and when God makes a new heaven and a new Earth. Then we will *literally* receive a new birth and *literally* enter the physical kingdom of God and *literally* dwell with God.

           But whether one takes it in the literal or figurative sense or both, that still doesn’t mean entering the kingdom somehow precedes faith rather than being something God allows post-faith.

           ” Just as “hearing” in Romans 10 is a spiritual perception.”

           Rom 10 uses a couple different words in regard to hearing and is both figurative and literal at times, so you’ll have to narrow it down.
           Rom 10 talks about literal hearing, believing in your heart, understanding, zeal for scripture, and gives the implication that most of Israel rejected what they heard and understood because they were disobedient and obstinate. But taking hearing *always* as “spiritual perception” in the passage would make little sense. Did Israel spiritually perceive by hearing? No.

           But let’s look at Rom 10:14-18 more closely:

           “How then can they call on the One in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” [‘hear’ here is akouó, which is the basic Greek verb for listening and is sometimes used of hearing God’s voice in particular.]

           Is Christ real, or figurative? Is preaching literal hear, or figurative? Are people being sent out to spread the gospel literal, or figurative? If all those are literal, then why would hearing somehow be figurative? “Blessed are the literal missionaries who go out and spread the literal gospel, only their words don’t make literal sounds.” ??

           The “hearing” there is clearly literal. BUT the passage goes on to detail why most of Israel, despite hearing the same gospel, still rejected it.

           “But not all of them heeded the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” So faith is out of hearing, and the hearing through the word of Christ.”

           “Welcome” here is the word hupakouó, literally “to obey/submit to what is heard.” It has the implication of attentively listening to what is heard/instructed so as to be ready to obey the charge. It wasn’t that they didn’t literally hear it, but that they didn’t heed it. [Contrasted with Lydia, whose heart was opened so she would pay attention.]

           ‘Hearing’ here is the same as the basic listen from Rom 10:14, but in noun form. It’s a general term that can refer to the physical sense of hearing, inner spiritual hearing, or even the thing heard itself. Interestingly enough, the noun is used not two but three times in the verse. “Report” and “hearing” are the same noun. This could be translated “who has believed our message? So faith is out of the message, and the message through the word of Christ” or “who had believed our report? So faith is out of the sense of hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” The first use pretty much has to be about what is heard, as “who has believed our sense of hearing?” would make no sense. The last two could go either way, but I think it makes a bit more sense to translate the word the same way throughout the sentence since there is no textual, grammatical, or contextual reason to do otherwise.

           We see faith requires a message to put faith in (or idiomatically, the capacity to receive information about something.) What is heard, for the purposes of faith, must be the word about Christ, the gospel, – not just any random group of sounds. And as the passage states earlier, they will never hear if no one preaches.

           More on Israel, and note the back and forth nature of Paul’s writing as if it was a dialogue:

           “But I ask, did they not hear? Indeed they did: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”

           This line would make no sense if hearing meant spiritual perception and not a literal spread of the gospel throughout the civilized world of the time. Israel had no excuse. So if they had the gospel preached to them, and could hear the gospel, what was their excuse? Maybe they just couldn’t understand the words? Maybe they didn’t “know” what the words meant? Maybe they couldn’t know?

           No, Paul addressed that counter-argument/question before it can even be asked in Rom 10:19. The Israelites knew, could comprehend, and had spent their lives supposedly seeking God. They didn’t just have the pre-requisites, they had advantages the Gentiles did not have! The Gentiles, before the gospel, did not know to seek God and had no understanding or knowledge of the redeemer – the Israelites did!

           Why didn’t they believe when every pre-requisite was met? Why didn’t they believe when they had extra advantages? Because they were disobedient and obstinate. “Obstinate” here is antilegó – they were “speaking to an opposite conclusion” (note the contrast with hearing.) They argued with the gospel. They were combative. They resisted it. They opposed it. They ‘disputed in order to thwart,’ etc. They did not hear with faith because they didn’t want it to be true.

           A lot of the nuance is lost in the English which is unfortunate, but imagine you were trying to persuade someone with facts and figures and logic. But rather than his listening to try and understand you, or even listening to fairly test your words with scripture, he was too busy trying to counter-argue and shout you down to ‘prove’ his own conclusion. Later, a friend asks “your speech was great, there was no disputing those facts and no error in methodology. Why did that guy disbelieve you when so many others believed what you said?” Would you say the man had never had the opportunity to hear you, or that he just was intellectually or spiritually incapable of understanding? Hopefully not. Hopefully you would say that the reason is because he was obstinate/stubborn/etc. He didn’t *want* the conclusion to be true, so he argued against it and would not hear it out with attention.

           [Side note: ‘Satan’ means ‘accuser,’ those who disbelieve Christ are considered ‘anti-Christs,’ and the pharisees were called sons of the devil by Jesus. “Accusing” isn’t just bad in this sense because it is false or casts shame on Christ, but because it’s rooted in pride and stops a person from humbly paying attention to the gospel and evaluating it.]

           ” Without the seeing and hearing, Paul tells us that “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.”

           I Cor 1:17 says nothing about “those who are perishing” being unable to see or hear. It even states that the ‘words’ Paul preaches are not based in Earthly ideas of eloquence and persuasion, but just the gospel. The cross of Christ has power enough to persuade!

           Note “those who are perishing” are contrasted with “those who are being saved” – unbelievers who stand condemned vs. believers. This doesn’t mean one group is unable to cross into the other such that those who are condemned simply ‘can’t’ believe.

           Paul gets into the why the message of the cross is foolishness, and it is NOT because most people just can’t hear/see. Rather, the message is a “stumbling block” to the Jews because they were looking for ‘signs’ (of their own devising, such as the political overthrow of Rome) and “foolishness” to the Gentiles since they searched for earthly wisdom. That is, Jews who came with their own preconceptions of what the Messiah would look like or who He would be or what He would do stumbled over those ideas when hearing the gospel, and Gentiles who had preconceptions about what a spiritual leader or savior would believe or ask followers to do would think the simplicity of the gospel foolish.

           “So, the answer to your question, “But does that mean that an unbeliever cannot understand the city exists if someone tells him the city exists or if the unbeliever sees it’s distant light?” is Yes. If not, how do we explain why atheists, who often have a better grasp of the gospel than some believers, reject the gospel. It is because they cannot “see” the kingdom or “hear” the gospel.”

           Your argument here is not a proof, it’s just your theory as to why atheists might reject God. Have you talked with many? Do you know the thoughts of every atheists? I’ve talked with a number specifically on that topic. Intellectual arguments almost always give way to the real reasons, and many turn out to not be real athiests at all. Here are some I’ve encountered:

           – Angry at God for a tragedy that happened
           – Don’t WANT to follow God since they don’t want to change specific sinful behaviors
           – Doesn’t WANT to follow God since it would require submission in general and he likes to be master of his own life
           – Thinks God is just a cultural construct and humans are no better than mammals and she’s pretty much a worm so why bother.
           – Doesn’t read scripture, just books by other atheists about supposed contradictions in scripture
           — Hurt by a hypocritical Christian in their life, and that pain keeps them from wanting to embrace God

           Etc. Also, many approach scripture with that same argumentative attitude that kept most Israelites from hearing with faith. That is, they are going in to reading in hopes of countering it, not in humility to evaluate it.

           It’s not that they can’t see the city. They can see the walls and the lights. They just don’t want to leave Egypt, or don’t want to leave their sin, don’t want to face persecution, think the city will be rubbish, etc. Some may change their hearts and minds and someday turn in faith – but others will let their hostility toward God and their presuppositions harden their heart whenever they hear the gospel.

           Interestingly enough, Lee Strobel was an athiest who decided to approach scripture fairly – even though he thought he would find things against God, he put aside his bias to study it. And now he is a prolific Christian apologist who defends the faith.

           Loading...

       20. Continued, since I didn’t get to everything yesterday:

           “What did Paul preach = “I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you–unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures”

           Paul didn’t preach those words to Lydia, but to the Corinthians. The Corinthian church had already received (took from Paul) the gospel message, hence why Paul is reminding them of what already happened. He now encourages them to continue in that belief and warns them that continued salvation is contingent on continued belief.

           But the latter verse, where he is outlining the gospel, is probably very similar to what he would have preached to Lydia. Christ fulfilled the prophecies of scripture, died for our sin, was buried, and rose again. Etc.

           “Paul was speaking of the kingdom of God.”

           Christ, His death, and His Resurrection, are not ‘equivalent’ to the Kingdom of God. Rather, Christ’s work on the cross and fulfilling scriptures shows that He was the Messiah, the redeemer, and hence the way we can figuratively enter the kingdom of God now, and literally enter it in the future. The literal Kingdom of God is an inheritance promised to the believer as a child/heir (Rom 8:17.)

           “I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed…” I Cor 15, the whole chapter, dives into our literal entrance into the kingdom of God at the Resurrection, and that we must receive a new spiritual body to do so.

           “”Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.” Matt 25:34

           So none of us believers have beheld the literal kingdom of God – that will come at the Second Coming of Christ and the Resurrection when God makes a new Heavens and Earth and comes to dwell with believers on Earth in the new Jerusalem.

           But, there is the figurative aspect where, even while looking forward to our entrance into the Kingdom, we have already entered it in a way: we are counted citizens of it, and therefore have been granted the right to enter it. As such, our conduct on Earth is in light of our true home being that Kingdom.

           “But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,” Phil 3:20

           We have been given the indwelling Holy Spirit now, making us “temples” of the Holy Spirit that show we belong to God (I Cor 6:19); but we look forward to the time when we shall dwell in the city of God where God is the temple. (Rev 21:23)

           We also see this in Jesus’ own words:

           “Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

           This delightful play on words shows that both Jesus is the Messiah they are looking for (the one to bring the Kingdom of God) and the concept that the kingdom is “within” the believer, not something viewed from without.

           “God had to open Lydia’s heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.”

           The verse doesn’t go beyond the fact that God did open her heart to heed Paul. It doesn’t say it was required (e.g. if she ever would have paid attention without that, or if it just might have taken longer, etc.) It doesn’t say how he opened her heart (Which could have been as simple as the words Paul gave reminding her of scriptures that *God inspired,* much as the noble Bereans searched the scriptures and tested everything Paul said to see if it was true. Obviously, if scripture is opening her heart to listen, that’s God opening her heart to listen, since scripture is God-breathed. Or it could have been a special grace, since she was already a worshiper of God and presumably looking for the Messiah, where God helped her discern that this gospel was about the true Messiah and not about one of the many fakes. It could even be poetic symbolism hearkening back to Songs 5:2, having God wake her heart and telling her to listen, for her beloved is knocking! Go, open the door! Don’t delay or make excuses! Etc.)

           “”JR: Then, “If God chooses to open hearts or minds to understand a scripture pointing to Christ or to take the message more seriously than they otherwise would, then that is gracious, but it doesn’t effectually make the person get faith or enter the kingdom of God.”

           HR: Yes, it does. Paul said, “we are God’s workmanship,” and “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.” In John 6, Jesus told us, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.””

           This is ring-around-the-rosy again. Rather than analyze a text for it’s context and limits, you tend to spring over to other out of context verses as if they prove a presupposition you have brought into a different text. Before you can synthesize a theory, you have to analyze the component parts.

           Eph 2 is written to Gentile believers to assure them that they have been saved by grace and through faith, which God planned long ago. They were not an afterthought. Though once separate from God, foreigners to the covenants of the promise, excluded from citizenship in Israel, without hope and without God, they have now been brought near by the blood of Christ. They are now fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household. The “workmanship” is not somehow referring to God picking individuals to get faith, but to the new Creation “in Christ Jesus” that God makes.

           “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. For we [Paul and the Ephesian believers] are God’s workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus upon good works which God made ready in advance in order that we would walk in them.”

           Basically, man cannot boast in his salvation because not only is it through faith (trust in Christ) and not works of personal merit or righteousness, but that it is God who forms the believer as a new creation in Christ Jesus. It’s God who planned this before creation, promised this, and accomplishes this. He prepared the plan long before the first person put faith. The believer then walks in/conducts his life according to the new life that God prepared in advance for believers and actualizes for believers. Pretty much the shorthand summary of God initiating both the promise/plan of salvation and the effectual salvation of believers! Faith is not cause for boasting, because it rests in the work of God and not our own actions.
           [Question: What does it mean in Rom 3:27 that boasting is excluded because of the law that requires faith?
           See Answer: http://ebible.com/answers/27255?ori=167400%5D

           Eph 2 is not saying (or implying) that God must prepare certain people to become believers. It isn’t saying (or implying) that no one can believe unless God pre-selects them to. It isn’t saying that every thought and action of a person, even a believer, is prepared before hand by God. The workmanship it is talking about is the workmanship God does in a *believer* to make them them a new Creation and give them the Spirit to walk by so they can serve, NOT some work prior to faith. That God prepared the work in advance is not contrary to this, as God prepared the work (made things ready beforehand) for believers. He didn’t have to pick who would believe to have things ready for them.

           I Cor 3 is again about *believers* – but ones who are being worldly rather than walking by the Spirit as they should. Factions are forming, and some say “I follow Paul” and others “I follow Apollos,” etc. It would be a bit like people today saying things like “I follow Piper” or “I was baptized by MacArthur” or “I follow Calvin, not Arminius,” or “I was led to Christ by Billy Graham,” etc. and competing over whose chosen teacher has the highest ‘status’ or respect among other Christians. Factions were forming. Paul takes them to task and shows them how silly this is, since apostles, elders, pastors, teachers, etc. are all co-workers, not competitors (ideally, anyway…) And the field they are working in is God’s. So if they scatter seed (the gospel) or water (teach believers) it is only as God’s workers in God’s field. And God is the one who gives the nutrients for the plants to grow and bear good fruit. The words they are preaching are God’s words. Paul then says basically the same thing but using the analogy of a building. The foundation is Christ’s. The blueprint is God’s. The materials and power to build are God’s. No one can seriously argue that because his own personal brick was laid by one builder rather than another that his own brick is superior.

           (I’ll have to save John 6 for another time.)

           Loading...

       21. JR:
           – “the latter verse, where he is outlining the gospel, is probably very similar to what he would have preached to Lydia.”
           – “there is the figurative aspect where, even while looking forward to our entrance into the Kingdom, we have already entered it in a way: we are counted citizens of it,”
           – “Before you can synthesize a theory, you have to analyze the component parts. ”
           – “it is God who forms the believer as a new creation in Christ Jesus. It’s God who planned this before creation, promised this, and accomplishes this. He prepared the plan long before the first person put faith. The believer then walks in/conducts his life according to the new life that God prepared in advance for believers and actualizes for believers.”
           – “Faith is not cause for boasting, because it rests in the work of God and not our own actions.”
           – “God prepared the work (made things ready beforehand) for believers. He didn’t have to pick who would believe to have things ready for them.”
           – ‘the field they are working in is God’s. So if they scatter seed (the gospel) or water (teach believers) it is only as God’s workers in God’s field. And God is the one who gives the nutrients for the plants to grow and bear good fruit. ”

           I don’t see Calvinism disagreeing on these points.

           Then, “The verse doesn’t go beyond the fact that God did open her heart to heed Paul. It doesn’t say it was required”

           Absent God’s opening Lydia’s heart, she would still be a worshiper of God and ignorant of Christ – therefore lost. It was required.

           Then, “Rather than analyze a text for it’s context and limits, you tend to spring over to other out of context verses as if they prove a presupposition you have brought into a different text.”

           I agree. However, we see specific truths that are true in all other situations. We can take one truth in Romans and it is true in Philippians. Truth cannot be denied no matter where it is applied. When we read, “We are God’s workmanship,” and “God has begun a good work in you,” in Philippians and “God gives the increase” in 1 Corinthians, we know that we have three truths about God that are true and all other situations. Scripture will agree with those truths. So, we work to build a library of truth from various Scripture and put all of them together to get one cohesive whole.

           Then “The “workmanship” is not somehow referring to God picking individuals to get faith, but to the new Creation “in Christ Jesus” that God makes….it is God who forms the believer as a new creation in Christ Jesus.”

           Certainly, if God is working on a person, He selected that person to work on. The issue is to identify how God decided to chose one person and not another.

           Then, “The workmanship it is talking about is the workmanship God does in a *believer* to make them them a new Creation and give them the Spirit to walk by so they can serve, NOT some work prior to faith.”

           Disagree here. That we are God’s workmanship incorporates that said by Paul in v1, “you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,”

           Loading...

       22. “Certainly, if God is working on a person, He selected that person to work on. The issue is to identify how God decided to chose one person and not another.”

           That’s not a mystery. God graciously chooses to work on those who respond to the gospel in faith. He doesn’t choose some people to give faith according to mysterious criteria or random selection, but chooses those “in Christ” to be made Holy, adopted, conformed to Christ, etc. (Eph 1: these blessings are to those “in Christ,” and we are included “in Christ” by faith.) The righteousness He gives is by faith from “first to last.” (Rom 1) He gives life to those who believe (Jn 3.) Those in Christ are made a new creation (II Cor 5.) Etc.

           “Then, [JR]: “The workmanship it is talking about is the workmanship God does in a *believer* to make them them a new Creation and give them the Spirit to walk by so they can serve, NOT some work prior to faith.”

           [RH:] Disagree here. That we are God’s workmanship incorporates that said by Paul in v1, “you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,”

           That’s not disagreement. God makes the believer, who is dead in trespasses and sins, alive in Christ through baptism. See Rom 6 and the other passages already brought up and detailed extensively in this very long comment thread. He doesn’t make an unbeliever ‘alive in Christ’ so he can believe and *then* die to sin and be made alive again in Christ through the Spirit – that’s never stated in scripture *and* would make no logical sense nor make sense with the character of God or the revealed gospel message. God does not make anyone alive in Christ who does not have faith in Christ. That you, for interesting philosophical but not scripture based reasons, think God has to make people alive *before* He can give them faith, doesn’t undo the audience of the chapter wherein Paul is talking to *believers* about the work in them God had prepared beforehand/made ready for those in Christ. (And we are only included “in Christ” by faith, as reiterated in Eph 1.)

           I agree we can take principles from scripture and apply them elsewhere, such as knowing what baptism is as detailed in Rom 6 and recognizing when phrases like ‘renewal’ or ‘new creation’ or ‘regeneration’ or ‘new life’ or ‘died to sin’ are used that they are references back to the detailed process of how a believer unites with the death of Christ (dies to sin/sin nature circumcised) and the Resurrection of Christ (God raises the believer to new life, granting a new nature, and gives the indwelling Spirit.) Where scripture is detailed and clear on a concept, it sheds light on passages that use summaries or shorthand or figurative terms.

           But that is not what you are doing. You are reading in presuppositions into brief out of context phrases in various verses and proclaiming your conclusions are ‘clear teachings” when nothing in the context or text scripturally or logically mandates those conclusions. You then read those conclusions into other passages rather than first examining their own context, to the point of insisting, even where scripture is detailed (like in Rom 6 or Eph 1) that clear text can’t actually be saying what it says because you already took an opposite conclusion from a piecemeal scripture or figurative word or phrase elsewhere. Or, you read in one of those presuppositions into the text (such as taking “you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,” as really meaning “the unbeliever is made alive so he can get faith”) rather than looking to see if the same process is discussed elsewhere in scripture (like seeing how in Rom 6 the new believer, though dead in trespasses and sins, is made alive by God through baptism.) All the little philosophies and presuppositions and doctrine built from partial phrases and figurative terms then fight against studying scripture for itself.

           But let’s take a step back for a moment:

           How do you view Rom 6? Do you see God making a person alive before faith and then alive again after faith? How do those multiple new births work? How do you determine what references to the new creation, renewal, new life, regeneration, etc. reference baptism and which reference a pre-faith regeneration?

           Why do you personally think faith is necessary for salvation? You’ve said God just gives faith to some, and you believe God chooses some to give it to, and that God regenerates people before faith. So why do you believe it is necessary at all? If faith is just something God effectually gives, and not a judicial condition by which God graciously grants pardon, why is it necessary at all? That is, God could certainly ‘choose’ to add an extra step to the process (choose a person to save, so regenerate them and give faith; rather than the non-Calvinist sequence of God choosing to regenerate and save those with faith) – but what purpose would that actually serve?Regeneration would make sense, as God would confer a new nature. But what purpose would effectually giving faith serve? And wouldn’t it be “sight,” not faith, if someone is given the actual trust that something is 100% assured? Why would those with faith be more blessed than doubting Thomas who only believed when he “saw” if faith was essentially the same thing?

           Loading...

       23. JR: “chooses those “in Christ” to be made Holy, adopted, conformed to Christ, etc. (Eph 1: these blessings are to those “in Christ,” and we are included “in Christ” by faith.) ”

           Paul says, “us.” God chose us (You, who are faithful, and me) in Christ. Context has Paul referring only to believers. God chose believers before the foundation of the world.

           JR: “God makes the believer, who is dead in trespasses and sins, alive in Christ through baptism. See Rom 6 and the other passages already brought up and detailed extensively in this very long comment thread.”

           Romans 5 deals with salvation, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” Earlier, we see that this is by faith, “Therefore, having been justified by faith,…” Paul begins Romans 6, “How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” His focus now is on the Christian life/lifestyle, “…knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin.” Notice that Paul says, “baptized into Christ,” that is not being baptized in water in the name of Christ. By “baptized into Christ,” Paul means, immersed into His death – “we were buried with Him through baptism into death.” Water baptism is an illustration of that baptism God has already accomplished in us through Christ’s death on the cross.

           JR: “Why do you personally think faith is necessary for salvation?”

           Romans 3, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”
           Romans 5, “Therefore, having been justified by faith,…”
           Galatians 2, ““knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; ”
           Galatians 3, “the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”’
           Galatians 3, “the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”

           Loading...

       24. “RH: Paul says, “us.” God chose us (You, who are faithful, and me) in Christ. Context has Paul referring only to believers. God chose believers before the foundation of the world.”

           He chose believers, before the foundation of the world, “to be Holy and blameless in His presence” – not to “become believers.” There is nothing in the grammar saying they were chosen before time to believe. He predestined (set the rules/boundaries before hand) that believers would be adopted.

           (And actually his pronouns shift. The ‘us’ would be Jewish converts, or early converts, the “you” of verse 13 would be Gentile, or possibly later converts – but he is showing that the later converts, not just the first, are included in Christ and the predestined promises when they believe.)

           JR: “God makes the believer, who is dead in trespasses and sins, alive in Christ through baptism. See Rom 6 and the other passages already brought up and detailed extensively in this very long comment thread.”

           RH: “Notice that Paul says, “baptized into Christ,” that is not being baptized in water in the name of Christ. By “baptized into Christ,” Paul means, immersed into His death – “we were buried with Him through baptism into death.” Water baptism is an illustration of that baptism God has already accomplished in us through Christ’s death on the cross.”

           I never said it referred to water baptism. Why did you think I was? Pretty sure I have been as clear as humanly possible, if not overly redundant, on the subject of baptism. Baptism is how the believer, though a sinner condemned under the law, is made alive in Christ by God and justified. Baptism happens once. Once ‘alive in the Spirit’ then the believer proceeds to walk by the Spirit. The believer remains justified because God views the believer through Christ’s righteousness. Baptism is the *how* the believer ends up justified from faith.

           “JR: “Why do you personally think faith is necessary for salvation?”

           Romans 3, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law….””

           Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don’t mean to ask where you think scripture says faith is necessary for justification, we all agree scripture says it is. I mean, why do you, personally, *logically* think faith is necessary? WHY do you think God makes faith necessary for justification if God just hands out faith to a special few? What purpose does it serve in the order of salvation, from your worldview?

           E.g. you seem to be claiming:

           1. Dead unbeliever, can’t respond to the gospel with faith even if presented
           2. God regenerates the unbeliever (let’s them see/enter kingdom of God)
           3. God gives faith
           4. God justifies believer

           As opposed to the sequence:

           1. Unbeliever condemned under the law (dead in sin)
           2. Unbeliever offered pardon by the judge (gospel)
           3. Unbeliever accepts pardon (responds in repentance and faith)
           4. God regenerates believer by uniting believer in the death and Resurrection of Christ (baptism)
           5. God declares believer righteous in the court of law (justification)
           6. Believer becomes part of God’s kingdom

           Etc.

           In your sequence, faith doesn’t seem to serve a judicial function at all. It meets the “not by works of the law” requirement, but doesn’t really show why righteousness has to be by faith. The person is already regenerated and can enter the kingdom of God (in your view) – why then would they even need to get faith or be justified if they already can enter the kingdom? Or why couldn’t God just declare them just and skip faith altogether – effectually declaring them just would not be by ‘works of the law’ either. It seems faith just becomes a cosmetic step with no real meaning.

           Loading...

       25. Jenai,

           I believe a proper understanding of the pronouns is what will give us a better understanding of the 1st chapter of Ephesians. The “us” He chose from the foundation of the world is the people of Israel. The OT is full of prophecy of Israel being a light to the nations and to bring salvation to the ends of the earth.

           Deutoronomy 7:6-8a (NKJV)….
           For you 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 nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers…

           Isaiah 42:6 (NKJV)…
           I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people (of Israel), As a light to the Gentiles

           Luke 2:32 (NKJV)…
           “…A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of Your people Israel.”

           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.’”

           Then Paul reminds us…

           Romans 15:8-9a: “Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision (the Jews) for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David), and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy..”

           All the promises, covenants, and adoption were given to Israel (Romans 9:3-5) and are still theirs.

           Nowhere in Ephesians does it say Gentile believers were predestined for these, but rather thru the blood of Christ we become co-citizens with Israel and thus partakers of the covenants of promise (Ephesians 2:12-13).

           That’s my take, for what’s it worth.

           Loading...

       26. I’ve mentioned the pronoun shifts of Eph 1 several times in my many wordy posts under this thread 😉 I believe the “us” refers likely to Jewish believers (or to those of spiritual Israel, the Israel of the promise not of Abraham’s blood in general) and ‘you’ to Gentile believers (Eph 2:11.)

           The ‘us’ has: every spiritual blessing, not just some; predestined to be adopted as sons *through* Jesus Christ; put their hope in Christ (technically the nation Israel ‘hoped’ for the Redeemer so as a whole could be said to hope, but as individuals not so much since not all did.); were redeemed by the blood of Christ; had the mystery of God’s will made known to them (See Eph 3 for a more detailed description of this: it was made known to the apostles but NOT to prior generations of Israelites); etc.

           The language of the “us” is both Jewish (as per Rom 9) and Christian (per the redemption in Christ’s blood, revelation of the mystery, etc.)

           Paul is in both those classes. In Rom 9 he distances himself slightly, referring to the nation Israel as “my brothers” and “theirs” is the adoption, the law, temple worship, etc. Eph 1 does not mention the law or temple worship, but is focused on spiritual blessings specifically in Christ. Jewish believers would have added to their blessings other blessings, such as the redemption through Christ’s blood and revelation of the mystery of Christ, so as to truly have ‘every’ spiritual blessing.

           The Gentile believers were included in Christ when they believed, and so became alongside the Jewish believers “God’s possession” and inherit all the promises, both present ones and future ones. In Eph 2 Paul mentions God making ‘one body out of the two’ but *through* the body of Christ. The implication being one body out of Jewish and Gentile believers, the Gentile believers now receiving the promises – not one nation out of Gentile believers and all Jews. Rom 11 examines much the same idea that some of ethnic Israel were broken off due to unbelief, and the Gentiles grafted in. That doesn’t mean God has no plan or promises left for the nation of Israel, but it does mean that Gentiles don’t “become Jews” as the Judaizers were claiming they must do first to be children of God.

           “Predestined” simply means pre-bounded. It’s the boundaries set before time. As we see from Gal and Eph and many, many other passages, the Gentiles were not an afterthought. God planned to have mercy on all, even as He planned for that blessing to come through the Jews. So it can safely be said that all the promises Paul mentions here as belonging to the “we” also apply to those included in Christ. The Gentiles have been grafted in to Israel, and so share in the nourishing sap and all the spiritual blessings in Christ. God planned/bounded the rules of that inclusion (being in Christ, through faith) before time, so the Gentile believers are also predestined to be made holy and set apart by God, etc.

           But this is a bit beyond the main topic, so probably not the best for an extended discussion on this point.

           I’ve written a bit on it, though not as detailed in regards to the pronoun shifts, here:

           Question: Are we predestined to know Christ?
           See Answer: http://ebible.com/answers/19101?ori=167400

           Loading...

       27. Phillip – on your discussion of Israel being referred to as “elect” by Paul – you will find that confirmed by Dr. Flowers.
           Check out his youtube video “Why Ravi Zacharias rejects Calvinism: Romans 9 ”

           He gets to the topic at the end of the video

           br.d

           Loading...

       28. BrD,

           Thanks for sharing, brother.

           Good stuff.

           I read Romans 9-11 just a little differently, thou Leighton is on the right track. I really believe those chapters refer to the restoration of both houses of Israel (Israel and Judah/ Romans 11:26-27).

           However, Leighton is correct that being the elect of God is both a blessing and a curse. Remember what Uncle Ben told Peter Parker (Spiderman)? “With great power comes great responsibility”.

           Everyone wants the blessings of being “the elect”, but I can assure you they don’t want the burden that comes with it. Case in point, look what awaits them in the coming tribulation, while believers are safely tucked away in heaven. It’s shameful. Why the church is jealous of Israel is beyond me.

           Titus 1:1 (NKJV)….
           Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle (to the Gentiles) of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness

           Who were entrusted with the oracles of God?

           Who did God reveal Himself to?

           All scripture is spirit breathed, but who put pen to paper?

           When we open the book, from who are we learning (at least indirectly)?

           The answer to all of these are the Jews (I believe Luke was a Jew with a Roman name, like Paul).

           Here’s something for you to ponder.

           Romans 11:11 (NKJV)….
           I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

           Why was the Gentiles’ salvation contingent on Israel’s falling? Couldn’t God save Gentiles without cutting Israel off? Guess not.

           BrD, if you want to discuss further, and off-line, then let me know. I am willing to share my email address with you, just let Eric know.

           Many blessings, dear brother.

           Loading...

       29. Isn’t Col 4 pretty clear that Luke was a Gentile and not a Jew? Paul mentions several co-workers who “are the *only* fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are from the circumcision present with him” besides the Jewish colleagues he is sending back to the them (like Onesimus.) He then mentions Epaphrus, Luke, and Demas – which would logically make them not among the circumcision.

           Loading...

       30. That is a distinct possibility, and I can see how it could interpreted that way, but I don’t see it that cut and dry. Now this is complete speculation on my part, but perhaps Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus/Justus held different offices than Luke. The first three could have held positions of teachers or instructors, while Luke was Paul’s personal physician and historian. First and foremost we know that the spoken word was delivered to the Jews. Thus, first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

           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 (or word) of God.

           While this pertains mostly to the OT, we see the same pattern in the NT (including the gospels). God said he would use the Jewish people to reveal Himself to the world. If Luke was a Gentile, then a good portion of NT scripture (Luke and Acts) was written by a Gentile, which would be inconsistent with the rest of scripture.

           There is other scriptural evidence that support Luke being a Jew, but for the sake of time and space, I won’t go into that.

           Loading...

       31. Its widely acknowledged in biblical scholarship that Luke was a gentile physician.
           Quite probably a ships physician on one of of Paul’s voyages and the two of them eventually became loosely associated co-workers.

           Loading...

       32. “Its widely acknowledged in biblical scholarship that Luke was a gentile physician.”

           Just another reason to question it 😉

           Loading...

       33. BrD,

           Just out of curiosity, I did a little research. I’ve always felt that Luke was a Jew just based on Romans 3:2. Now the bible commentaries I do have all state that Luke was a Gentile, but we have to remember, these commentaries are just opinions and nothing more. Still, I didn’t know what others believed, so I thought I would go out there and see if anyone else thought along the same lines I do. Needless to say, there are arguments from both sides. However, I thought this was very interesting. Dr. Allen’s view seems to align with mine.

           http://www.bpnews.net/18466/luke-was-jewish-speaker-tells-messianic-fellowship

           Loading...

       34. Thanks Phillip
           And here is an article on the subject at the Zola Levitt ministries (which I’ve enjoyed for years).

           https://www.levitt.com/essays/luke

           Loading...

       35. Thanks for sharing, bro!

           His thoughts on Acts 21 is very interesting.

           In summary, if Luke is responsible for the books of Luke, Acts and, possibly, Hebrews, much of the NT was written by a Gentile.
           I just lean the Bible is Jewish in its entirety. Thus the Jews were entrusted with the word of God (Romans 3:2).

           God bless, BrD!!

           Loading...

       36. Well I can certainly say – from what I know – the track record for Jewish believers handling the scriptures – vs Gentile believers handling it – is like night and day – when it comes to preserving its integrity over time. You may know the Hebrew practices for making new copies of the scriptures was extremely meticulous – compared to the number of gentile believers who corrupted copies of the N.T. based on doctrinal agendas.

           So in regard to preserving scripture – the Jewish people win the prize. :-]

           Loading...

       37. Br.d sorry to jump into this conversation between you and Phillip.. I’d never heard this about Luke before probably, because I’ve not studied every aspect of the Bible. I did assume he was a Jew as well “a mouth piece for the nation’s” and I didn’t realize that many scholars claim he was a gentile interesting…… Both of these articles are extremely good and worth reading, thank you for sharing this site. I knew I needed to read more after I read this from McCall;

           “It may not seem important whether or not Luke was a Gentile, but when you think about the magnitude of his work, the issue becomes truly significant. By counting the pages written by Luke in both his Gospel and Acts, it is clear that Luke wrote more pages of the New Testament than any other writer, including Paul and John. If Luke was a Gentile, then the Lord entrusted more pages of New Testament revelation to a Gentile than to any other writer. This would be remarkable, to say the least.”

           This site reminds me of a ministry that I really have a heart for they are, Chosen People
           https://www.chosenpeople.com/site/

           pretty sure God has a sense of humor considering I use to cringe at the word chosen until I knew better… I would like to share a reading from ICR from today; Institute for Creation Research written by Henry M Morris IV

           June 26, 2019
           Created by Christ
           “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.” (Ephesians 3:9)

           In the context of this verse, Paul is testifying concerning his divine call to preach the gospel, especially proclaiming God’s great plan to the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

           In support of this revolutionary concept, Paul refers to the great fact of creation. All men, and indeed “all things,” had been created by one God. Furthermore, it was by the Lord Jesus Christ that God had created all things. Before the revelation of this mystery, the Gentiles had been “without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12). The phrase “without God” (Greek atheos, from which we get the word “atheist”) is used only this once in the New Testament, and it indicates plainly the barrenness of all pagan religions. “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ”
           (Ephesians 2:13).
           Thus, by Jesus Christ all things were created, and by Jesus Christ “all things” will be gathered “together in one” in the “dispensation of the fullness of times” (Ephesians1:10). This is all part of the same “mystery of his will,” according to the preceding verse,
           Ephesians 1:9. In the last chapter, Paul again refers to this now-revealed “mystery” when he urges the Ephesians to pray that he might be able to “make known the mystery of the gospel” (Ephesians6:19).
           Thus, the “gospel of your salvation” (Ephesians 1:13), which we like Paul are commanded to make known, is the glorious news that
           Jesus Christ is both Creator and Consummator of all things, and that by His work of salvation all who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, receive eternal salvation. “All things were created by him,” and He has shed His blood “to reconcile all things unto himself”
           (Colossians 1:16, 20). HMM

           Praise God for His Amazing gift!

           Loading...

       38. wonderful post Reggie!

           Thank you :-]

           Loading...

       39. Nice post Phillip – thanks.

           On this question: “Couldn’t God save Gentiles without cutting Israel off? Guess not.”
           I would say that Israel is no different (in terms of human nature) than anyone else – but they were called to be a light to the nations – and to be a nation of priests – and (being human) they took off their golden earrings (hearing ear) etc. God did not cut them off – they cut themselves off. God merely used that for the good – and fulfilled “light to the nations” in Christ Jesus in spite of them.

           Loading...

       40. Well actually, brother, a branch cannot cut itself off. God did cut them off, but only after they chose to worship other gods (1 Kings 12). And, as Paul reminds us, they were “cut off” so we could be grafted in. In other words, if God hadn’t cut them off, Gentiles couldn’t be grafted in. Yikes! It is only thru Israel’s punishment that salvation has come to the Gentile world.

           John 4:22 (NKJV)….
           You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews (not Jew, but Jews, plural).

           Not only did God reveal Himself thru Jewish authors, but salvation to all the nations is because of His covenant relationship with the people of Israel (the descendants of Jacob).

           Loading...

       41. Phillip
           Well actually, brother, a branch cannot cut itself off.

           br.d
           AH! I see what you mean – in that sense yes :-]

           And a big yes to: “salvation to all the nations is because of His covenant relationship with the people of Israel (the descendants of Jacob).

           Loading...

       42. Ephesians 1
           1 To the saints
           2 Grace to you
           3 God has blessed us…
           4 just as He chose us…
           5 having predestined us…
           6 …He has made us accepted…
           7 In Him we have redemption…
           8 which He made to abound toward us…
           9 having made known to us…
           11 In Him also we have obtained…
           12 that we who first trusted in Christ…
           13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard…having believed, you were sealed.

           Of this, JR says, “And actually his pronouns shift. The ‘us’ would be Jewish converts, or early converts, the “you” of verse 13 would be Gentile,” The pronouns do not shift in meaning. “…you///” refers to the “saints,” those to whom Paul writes. The “us” would be Paul plus the “you.”

           The “us” cannot be Jewish converts unless you can tease this out of v1-2. How do you think to do that?

           Loading...

       43. Hi Rhutchin,

           I agree the you is included in the us, but Paul does it in an interesting retroactive way as he starts with them separated. The how of the ‘you’ being included in the ‘us’ is because of their faith in verse 13. That is how the you becomes “in Him,” part of the faithful in Christ Jesus and thus gaining all the spiritual blessings from that.

           The audience of the letter is the faithful in Christ Jesus, the saints, but the author is Paul. Verse 13 doesn’t say “in Him you trusted…” but “in Him, you ALSO, having heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, having ALSO believed, you were sealed…” That is, Paul reveals you to be a category in addition to, or more properly along with “us.” The you is indeed included in the us, but only through their faith in Christ. It is through their faith that they became among those predestined to be holy, adopted, etc.

           I know the “us” can be a bit confusing since in English we would read that as something like “you and I together.” But the Greek word translated ‘us’ there is simply the plural of I (ego) https://biblehub.com/greek/1473.htm – it’s some plural group including Paul, but not *necessarily* the Ephesians. So Paul could be talking about just the Apostles (verse 1,) the nation of Israel, the early converts, or the early Jewish converts, other believers, etc. by the word “us/we” – any category of which he is a part of (Context and parallel scripture are needed to narrow down what category he is speaking of.)

           But it would be straining a bit to include the Ephesians as part of the “us/we” from the first, as there as they are not included in his epistle until the “you ALSO” mention, as Paul shows them specifically how they are included in Christ.

           But the main point of bringing up Eph 1 is not various views on the pronoun shifts, but that it is only those in Christ who are predestined to be made holy and chosen to be adopted as sons. No one is ‘predestined to believe.’ It just shows what God’s predestined plan is based on and some of the many spiritual blessings that those in Christ are predestined to receive.

           Loading...

       44. JR: “But it would be straining a bit to include the Ephesians as part of the “us/we” from the first, as there as they are not included in his epistle until the “you ALSO” mention, as Paul shows them specifically how they are included in Christ. ”

           Ephesians 1
           1 Paul,…To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus:
           2 Grace to you…
           3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us…
           4 just as He chose us… that we…

           Straining a gnat?? Who is the “us/we” in v3-4, and if not a reference to Paul and the saints in Ephesus?

           Then, “But the main point of bringing up Eph 1 is not various views on the pronoun shifts, but that it is only those in Christ who are predestined to be made holy and chosen to be adopted as sons.”

           I agree. In addition, Paul says that those predestined were those God chose. This is in line with Romans 8, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined…”

           Then, “No one is ‘predestined to believe.’ It just shows what God’s predestined plan is based on and some of the many spiritual blessings that those in Christ are predestined to receive.”

           God’s predestination of those to be conformed to Christ is based on His choosing of them. God foreknows because He chooses and it is these He predestined to be conformed to Christ.

           Loading...

       45. Jenai
           In your sequence, faith doesn’t seem to serve a judicial function at all. It meets the “not by works of the law” requirement, but doesn’t really show why righteousness has to be by faith. The person is already regenerated and can enter the kingdom of God (in your view) – why then would they even need to get faith or be justified if they already can enter the kingdom?

           br.d
           Another excellent question – especially for the SOT101 reader!

           Unfortunately for the Calvinist – he intuitively knows that he can’t PURELY embrace the TRUTH of his system.

           Theological determinism (aka Calvinism) tells him the only NECESSARY CONDITION for anything – is it being RENDERED-CERTAIN by Calvin’s god.

           In Calvinism – (speaking LOGICALLY) – what the creature is/does is not *THE* NECESSARY CONDITION for anything.
           In Calvinism – (speaking LOGICALLY) – faith is therefore SUPERFLUOUS to salvation.

           Additionally:
           In Calvinism – a person can only (and is only free to) be/do what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN that person be/do
           If Calvin’s god does not RENDER-CERTAIN a person exercise faith – then it is not LOGICALLY possible for a person to do so.

           In contrast to that – scripture puts an emphasis on people exercising faith in Jesus Christ as necessary for salvation *AS-IF* they are free do DO OTHERWISE than what the THEOS’ wills them to be or do.

           The Calvinist is caught between these two contradicting worlds.
           To PURELY embrace one means to lose the other.
           So he plays a continual back-and-forth tap-dance trying to have both.
           And thus he lives in Calvinism’s world of DOUBLE-THINK.

           Loading...

       46. JR: “He chose believers, before the foundation of the world, “to be Holy and blameless in His presence” – not to “become believers.””

           To be ‘Holy and blameless in His presence” one would be a believer, would he not?

           Then, “There is nothing in the grammar saying they were chosen before time to believe.”

           Only, “before the foundation of the world.” In Ephesians 3, Paul refers to 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: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs,” So, God had always planned to save gentiles. So, when Paul says, “God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,” he would mean something that “in other ages was not made known to the sons of men.”

           Then, “WHY do you think God makes faith necessary for justification…”

           Because that is what the Scripture says. I don’t recall that God explained why He set it up this way. Same issue with preaching the gospel. God hands out faith to whom He will but only does it through the preaching of the gospel by human agents. It’s just the system God set up.

           Then, “In your sequence, faith doesn’t seem to serve a judicial function at all.”

           Faith is the means by which a person grabs hold of God’s promises. It serves no judicial function as that was accomplished in Christ’s death.

           Then, “The person is already regenerated and can enter the kingdom of God (in your view) – why then would they even need to get faith or be justified if they already can enter the kingdom?”

           Regeneration changes a person who is “dead in sin” and without faith to a person who is able to receive faith by hearing the gospel. A person who is dead in sin cannot come to Christ per John 6. Apparently, faith has meaning to God since he incorporated faith into His plan to save His elect.

           Loading...

       47. rh writes:
           “Apparently, faith has meaning to God since he incorporated faith into His plan to save His elect.”

           Right. Something God hands out is ‘meaningful’ to him. ‘Look, you have the faith I gave to you. That means so much to me’. What kind of dope do you take God for?

           In reality, faith when properly defined, is meaningful to God. So much so that he counts it as righteousness. So much so that when he sees it in a man, he is pleased, and approves of him. It would simply be silly to be pleased that a man has what you irresistibly gave him, and approve him for being what you irresistibly made him. Surely these people see how foolish their assertions make God look?

           ‘It can’t be helped, it is what scripture teaches.’ Wrong, it is what some have falsely interpreted scripture to mean; but many have long seen through the error.

           Loading...

       48. On that thinking – It also follows:

           Apparently, SIN, EVIL, and TOTAL DEPRAVITY have meaning to Calvin’s god since he incorporated them into His plan to TORMENT the vast majority of his creatures – designed to be NON-elect.”

           Loading...

       49. TS00,

           You said…..”Right. Something God hands out is ‘meaningful’ to him. ‘Look, you have the faith I gave to you. That means so much to me’. What kind of dope do you take God for?”

           You are being waaaaaay too logical and biblical for RH.

           Just GET IN STEP with the systematic.

           It is meaningful to God and He is “pleased” by what He irresistibly hands out to 0.5% of humanity. He does NOT want a personal relationship, silly!

           Loading...

       50. “No one disagrees on that point. The only point at issue is what Paul meant when he used the term, “elect” and two viable positions exist.”

           I’m not entirely convinced by Phillip’s view, but it is a ‘viable’ position (possible/practical) given that it can still work in the context and has some scripture (Isa 45:5, Matt 24:22, etc.) that could back it up. I’ve already detailed my view on the elect being all believers that Paul hopes, along with himself, will hit upon salvation/eternal glory at the Resurrection, and the ample scriptures that have a similar train of thought such as in II Cor 1 and 4 and elsewhere.

           But the idea that the “elect” Paul is speaking of are people who are as yet unbelievers but God has pre-chosen them to someday be believers, and Paul is hoping somehow that his own afflictions will influence their becoming believers – that is not a viable interpretation as it does not fit the context and has no scriptures to back it up. (Eph 1 says nothing about people being elected to be in Christ, it only shows that God predestined that those in Christ would be made holy, adopted, receive other various spiritual blessings, etc. You need to find at least one scripture that states that people are chosen to get faith for it to be a good support verse. Philosophical claims resting on further philosophical claims that fallen people can’t respond in faith, so must be given faith, so God must pick some to get faith, so chosen must mean people pre-selected to get faith and be saved, etc. do not count.)

           Loading...

       51. BrD, Jenai (and others still reading along),

           First. Jenai. Thanks for being willing to knowledge that my position is “viable”. Honesty, I believe the reason you don’t find it convincing is because it is foreign to everything you have been taught, or led to believe. I bet this is the first time you have even seen, or even heard of, this position. That is why I say that my position can come across as a hard teaching.

           Now, All.

           I remember when I first started to study this concept of “the elect”. I found (major) issues with both the Calvinistic and Arminian concept. I asked God to show me His truth. Now I know we all do this, but I really believe I was led by the Spirit to this verse (2 Timothy 2:10). When I came to what I thought was a sound, biblical conclusion, with scriptural support, I emailed it to Leighton. This part I haven’t shared with others. Until now.

           I can’t find the old email, but I believe Leighton’s response was… “Interesting. I’ve always felt that the term ‘elect’ was just another way of saying ‘Israel’.”

           Now, after even further study, I am more convinced. I thought this will be another nail in the Calvinist coffin. Unfortunately, my view gave Arminianism a black eye as well. When I first posted my view on this very website, it wasn’t well received. But then my dear brother Brian (who, himself, is not completely on board) provided the following…..

           “2 Tim 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.”

           BINGO.

           Then, again, just recently Brian posted…

           “The context leans towards identifying the ‘elect’ as the same ones ‘on account of which’ he is willing to endure suffering, that they also (the ones causing the suffering) ‘may obtain’ salvation… but not certain they will.”

           BINGO again.

           Now BrD, doing his own due diligence (to his credit), provides excellent quotes from other brothers coming to the same logical conclusion.

           BNGO. BINGO. BINGO.

           Now, all of a sudden, the “obvious” understanding of this verse (2 Timothy 2:10) isn’t so “obvious”. A more viable, scriptural, position has been given. Now, what do we do with it?

           You know, we scratch our heads in amazement when we watch rhutchin “dig in” and refuse to let go of his cherished beliefs (in spite of all the scriptural evidence), but its fine and dandy when we do it.

           Loading...

       52. phillip writes, “You know, we scratch our heads in amazement when we watch rhutchin “dig in” and refuse to let go of his cherished beliefs…”

           That is because you have yet to explain what your understanding has to do with the surrounding context of Paul’s instruction to Timothy.

           Loading...

       53. rhutchin
           That is because you have yet to explain what your understanding has to do with the surrounding context of Paul’s instruction to Timothy.

           br.d
           Perhaps you have a Calvinistic assertion on the surrounding context of Paul’s instructions to Timothy that will make a difference? :-]
           If so just say so – instead of attempting to shift the goal-post.

           Loading...

       54. BrD wrote…. “At some point you will recognize – dialog with RH becomes tail-chasing. That’s just the nature of the beast.”

           Perfect example here.

           Loading...

       55. Phillip
           we scratch our heads in amazement when we watch rhutchin “dig in”

           br.d
           I used to scratch me head with amazement at RH – but then it sunk in that his whole goal is painting an air-brushed image of Calvinism.
           Now I turn lemons into lemonade – by finding in his posts excellent examples of Calvinist shell-games with words and Double-speak.
           On providing these – RH is a major blessing! :-]

           Loading...

       56. Ah, yes. And how sweet that lemonade is!

           Told you. He is a blessing! A whopper of a blessing!

           Loading...

       57. Why do you think it is the first time I have encountered that interpretation? The local church I attended when I was young took every reference of the elect to mean Israel/the Jews, and I’ve encountered it several times since. I’ve never seen my specific view on the verse in Timothy detailed in a book or sermon, though I am sure someone believes it somewhere. My current local church is 4-point Calvinist after the style of MacArthur (who was once a mentor to our recently retired pastor) so they take all references to the elect as meaning people pre-chosen to get regeneration, faith, salvation, etc.

           I’ve just found through studying for myself that while sometimes elect can refer to the nation of Israel, other times it can refer to all believers. Both are the ‘chosen people’ of God through the same promise to Abraham, so elect can describe either. Context generally clarifies which.

           I’m technically agnostic on the passage – which is why I framed the argument for my view as a strong possibility, not a definite. I lean towards believers being the most likely meaning based on seemingly parallel scriptures and the context, but I think your view is also possible. The only view presented here that I think can safely be excluded from consideration due to having no support from the text, context, or other scripture and actually makes no sense with the context is Rhutchin’s view that Paul means he suffers for the sake of people pre-chosen to be given faith and salvation.

           Loading...

       58. JR, this sums up my position as well. It certainly is not new or unique to have the view that ‘the elect’ always refers to so-called national Israel. (Of course, the biblical entity called ‘Israel’ is not the same as modern day geographical Israel, which was created by recent political maneuvering and bloodshed.) I could almost agree that ‘the elect’ is often synonymous with ‘Israel’, with the clarification given by Paul that ‘not all who are of Israel are Israel’, except for the fact, in my opinion, that Jesus was also referred to as ‘my elect’.

           Yes, it is confusing at times when scripture makes use of types, like Israel, Jerusalem, the elect, etc, but uses the exact same word. As you noted, this requires context to determine which meaning is intended, the spiritual people of God or a time-limited group which was essentially destroyed and scattered, the earthly Jerusalem or the New Jerusalem, and so on.

           Loading...

       59. Jenai,

           I want to apologize to you for how my language came across. I didn’t mean it that way, but (sadly) after posting it, I didn’t like the way it read. I should have been more careful.

           Also, I should have said the reason I believe you don’t find my position (quoting you) “entirely convincing”, which obviously implies you do find credence with it. Again, my apology.

           You said… “Context generally clarifies which.”

           Agreed. But, for many, the context of 2 Timothy 2:10 pointed to believers. It was the “obvious” interpretation. And at one time, my understanding as well. However, now, under greater scrutiny, that is not the case. Now, the context, grammar, and scriptural support points to the Jews. One down….

           Makes you wonder how many of those other usages of the phrase “the elect” that many take to mean “believers” would crumble if given the same scrutiny.

           Loading...

       60. Jenai,

           Just another thought regarding 2 Timothy 2:10.

           Only one person can be both elect and lost at the same time. Scripturally, that’s a Jew.

           Loading...

       61. JR: “You need to find at least one scripture that states that people are chosen to get faith for it to be a good support verse.”

           John 6:37 ““All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” The “giving” (present tense) precedes “will come” (future tense). So, we have an order: (1) God gives to Christ; followed by (2) those given will come.

           John 6:44, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;…”
           Now, the order: (1) God gives to Christ; followed by (2) God draws the one He gives to Christ followed by (3) those given will come. In the act of giving and drawing is the act of choosing as God chooses whom to give and whom to draw.

           Romans 8, “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;”

           So, we have this order: (1) God foreknows, (2) God predestines, (3) God calls. By equating “calls” to “draws” in John 6, we get this order:
           (1) God gives to Christ;
           (2) God foreknows those whom He gives to Christ
           (3) God predestines those whom He gives and foreknows.
           (4) God draws/calls those He gives to Christ
           (5) Those given, foreknown, predestined, drawn/called will come to Christ.

           Then, Ephesians 1, “According as God has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,”

           Here, we have the order: (1) God chose, (2) God predestined. This gives us the order:
           (1) God chose His elect
           (2) God gives His elect to Christ;
           (3) God foreknows His elect whom He gives to Christ
           (4) God predestines His elect whom He gives and foreknows.
           (5) God draws/calls His elect whom He gives to Christ
           (6) Those given, foreknown, predestined, drawn/called will come to Christ.

           In order to come to Christ a person (who has been chosen, given to Christ, predestined, and drawn/called by God) must have faith and this comes by hearing the gospel.

           Loading...

       62. While I appreciate your attempt to show a logical sequence, none of that is a ‘clear support verse.’ It’s ring-around-the-rosie again, bouncing back and forth to different out of context verses and reading presuppositions into them. Unfortunately because some of the presuppositions and reasoning are faulty, it leads to an incorrect sequence, which you then read into other verses and end up just making the problem worse.

           I’ll try to be brief, and just show you where the problems in reasoning and errant presuppositions are:

           Jn 6:37: Gives is a present active – it’s a state that is still happening, not a onetime event in the past. The first ‘Come” is indeed a future active, to come/be present/arrive. But what is Jesus saying, there? The Pharisees, who think themselves *already in the presence of God* aren’t really. It isn’t given by God for just anyone of ethnic Israel to come into the Kingdom, but only to those with faith.

           Consider Matt 8:10-12, where Jesus in response to the Gentile Centurion shows that it is those with faith, even the Gentiles, that God will allow to come into the Kingdom of Heaven, while the self-righteous Jews ‘already there’ will be thrown out [if they do not repent and believe.] “When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

           So the question of Jn 6:37 is “who does the Father give?” – and as it is answered in the chapter, it is the Father’s will that Christ raise up those who *believe.* He gives believers to Christ that they might enter and reside in the kingdom.

           It is also noteable that the “one having come” uses a word that means having transitioned from one place (such as unbelief, dead under the law) to another (such as delivered unto new life through baptism.) Come in the verse is not equivalent to “faith” as you seem to be treating it.

           “John 6:44, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;…”
           Now, the order: (1) God gives to Christ; followed by (2) God draws the one He gives to Christ followed by (3) those given will come. In the act of giving and drawing is the act of choosing as God chooses whom to give and whom to draw.”

           You are mixing up verse order for sequential order. Nothing in the passage puts “draw” AFTER “given.” Jesus is making similar points, but they are not all in literal sequence. No one can come unless drawn, yes, but ALL are drawn (Jn 12:32.) Only those who respond to that draw in faith are given by Christ by God and can come.
           By analogy, the King Invites (draws all) to the wedding feast. Some respond to the King, but they still can’t get into the Feast on their own. The King must *give* them wedding garments so they can be legitimate guests of his son the bridegroom. They then can *come* to the Feast. Those who put on the garments and come to the Feast are not “cast out” by the bridegroom.

           “Romans 8…So, we have this order: (1) God foreknows, (2) God predestines, (3) God calls. By equating “calls” to “draws” in John 6, we get this order…”

           Why would you automatically equate calls to draws? The Greek word for “Call” can mean invite/summon OR be named. https://biblehub.com/greek/2564.htm

           Sometimes it is even used in both ways within the same way, such as in Rom 1:1-6.

           Would you agree that Christians are ‘called’ the children of God? (I Jn 3:1) Would you agree that the only way to be ‘called’ a child of God is for God to first *give* that right, it’s not something humans can just will of themselves or claim of their own desire or power? (Jn 1:12)

           So we have to look at context to figure out what makes the most sense. And there it is! Rom 8:21-23 – the glorious freedom of the children of God, and that we eagerly await our adoption as sons. The audience, of course, is those in Christ.
           In Rom 8:28 we see a different word for called used as an adjective, which also can refer to someone merely invited or someone ‘appointed’ to a specific purpose, such as Paul called to be an apostle, Gentile believers ‘called’ to be part of God’s Holy People, etc. Christians are sometimes referenced as “the called” in this way (Jd 1:1, Rev 7:14, etc.)
           So “calling” in Rom 8 is best understood as being named as His children. That fits the audience and context and makes a logical sequence. There are huge parallels with Eph 1 and even Rom 6. The believer is first ‘called’ when God makes him/her part of His people, Jesus then acts as the believer’s high priest and the sacrifice of Jesus can be applied. Justification comes next because, as part of the people of God, the sacrifice of Jesus covers the believer’s sin and the believer is declared just/righteous by God the ultimate Judge. But that is the believer uniting in the death of Christ. Glorification is because God also raises the believer to new life by the power of the Spirit and grants the believer the indwelling Holy Spirit. They now have God’s glory living inside them, just as God’s glory used to descend on the Hebrew Tabernacle and used to reside in the Holy of Holies once the temples were built. We are now the temple of the Holy Spirit.
           In Eph 1, it is “Us in Him” God chose to be made holy, etc. Predestined simply means ‘pre-bounded,’ like God setting the boundaries of the sea. All discussed extensively elsewhere in this long comment discussion. God set the rules “before creation,” hence the “pre” part of predestination. But He didn’t have to predestine who would actually believe. He’s just planning ahead what criteria there will be for being included in Christ so as to be adopted, made holy, forgiven, redeemed, etc. And that criteria is belief (Eph 1:13.)

           Loading...

       63. Wow Jenai!

           You and Heather have been great recent additions to our discussion (albeit on different articles).

           You cannot imagine how many times I quoted this verse you quoted…
           “When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.”

           I reference the Jesus marveling verses (marveling at faith and at the lack of faith).

           No answer from Calvinists.

           Just same old ring-around-the-rhutchin.

           John 6:44 the Calvinist cure all…. but of course we answer that one (Brian 4-5 times) over and over…. and of course we agree that no one can come unless the Father draws….. so there are no teeth in that argument anyway!

           Of course He draws….and Christ even says He is drawing all men…

           “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32) .

           A. No answer from them on the many Christ being amazed verses.
           B. The only pseudo-answer is a never-ending reference to John 6:44 which has no teeth anyway!

           Loading...

       64. FOH
           Jenai – you and Heather have been great recent additions to our discussion (albeit on different articles).

           br.d
           I second that!!! Wonderful! :-]

           Loading...

       65. JR writes (quoting Jesus):
           “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

           Doesn’t quite sound like ‘all (national) Israel’ will be saved, as some insist. Yet, Paul tells us, all (spiritual) Israel will be saved, because not all who are of (national) Israel are (spiritual) Israel. It never was all about the Jews, nor will it ever be. God’s grace and kingdom have always been intended for those who put their trust in him, whatever their bloodline. Did God make a point to give national Israel more than a reasonable chance? Indeed. Yet many stubbornly reject him and ‘will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’.

           Loading...

       66. JR: “While I appreciate your attempt to show a logical sequence,…”

           I did not “attempt” to show the sequence; I showed the sequence–
           This gives us the order:
           (1) God chose His elect
           (2) God gives His elect to Christ;
           (3) God foreknows His elect whom He gives to Christ
           (4) God predestines His elect whom He gives and foreknows.
           (5) God draws/calls His elect whom He gives to Christ
           (6) Those given, foreknown, predestined, drawn/called will come to Christ.

           So, you make a bold claim, ” It’s ring-around-the-rosie again, bouncing back and forth to different out of context verses and reading presuppositions into them.” How about backing that statement up and tell us what event is out of order (or out of context) and why?

           Then, “Jn 6:37: …It isn’t given by God for just anyone of ethnic Israel to come into the Kingdom, but only to those with faith.”

           In context we have;
           36 “But I said to you [the Jews] that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.
           37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
           38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
           39 “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.”

           It could be that Jesus meant, “All of you (ethnic Israel),” or later, “…all of you (ethnic Israel) He has given me…” but that is an extrapolation on your part that is unwarranted. If God is giving Jews to Jesus, then certainly God is giving gentiles to Jesus also. The language Jesus uses is not restrictive as you make it yo be.

           But. let’s accept your presupposition to be true. The key point you make is that it is “only to those with faith” that the kingdom is given. While this is a true statement, you have superimposed your philosophy on the verse. Jesus speaks of God giving people to Him and you change that to God giving the kingdom to ethnic Israel. Look at the previous verse, “you have seen Me and yet do not believe.” It is this that Jesus takes off on in saying, “All that the Father gives Me will come to (believe in) Me, and the one who comes to (or believe in) Me…” You have avoided the real issue presented in this verse: it is God who gives people (or Jews) to Jesus and those given will come to (or believe in) Jesus.

           Then, you say, “So the question of Jn 6:37 is “who does the Father give?” – and as it is answered in the chapter, it is the Father’s will that Christ raise up those who *believe.* He gives believers to Christ that they might enter and reside in the kingdom.” You read the verse, “All that believe in Jesus, God will give to Jesus and they will come to Jesus.” However, that is not what the verse says. Jesus is explaining why the Jews do not believe in Him. The reason: God has not given them to Him.

           Then you say, “Come in the verse is not equivalent to “faith” as you seem to be treating it.” To come to Jesus is defined in v40, “everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life;” To come to Jesus is to see Him and believe in Him. Note what started the discussion by Jesus, “you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.” To come to Jesus obviously requires faith (noun) so that one might believe (verb).

           Then, “‘John 6:44,’ “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;…”…You are mixing up verse order for sequential order. Nothing in the passage puts “draw” AFTER “given.” Jesus is making similar points, but they are not all in literal sequence.”

           Here, you introduce your philosophy again, “ALL are drawn (Jn 12:32.) Only those who respond to that draw in faith are given by Christ by God and can come.” John 12 refers to Christ drawing people to him; John 6 refers to God drawing people to Him. John 6 says nothing about a person responding although the implication is that all respond because Jesus says, “I will raise him up at the last day.,” “him” referring to the one drawn by God who was not able to come to Jesus. When you say, “Only those who respond to that draw in faith are given by Christ” you are expressing your philosophy; it is not Biblical exegesis. At least, not until you can provide a sound argument for that position to be incorporated into John 6:44.

           Loading...

       67. JR: “Romans 8…Why would you automatically equate calls to draws? ”

           It seemed to me that they could be the same. I am flexible. We could have God calls first and then draws or draws and calls. Seems like both of God’s actions occur close together in time.

           Then, “So “calling” in Rom 8 is best understood as being named as His children.”

           Sounds good to me., God knew them, predestined them to be His children and then called them. This fits John 6 where God gives Hos children to Christ and they come to Him.

           Then, “[In reference to Ephesians 1] But He didn’t have to predestine who would actually believe. He’s just planning ahead what criteria there will be for being included in Christ ”

           God predestined to adoption as sons those whom He chose. Tying this to Romans 8, God choosing of people to adoption would explain how He foreknew them.

           Loading...

       68. JR: “(I’ll have to save John 6 for another time.)”

           Looking forward to that. John 6 provides Scripture in support of TULIP.
           T: “No one can come to Me…” (v44;65)
           U: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” (v37)
           L: “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing,..” (v39)
           I: “…everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” (v45)
           P: “the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” (v37,40; 44)

           Looking forward to your analysis of these and others.

           Loading...

       69. Roger, you think – “John 6 provides Scriptures in support of TULIP” – Really? See my response in brackets after each point.

           T: “No one can come to Me…” (v44;65)
           [It is true that God must take the initiative. Praise His Name that He has with everyone sufficiently, John 1:9, Rom 11:32]

           U: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” (v37)
           [The present tense giving is still going on, by the Father to the Son, of each who freely trusts in God’s mercy through Christ. This verse clearly contradicts a past tense giving before the foundation of the world.]

           L: “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing,..” (v39)
           [There is nothing in this verse about any limitation to the universal, sufficient atonement that Christ provided. 1John 2:2 clearly teaches it is universal in value and intent. But this example by you Roger is a good one to illustrate how Calvinists see what is not there in the text in their failing attempt to prove their theology.]

           I: “…everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” (v45)
           [There is nothing in this verse that confirms a limitation by God to make hearing and learning irresistible to a few. Again, theology is being read into the text. But the verse does say the Father teaches all, and only those who hear with acceptance, having learned, are coming to Christ.]

           P: “the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” (v37,40; 44)
           [It is true that those who are in Christ by grace through faith, after they come to Him, will never be cast out.]

           Loading...

       70. Thank you, Brian, for a clear and succinct illustration of how verses that Calvinists use as prooftexts can so easily be interpreted otherwise. It is not a stretch, nor does it involve ‘ignoring scripture’. Rather, it is ignoring the faulty claims of one particular interpretation of scripture that come from an undying devotion to a set of presuppositions.

           Loading...

       71. brianwagner writes, “you think – “John 6 provides Scriptures in support of TULIP”

           Well, at least you agree on the T and P.

           On U, the future tense, “will come” is the issue. Election by God, “All that God gives,” precedes a response by man, “will come.” To “come” is to “believe,” Election says that God chooses whom to give to Christ and that person afterward comes to believe in Christ.

           On L, we see that Christ will not lose those given to Him by God. Assuming that Universalism is not the rule, God limits the number of people He gives to Christ and Christ will not lose that limited number of people. Consequently, Christ’s death had the purpose of ensuring only those given to Him by God. The atonement was unlimited in value; it was limited in purpose or intent.

           On I, teaching by God is an irresistible action by God. When God teaches, people end up taught. We see an example of this in Luke 24, where “He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.” We see an earlier effect with the two on the road to Emmaus, ““Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” Such is how God’s teaching affects people, irresistibly so.

           Loading...

       72. rhutchin
           Looking forward to that. John 6 provides Scripture in support of TULIP.

           br.d
           Its much more accurate to say certain verses CAN BE INTERPRETED so as to AFFIRM the TULIP.

           But we always must remember that the weakness of Calvinist interpretation is how it becomes self-contradicting and irrational.

           That’s why the Calvinist tradition of interpretation represents a minority tradition
           But that doesn’t make it any worse than the JW’s tradition of interpretation. :-]

           Loading...

       73. Yes, to this wonderful comment! I experience this frequently, when a verse or a passage that I have read countless times suddenly becomes clear in a way it was not before. I have shared on these threads that I was raised in a perfectionist denomination, and struggled with assurance of my salvation as a young person. Romans 8 had long been one of my favorite chapters in scripture, but one day, visiting a church with a college friend, I saw Romans 8:31-32 on a poster in a stairwell:

           “What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?”

           Something about seeing these verses on a poster on a stark white wall (at a time when I was struggling for the first of several times in my life with Calvinism) made me see them in a new light. When I got back to school, I pulled out my bible and reread Romans 8, and found that my eyes were open to their meaning in a way they had not been before.

           I count that as the marvelous day when I knew, without a doubt, with a certainty that has never left me in 30+ years, that God loved me and would go to extreme measures to help me acquire the knowledge, understanding, maturity, wisdom and all that I would need to make it through life as his child, becoming remade in the image of his Son. Even though I had been a christian for as long as I could remember, this was the day that my eyes were open to the true meaning of assurance of my salvation.

           Loading...

       74. TS00,
           Truly “God opened your eyes” that day.

           Just as He “opens people’s hearts” and “opens people’s eyes.”

           But for Calvinists to build a doctrine (that God purposely —for His glory— intends and wishes for 98.5% of humanity suffer in Hell to demonstrate His wrath) out of this simple passage where God speaks to Lydia in a special way….. is nearly shameful.

           Loading...

       75. Sir, it is more than shameful. As per the Romans 8 I referenced in my earlier comment, what has God not done, or what will he not do to open our eyes, draw us to him, and lead us upon paths to wisdom, maturity and Christlikeness? It breaks my heart to think that people are hearing such evil, spirit-killing doctrines, when the truth is that God loves all men with immeasurable depth, and has gone to unthinkable lengths to reveal it to them. Then, to hear from ‘men of God’ that God actually does not love most men, but intentionally made them for suffering and destruction. Shameful does not even begin to cover it.

           Loading...

       76. FOH writes, “Total Depravity is wrong. ”

           Total Depravity does not mean Utter Depravity.

           Loading...

       77. rhutchin
           Total Depravity does not mean Utter Depravity.

           br.d
           Especially when its referencing that LARGE MIXTURE of Totally Depraved god hating Calvinists – John Calvin’s says exists within the Calvinist fold.

           Beloved believe not every spirit – for Totally Depraved god hating Calvinists are out there in LARGE MIXTURE – assuming every imagination and irrational speculation – authorized GNOSIS. :-]

           Loading...

       78. FOH
           There is just no way to make a God-hater out of her, who is instantly “force-regenerated” and saved that day. That must be read into the text.

           I find it hilarious that Calvinists have to invent so many irrational speculations in order to make the sacred science APPEAR to align with scripture.

           And on the business of Total Depravity – God haters etc – especially with Calvinists themselves. Since John Calvin asserts there is a -quote “LARGE MIXTURE” of Calvinists who – quote “Have nothing of Christ but the name and outer appearance” – then it LOGICALLY follows – there’s an awful lot of Calvinists running around defending Calvinism – who are in fact Totally Depraved God haters.

           Gota love all those Totally Depraved god hating Calvinists! :-]

           Loading...

       79. All who are true ‘worshipers of God’ are ‘the elect’ – any gender, any race, any religious tradition, any time period – and will ‘have their eyes opened’ if they are yet in ignorance. This is far different, in my view, from how the Calvinist would mean these exact words. In the more correct sense, God foreknows all things and all men’s hearts, and will assist all who have a desire for truth to be led into ever greater knowledge, wisdom and saving faith.

           Calvinism requires such people as Corneleus and Lydia to have been specially, unilaterally chosen by God, (while others were rejected), in eternity past, and granted unsought regeneration and faith in order to then be able to ‘believe’ as they were irresistibly destined to do.

           I assert, as I believe scripture teaches, that God foreknows all who will ever believe, and will provide for them the proclamation of the gospel, and all other helps needed to assist them in their desire to know and please God. These are the pure in heart, who shall see God, such as David was claimed to be. We all know that this did not imply that he was a perfect man, never breaking the law, but that his heart was ultimately desirous of doing well, and repentant when confronted with his own sin.

           This is how I see my own experience with God. I experienced his ‘drawing’ as I believe all men do, from early on. I could have resisted, and openly rejected all that God has made clear (Romans 1) or I could put my trust in that which was clearly true. That does not imply that I could have saved myself, or that I was any more worthy than anyone who rejects God’s revelation. All alike are under sin and in need of a Saviour. All alike must make an individual decision to believe or reject what God makes known to them, in whatever manner and measure he sees is suitable.

           “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. 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. Claiming to be wise, they became fools” Rom 1: 19-22

           God, knowing that Corneleus and Lydia had a desire to worship him, gave them the knowledge and insight they were missing to enable them to do so with more knowledge and understanding. As he will for every man woman and child whose hearts desire that which is good and true, in whatever state of ignorance or sin they currently exist.

           This is the good news, and the blessed hope of the gospel.

           Loading...

       80. TS00 writes, “All who are true ‘worshipers of God’ are ‘the elect’ …”

           The key term here, “true” without which the statement would be nonsense. Good Calvinist addition.

           Then, “Calvinism requires such people as Corneleus and Lydia to have been specially, unilaterally chosen by God,”

           True, in accord with Paul’s letter to the Philippians, “God has begun a good work in you…”

           Loading...

       81. phillip writes, “Sergio Paulus sought/desired to hear the word of God? Must have been regenerated. NOT.”

           It is not unheard of for people to want to hear the word of God for selfish reasons. However, we seem to agree that Sergio Paulus was not regenerated – selfish maybe.

           Loading...

       82. Acts 13:6-7 (KJV)….
           And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: 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.

           Acts 13:6-7 (Calvinist Translation)
           And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a SELFISH man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.

           If your theology allows you to omit the words of God, why not just change them too.

           Loading...

       83. Phillip,
           Perfect.

           Yes….. Total Depravity problem!!!

           This man was a God-hater? Nope.

           Was he “seeking and asking”? Yes.

           Sergius Paulus, a PRUDENT man, desired to hear the word of God.

           So….. he MUST have been “regenerated” (Calvinly speaking), right. So…. huge gap in time from “wanted to hear the word of God” to any presentation of it.

           Wait for some Scripture-twisting, side-wrangling, illogical answer explaining how this “God-hater” could ask to hear the word of God.

           Wait for some Scripture-twisting, side-wrangling, illogical answer explaining how this “God-hater” was “a prudent man”.

           Loading...

       84. Changed a word here (Acts 13:7), omit a word there (2 Timothy 2:10). What’s the BIG deal, right? No problem for the grace enabled Calvinist.

           Loading...

       85. Phillip:

           Here is what Piper says about the Sergius Paulus passage in Acts 13.

           https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-straight-paths-of-the-lord

           Remember everyone….go to Piper’s Arminian site any time to get good information against Calvinism!

           “In Paphos Sergius Paulus the governor (or proconsul) tries to hear the Word of God.”

           “A pagan who wants to hear the Word of God.”

           “But just as the word is about to be spoken to Sergius Paulus, Bar-Jesus who was called Elymas, the magician (or spiritist or witch doctor or shaman) in his court, gets in the way.”

           “God took the very effort of Elymas to make crooked the path of God and hinder the faith of Sergius Paulus, and he not only overcame it, he took it in his hand, laid it in the path and made Sergius Paulus step on it, and used it to bring the governor to faith. ”
           —
           This is truly stunning!!!

           This guys literally gets to say whatever he wants. I cannot believe that Calvinists and RH are not calling Piper out for his Arminian position!

           There is no way you can fit Total Depravity with the above comments. “A pagan who wants to hear the Word of God.” He is a pagan and “too-dead”. He cannot WANT any such thing! He must be regenerated to “want” that. And….if Sproul is correct…his regeneration has to be immediately before his forced-faith. (which is obviously not the case).

           But wait there’s more (and TS00 is gonna love this). Piper goes on and threateningly asks for money!

           “What all this says for us at Bethlehem just now is at least two things. One is that God is a searching and saving God; that he is a God on a mission ………… And he calls us to join him. We will meet Wednesday to talk budget and mission for next year….If we don’t join him, he will leave us behind.”

           Listen up everyone! The choice is yours….. Join God’s plan or He is gonna leave you behind!

           Loading...

       86. FOH,

           The examples are many.

           John 8:1-9 (NKJV)….
           But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 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.

           “Those who heard it”? Their DEAD. Dead men can’t “hear”. And what’s this “convicted by their own conscience” junk? Dead men don’t have a “conscience”. Their DEAD.

           I can’t understand why these “spiritually dead like a corpse”, “incapable of understanding any spiritual truth” Jews didn’t go ahead and stone her. Instead, we see they “went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last”. What difference does “age” make to a corpse?

           O, Calvinism! O, Calvinism! Please enlighten me! Omit these words! Strike out these texts!

           Loading...

       87. Phillip,
           Good. Just keep rolling those out for readers to see.

           Sounds like the Prodigal son. Christ calls him “dead” two times and yet still says he “came to his sense.”

           Kinda puts a huge ding in the whole “dead means incapable” idea.

           Loading...

       88. Okay, FOH, you are giving me PTSD flashbacks to my former Calvi-church. These were the kinds of things my Calvi-pastor would say, and I would be literally biting my tongue and holding myself down to keep from jumping up in the middle of the sermon and say, ‘You can’t say that! That is so contradictory to everything you claim to believe, you simply cannot stand there with a straight face and say that!’ I mean, if I had had my wits about me, I’m sure I could have sent a copy of the messages and lodged a complaint with the greater session for his anti-Calvinist teaching.

           He got away with it because the people in the pews were, every single one of them, from a non-Calvinist background. So everything he said was in line with what they believed – but they did not know enough about Calvinism to know that what he was accurately, scripturally teaching was absolutely antithetical to his theology! I would be so livid, I thought for sure I would have a heart attack if I kept trying to keep silent through such blatant – what do you call it – inaccuracy, error, deception, foolishness? All I know is that the man preached, again and again, things that a consistent Calvinist could not honestly claim to believe – and I knew that he knew enough to know better. Just like Piper. What do you do with that?

           Loading...

       89. TS00,
           I truly am sorry about your horrid church experience….when a Calvinist comes in by stealth.

           I think both of us would take joy if we heard someone, say, RH calling out Piper for saying the things I quoted him saying about Sergius Paulus. It would show some integrity (not the “our guys are right no matter what they say” idea).

           Again, Piper (my emphasis added):

           “In Paphos Sergius Paulus the governor (or proconsul) TRIES to hear the Word of God.”

           “A pagan who WANTS to hear the Word of God.”

           “But just as the word is about to be spoken to Sergius Paulus, Bar-Jesus who was called Elymas, the magician (or spiritist or witch doctor or shaman) in his court, gets in the way.”

           “God took the very effort of Elymas to make crooked the path of God and hinder the FAITH of Sergius Paulus, and he not only overcame it, he took it in his hand, laid it in the path and made Sergius Paulus step on it, and used it to BRING the governor to faith. ”

           “If we don’t join him, he will leave us behind.”

           Loading...

       90. I think for the most part – Calvinists have a soldier-to-soldier agreement that they will not disagree with each other in public. They may disagree with each other behind closed doors on a bunch of things – but doing so in public is considered bad policy as it weakens the front line soldier’s position. So even if rhutchin did disagree with Piper on a major issue – he would probably evade saying so.

           Loading...

       91. phillip writes, “Acts 13:6-7 (Calvinist Translation)
           ….Sergius Paulus, a SELFISH man; …”

           You have been pretty fair up to this point, so why do you now change tactics? You know that the Calvinist agrees that Paulus is “prudent” which need only mean that he is intelligent and a good politician. In addition, he can be selfish – being selfish not detracting from his prudence.

           Loading...

       92. And then there’s this.

           Rhutchin writes… “we seem to agree that Sergio Paulus was not regenerated.”

           Acts 13:12 (NKJV)….
           Then the proconsul (Sergio Paulus) believed, when he saw what had been done, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord.

           Oops.

           Loading...

       93. phillip writes, “Acts 13:12 (NKJV)….
           Then the proconsul (Sergio Paulus) believed, when he saw what had been done, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord.”

           Preceding this, “Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at [Elymas the sorcerer] and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? “And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.” And immediately a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand.”

           So, “believed” what? However, if belief unto salvation, we know, “Paul planted…but God gave the increase.” So, the glory belongs to God and not to Sergio Paulus. That is fine with me.

           Loading...

       94. TS00
           Almost weekly I come across another former Calvinist, who has been burned by the authoritarian, spiritually abusive institutions that make up much of the Reformed world, and who has come to see how inconsistent and illogical the theology truly is. Most of these individuals want nothing to do with church anymore.

           br.d
           Looks like there is a serious need for “Calvinism Autonomous”

           Author Diane Benscoter in her book “Shoes of a servant – my unconditional devotion to a lie”
           In her book she looks back at her life in the Moonies and concludes that while in that group – her mind settled into a state of circular reasoning.

           Circular reasoning was a kind of defense mechanism that allowed group teachers to craft ten-thousand explanations. Those explanations allow the believer to embrace the group’s doctrines of election – while allowing group members to percieve themselves as ethical, rational and even biblical if need be.

           Loading...

       95. FOH writes, “1. RH insists that Cornelius is regenerated, but then says “Cornelius’ salvation had to await the resurrection of Christ. His prayer gives evidence of his regeneration.” The story is in Acts 10— so I do not know how much more resurrected RH wants Christ to be!!!”

           Cornelius is described as, “…a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.” That relationship appears to have begun prior to the death of Christ and was initiated by God – “…God has begun a good work in you…” by an act of regeneration – “God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ…” Thus, when Cornelius was dead in sin, it was God who made him alive and in that new condition, Cornelius’s life was changed. However, if FOH wants all this to happen after the resurrection of Christ, that is fine with me.

           Loading...

       96. FOH
           rhutchin insists that Cornelius is regenerated, but then says “Cornelius’ salvation had to await the resurrection of Christ.

           rhutchin
           if FOH wants all this to happen after the resurrection of Christ, that is fine with me.

           br.d
           FOH points out some stuff a Calvinist makes up – and the Calvinist says that made up stuff was from FOH.

           This is an example of Calvinist thinking.
           If one can call it that! :-]

           Loading...

    2. FOH writes, “1. Is he regenerated? If so…. it’s a long time before he gets saved (ordo salutis not Calvinistic; Sproul says it is right away).”

       Cornelius’ salvation had to await the resurrection of Christ. His prayer gives evidence of his regeneration.

       Then, “2. Is he non-regenerated? If so… how can he do ANYTHING good? ”

       yes. That option is excluded.

       Then, “The Bible says his prayers are heard by God. In any case, he is not saved yet…. so this is a no-no for Calvinism. Why is God hearing the prayer of a God-hater? Calvinist insist that all men are God-haters until they are regenerated. ”

       Thus, an argument for Cornelius being regenerated.

       Then, “4. His gifts to the poor are “noticed by God”? Not ordained/ decreed by God…. just noticed? ”

       God is always observing that which He has ordained. Perhaps. “noticed,” is not the best translation.

       Loading...

       Reply

    3. Its like we somehow just keep on expecting Calvinists not to be IRRATIONAL
       And they just keep on showing us how IRRATIONAL that expectation is! :-]

       Loading...

       Reply

35. There’s not a single one of Leighton Flowers’ points here about how God initiates salvation that Pelagius wouldn’t 100% agree with. His definition of initiate and the Calvinist/Arminian definition of initiate are completely different. Calvinists/Arminius believe that the initiating work of God is to open blind eyes so that they can then see the light of the Gospel. Blind eyes can’t see, no matter how many other acts of initiating God undertakes.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Welcome Greg! The idea that God can effectively communicate to every person to enable them to seek His mercy is clearly taught in Scripture. That Calvinists love to hide their theology behind Scripture illustration instead of teaching passages (like “open blind eyes”) should alert one to the weakness of the Scriptural proof for their premises.

       Light then Faith then Life!

       Jhn 1:9, 12 NKJV – 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world…. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
       Jhn 12:36 NKJV – “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.”
       Jhn 20:31 NKJV – but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
       Gal 3:26 NKJV – For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
       1Pe 1:23, 25 NKJV – having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, … Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.

       Reformed theology posits a fake “regeneration” that makes no-one immediately a child of God, nor does it immediately give everlasting life! What kind of birth does not make one a child or give life? Very silly… besides being a clear rejection and twisting of clear Scripture teaching.

       For the Calvinist regeneration is kinda like a drug that had been before willfully refused by the woman that a man offered it to, along with his proposal of marriage to her… but then he slips it into her drink without her knowing and she immediately accepts his next proposal of marriage.

       Now does that sound like true love? And how can you call a drugged woman’s “yes” her “personal responsibility” even though she was unable to do other because of a change the “drug” made in her? When it was given to her, she was still firmly rejecting the one making the proposal who was slipping her the drug without her understanding.

       I see no personal willing acceptance of that woman… nor do I see love in the one who caused the change in her instantly upon her using that drug.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. The clever Calvinist will say that ‘the elect’ are regenerated so that they may now ‘freely choose’ to believe in God. Of course (wink, wink) this ‘choice’ is actually unavoidable, as they were irresistibly ordained to make it long, long ago. No one whom God has chosen and opened the eyes of can possibly reject the salvation that has been irresistibly ordained for them. (Which is why Rhutchin likes to do the bit about no one with any real sense rejecting God.) All of these clever lines, in an attempt to disguise the truth about their theology – Calvi-god is controlling everything and men are mere puppets who dance as bidden at the end of his nearly invisible strings.

          Loading...

       2. Brian. You’re missing my point. You said Calvinists are ‘LIght, Faith, Life’. Not exactly, it’s more like SIGHT-light-faith-life (simultaneous graces). Arminian would be something like SIGHT, light enough to believe or not, life maybe. My point is that you all differentiate yourselves from most evangelicals by leaving out the need for SIGHT (supernaturally given) which both Calvinists and Arminians believe. If you reject this need for SIGHT then you can’t help but be on some sort of Pelagian ground. That’s what I’m saying. All the light that Flowers describes in this post assume that a person can SEE the light. That’s what Pelagius believed.

          Loading...

       3. Actually we all have sight… we just need to be presented with truth. God draws us to those opportunities of truth (light) and we freely respond in acceptance or rejection.

          The “kingdom of God” is not a term that means “salvation”… it is only one of the future gifts accompanying salvation. And yes, we will not see that gift unless we become one of God’s children by the new birth through faith in the light we and everyone else are given to see in God’s Son.

          Loading...

       4. brianwagner writes, “God draws us to those opportunities of truth (light) and we freely respond in acceptance or rejection. ”

          Without faith, it is always rejection. With faith, it is always acceptance. As you say, “…unless we become one of God’s children… through faith in the light we and everyone else are given to see in God’s Son.”

          Loading...

       5. Three gifts of faith from God.

          The ability to believe is a gift of God at birth to all. The information, at least sufficient light, or revelation to enable seeking His mercy, which He paid for in Christ, is given as the faith to trust in to each person a few times in their life.

          That enlightenment (the revelation faith) and opportunity to believe it (to exercise their ability faith) is given by God to each. If they do, the change in the new birth to continually believe (permanent faith) is given to each who exercise their God-given ability to believe (ability faith) in the God-given information (revelation faith) when the opportunity is there.

          But God doesn’t do the believing for us.

          *******

          Yep… believing the Scriptures according to normal rules of grammar and context does oppose Calvinism. The noun faith with the definite article “the” normally refers to the enlightenment “faith” that God must give .

          The verb “believe” is the ability faith, and the parable of the sower proves unregenerate people can exercise faith in a positive way.

          The verb “believe” in Greek, in the present tense, continuous action, stands for those born into God’s family whose faith expressed before that is now changed to be everlasting. Praise His Name!

          Loading...

    2. Greg,
       What are you talking about Pelagius for? What does that have to do with Scripture?

       Jesus said …

       “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

       He didn’t say “the too-dead” . He said the sick people (who realize they need a doctor—not pretend to be healthy). That’s not being too-dead.

       Way too much mileage out of the “dead men dont make choices” idea.

       Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

       Calvinist says: God gives the faith— and then He is please at people for having it.

       What? That idea just mocks so many verses and makes them meaningless.

       God says people can and should come to Him.

       God says people can and should believe that He exists.

       God says He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

       Impose TULIP on that verse….. meaningless. God rewards those He gave faith to who He irresistibly made come to Him.

       Loading...

       Reply

    3. Hi Greg,

       Thanks for commenting. The above essay was actually written by me, Dr. Flowers allowed me to post it as a guest blogger. I’d like to address three major problems with your comment:

       #1 Pelagian would not agree with all these points.

       Pelagius, at least to the extent we know of his beliefs as systematized by his disciple Caelestius, believed that only Adam was injured at the fall vs. the whole human race suffering the corruption of sin. He believed infants and even some men were utterly sinless. In very clear difference to the above essay (especially the parts on baptism,) Pelagius did not believe that fallen an died in Adam or that God could make them ‘rise again’ by the ressurection of Christ. Pelagius also believed the law introduced (initiated, in some sense) men to the kingdom of heaven *in the same way* as the gospel message does. So there are more than a few major points in this post on God initiating salvation which Pelagius would have disagreed with!

       #2 No matter how many points Pelagius would agree or disagree with, it’s a logical fallacy to claim that because a heretic would agree with some or all points that someone makes that their agreement, of itself, would make the points heretical or the person making the points heretical. Even Satan believes that Jesus is the anointed Messiah – does that make everyone who believes Jesus is the Messiah in league with Satan? Of course not! What makes someone anti-Christ is not believing Jesus is the Messiah, not that Satan might share some of their beliefs such as God existing or Jesus coming in the flesh.

       #3 Of course Dr. Flowers and the Arminian view of initiation and the Calvinist position of initiation are different. That’s what sparked the original debate on Prevenient Grace between Dr. Flowers and Dr. Roger Olson, and sparked my response to a specific comment that Dr. Roger Olson made. Disagreeing with someone else’s views doesn’t make one automatically wrong – every view must be tested for itself.

       Classic Arminians and Calvinists both start with the underlying view of Total Depravity, or Total Inability, holding that fallen man *cannot* respond in faith despite all the graces of God and the sufficient work of Christ on the cross. Accordingly, both must ‘solve’ why it is some men come to faith at all. For the classic Arminian, the solution is prevenient grace: All men, upon hearing the gospel, are worked upon by the Spirit in some supernatural way so that they are enabled to respond in faith, albeit this is resistible. For the Calvinist it varies slightly, but generally takes the form of God pre-selecting individuals to regenerate, or partially regenerate, or to just give faith, so they irresistibly and necessarily believe in Christ.

       Many non-Calvinists reject Total Inability, believing it to be a philosophical theory and not a scriptural doctrine. Accordingly, there is no problem of man’s inability to “solve.” God can graciously choose to make faith the condition by which He promises to grant salvation and graciously give many graces to draw man to Him (Christ’s ministry, Christ’s death and Resurrection, the gospel, miracles, evidence of nature, fulfilled prophecy, conviction of the spirit, etc.) without needing to supernaturally regenerate the fallen human so the human can respond to the gospel in faith. If God graciously chose a condition which fallen man could meet, as it was not based on the meritorious work of man but in the work of Christ, and graciously chose to reveal that condition to man, and graciously chose to grant salvation based on that condition (the condition not saving of itself) that would not somehow “undermine” God as the initiator of salvation and make man the initiator. As I detailed in my essay, man becomes an “initiate” of the New covenant by responding in faith to God’s initiating of salvation by Christ and the gospel. And then God initiates the actual, effectual granting of salvation to that initiate via baptism, regenerating the believer from death to life as detailed in Rom 6 and other passages.

       As to the blind eyes comment, I will have to save it for later. (I’m a mother of three littles, a baby and two toddlers, so am in and out of the comment section as I get time.) You can find a lot written already by control+f, look for things like baptism, faith, hearing, eyes, etc. There has been a lot of discussion on those points. But note what you said: Calvinism just adds ‘one more’ bit of initiation than what the non-Calvinist/Arminian holds to. If you believe God initiates salvation in all the other ways I talk about in my essay, then you agree with my point that disagreement with Arminianism or Calvinism doesn’t mean one must believe that man, not God, initiates salvation or even initiates faith, since the gospel and Christ’s revelation and conviction of the Spirit, etc. still are required before man’s response. One must have Christ revealed to put faith in, one must have the New Covenant offered before one can accept, one must have the Spirit’s conviction to recognize sin, etc.

       Interestingly enough, I know a few Calvinists of the variety which would hold mainstream Calvinists even have man do too much by responding to irresistible grace. For them, God doesn’t just regenerate or even give faith, but rather God just applies the faith of Christ to the person! No human faith needed at all, not even 100% faith God gave them.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Good stuff Jenai…. and keep posting!

          I suspect we will not see Gary again. We get a lot of shots across the bow.

          Loading...

       2. Exactly!
          And once they discover their pet argument strategy fails – that’s typically the end of it. :-]

          Loading...

    4. And lest you say you really meant ‘semi-pelagianism,’ Cesseian would have also disagreed with many of my points. He believed sanctifying grace could be “merited by human effort” – but faith is in no way a meritorious work. Faith doesn’t “merit” salvation or subsequent sanctification. God graciously chooses to grant salvation and graciously chooses to sanctify believers. That is His choice to make and He fulfills it because He promised, and by His good and faithful character He will not renege on His promises. Cessaian also thought the beginning of faith could be accomplished by human will alone (without anything else required) – but as my essay getes into, many things are required for faith. Christ revealing Himself, for one. Christ dying/rising and drawing all men by the cross, e.g. the attractive offer of healing made, as God offered healing to all who would look at the snake on a pole lifted up. The gospel message, conviction of sin by the Spirit, etc. So many graces of God are required for someone to have faith. The human out on a desert island with no access to the gospel and no supernatural method of revelation given couldn’t ‘will’ himself faith. No one would come to faith if Christ hadn’t come. And faith itself isn’t even an ‘act of will’ – no one musters up the will to believe in Christ against their better judgement or somesuch. No one ‘wills’ to believe in Jesus – they are either persuaded or they are not. (Likewise no one ‘wills’ to have faith in germs, they either trust the teacher and the evidence of illness or they do not.) So Cessaian wasn’t just wrong on faith being able to begin in human will, but wrong about it being based in will at all. Lastly, Cessaian thought no grace is needed after justification. But my essay holds that God continues to initiate the various graces after belief and after baptism and justification, including adoption, eternal life, sanctification, and other graces.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. JR: “as my essay getes into, many things are required for faith. Christ revealing Himself, for one. Christ dying/rising and drawing all men by the cross, e.g. the attractive offer of healing made, as God offered healing to all who would look at the snake on a pole lifted up. The gospel message, conviction of sin by the Spirit, etc. So many graces of God are required for someone to have faith. The human out on a desert island with no access to the gospel and no supernatural method of revelation given couldn’t ‘will’ himself faith.”

          I don’t think Calvin could have expressed it any better. You and Calvin must be reading the same book.

          Loading...

       2. Two things.

          #1 Calvin wouldn’t agree with everything I wrote (at least without some serious redefinitions and sleight of hand about what terms mean) And TULIP variety Calvinism certainly wouldn’t. With TULIP Christ only draws some men/the elect by the cross. The ‘all’ is explained away, despite lack of context or grammatical reason to do so, as simply meaning all types of men. TULIP holds that even if Christ revealed himself to all men in some sense, it doesn’t matter because all men are blind and can’t see him. So again only the pre-selected special chosen are given sight so they can see Christ’s revelation, meaning that Christ only really reveals Himself to some, not all, men. Similarily, God only truly offers healing to some in Calvinism since Christ only died for some (limited atonement) – for the rest that Jesus died for, there is no healing they can have. Etc.

          For example, here is one of Calvin’s quotes about God only drawing and giving the light of the gospel to the elect. “When it pleased God to draw us out of the darkness of unbelief, and give us the light of the gospel, He looked not at any service which we might have performed, or at any virtue we might have possessed: but He called us, having chosen us before” and “He [God] giveth not His grace to all men”
          http://www.the-highway.com/Salvation_of_All.html

          #2 Are you familiar with the concept of Venn Diagrams? Two views which have a lot of differences may still have some overlapped parts in common. “Jesus is God” or “Christ’s blood covers the believer’s sin in the sight of God,” or “God is sovereign,” for example. But that some things are in common doesn’t make all things in common. And it doesn’t even mean all terms will be used in the same way.

          For example, both Calvinists and non-Calvinist Christians believe we are “saved by grace” – but for the non-Calvist this usually means something like “saved by God’s grace, through faith; God graciously promises to all men that they may be saved if they believe in Christ, and graciously grants salvation to anyone who responds to the gospel in faith. The salvation is all of God, by His power and gracious choice to make faith the condition God requires man to do since it rests in humble trust of Christ’s work and God’s promises, not on a person’s merits or work under the law.” For the Calvinist, “saved by grace” would mean something more like “God pre-selects some people to be saved, and so graciously regenerates those few so they are irresistibly overwhelmed by the grace of God and respond in faith, while everyone else he doesn’t choose to save is left essentially a corpse with no ability to respond to the gospel in faith” or, for Calvinists of your variety “God pre-selects some people to be saved, so he regenerates them and effectually gives them trust in Himself. The rest of humanity is unable to respond in faith since they will never be given it from without.”

          Loading...

       3. JR: “#1…With TULIP Christ only draws some men/the elect by the cross. The ‘all’ is explained away, despite lack of context or grammatical reason to do so, as simply meaning all types of men.”

          The “all” can refer to Jews and gentiles. This is explained by Paul in Ephesians 3, “you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 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: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,…” In saying that He will draw all men to Him, Jesus is saying that God will save gentiles as well as Jews.

          This fits the context where the section begins, “Now there were certain Greeks among those who came up to worship at the feast. Then they came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.”Philip came and told Andrew, and in turn Andrew and Philip told Jesus.” It is when Jesus is told that Greeks wished to see Him, that he begins speaking to the people and says, “Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”

          Even if we accept the notion that Jesus meant that He would draw each and every individual to Him, we still have John 6 where Christ said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” So, Christ recognizes the need for God to draw the person if a person is to be saved.

          Loading...

       4. rhutchin
          The “all” can refer to Jews and gentiles.

          br.d
          The world’s population is made up of jews and gentiles – a FEW of which are elect for salvation.
          But Calvin’s god desires *ALL* of those FEW jews and gentiles – to be jews and gentiles. :-]

          Loading...

       5. “JR: “#1…With TULIP Christ only draws some men/the elect by the cross. The ‘all’ is explained away, despite lack of context or grammatical reason to do so, as simply meaning all types of men.”

          The “all” can refer to Jews and gentiles. This is explained by Paul in Ephesians 3, “you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 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: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,…” In saying that He will draw all men to Him, Jesus is saying that God will save gentiles as well as Jews.”

          ‘All’ must have *contextual reason* to limit it to Jews and Gentiles in John 12:32. The Greek word “all” means “every part that applies.” Much like the English word, it can be limited by modifying description (‘all the different types of fruit’) or idiomatic in scope (‘all the fruit in the box was rotten’ might just mean the majority was rotten. ‘All the people rejoiced’ can mean ‘most’ of the people.) But absent a clear reason to take it in a restrictive sense (e.g. literal words right next to it that modify it or a clear use of idiom) it retains it’s own meaning of all.

          Jn 12:32 doesn’t say “all types of men” so it has no reason to modify it to all types (I’ll dive into the context and your mention of the audience in a bit.) Furthermore, it doesn’t even say *all men*. It says “Draw ALL” – as in all people, all of creation, etc. Men is included in that, but it actually isn’t restricted to just men. It includes all men, includes all unbelievers and believers, and includes every other power and piece of creation as well. (more on Jn 12 in a bit!)

          Eph 3 has it’s own context – Paul is talking about Gentile believers being fellow heirs with them, fellow children of God inheriting eternal life, having been given the same Holy Spirit by God to indwell them. Jewish believers struggled with the idea that Gentiles could also be “heirs” of God as they viewed themselves alone as his children and chosen people.

          But one can’t pluck context from a different passage as wanted to fit a preconceived view. Perhaps you have heard the saying along the lines of, “scripture without it’s context is just a pretext for a prooftext?” That is, if you divorce a verse or phrase from it’s actual context and read-in a meaning instead (whether from other contexts of other verses or made up from one’s own preconceptions) then it isn’t a real proof-text at all.

          Now, it is true that John 12:12 mentions some Greek proselytes as desiring to see Jesus. (Greeks not born Jewish but who were Jewish proselytes or converts – they were looking for the Messiah,) such as the Eunuch in Acts 8:27. So the audience was a mixed crowd of Jew and Gentile in ethnicity, but they were all followers of God to begin with and looking for the Messiah. (They weren’t pagan gentiles who had only converted upon hearing the gospel.) It’s likely this mention is to show Jesus as the fulfillment of the Hag 2:7 prophecy that the desire of all nations shall come.
          “I will shake all nations, and what is desired by all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the LORD Almighty.”

          So the audience is something to consider But it is not the only factor to consider, since we also must consider what is being spoken about (main subject,) the speaker, the actual words being said, etc.

          Jn 12:23: Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.” This is the main subject of Christ’s speech. Paul’s speech was specifically *about* Jews and Gentiles. Jesus’s words are about His death and glorification.

          Jesus gets into the necessity for his death, how his death will create many seeds. [Many seeds, not ‘different types’ of seeds.] Jesus gets into the hardship of following Him: whoever loves their life will lose it, but whoever hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. [So eternal life is not based on ethnicity, but who is ready to give up their physical life now in hopes of future eternal life (perhaps the most sensible meaning here being a reference to baptism, where the believer unites with the death of Christ, considering Christ is speaking of His own death as an example here. But also may be a reference to the believer as a living sacrifice, or being willing to follow Christ even unto physical death. Regardless, it isn’t “some of you will be given hate for your life by God and be brought to faith and salvation, but others of you will be stuck loving your life forever and can never be saved.] Jesus then speaks of the Father’s glorifying His Name.

          Note that the Father states, “I have glorified it, and I WILL glorify it again.”

          This theme of glorification comes up again and again in the book of John as Jesus near’s His death:

          “By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.” Jn 7:39

          “Now the Son of Man is glorified and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once.” Jn 13:31-32

          “After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” Jn 17:1-6

          Etc. It’s peppered throughout the book, usually in conjunction with either teaching about the Spirit believers will be given, the imminent death and Resurrection of Christ, or the authority Christ will be given over all.

          With Jesus’ death AND glorification, and the subsequent things those will bring, as our main subject, we can continue to the immediate context and text of Jn 12:32:

          “Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] to myself.” He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.”

          Jn 12:32 cannot be divorced from “Now is the time for judgement on this world; now the prince of this word will be driven out” since it is part of the same reply. The “lifting up” of Jn 12:32 includes both Jesus’s death and His Resurrection. Humans ‘lifted up’ Jesus on the cross (Jn 8:28) but God would ‘lift up’ Christ by the Resurrection.

          When God “lifted up” Jesus by raising Him from the dead He “seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” Eph 1:20-23

          By Christ stating He will draw “all” (vs. restricting the sense to merely some things or some types of things) Jesus contains both His draw to all people and His being given authority over all things at the same time.

          Now, we go back to the mixed crowd of proselytes. “The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Messiah will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?”

          The Jews and their foreign proselytes thought the Messiah would remain forever (hence why the cross is a “stumbling block” to the Jews who thought the Messiah was to stay and immediately set up an eternal kingdom on the Earth and overthrow Rome and every other nation, etc.)”

          “Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. Whoever walks in the dark does not know where they are going. Believe in the light while you have the light, so that you may become children of light.” When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them.”

          What other passage speaks of lifting up and light? John 3.

          “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. Jn 3:13-21

          Here we get an analogy for “lifted up” – the snake on the pole. Moses held it up where any of the people could see it. But note that they had to LOOK at the snake to be healed (Num 21.) God drew the people to healing with His offer and having Moses make the physical snake they could see, but He forced no one to look itself. This is the analogy with is given to help us understand Christ lifted up by His death and Resurrection. God sent Jesus as a beacon of light to a condemned world. Those who would come into the light while Jesus was on Earth would be healed. At Jesus’s death/Ressurection, Jesus became a beacon of light/draw to the whole condemned world. Anyone who believes in Christ is granted healing and eternal life. No one’s condemnation under the law keeps them from looking to Christ’s fulfillment of the law for healing.

          There was the physical light of Jesus’ ministry while He was in the world to those such as the proselytes who saw Him in the flesh, why is why Jesus warned them to walk in the light while they had it. So the audience of Jesus’ speech is important – just not in the way you claim. The audience in John 12 doesn’t somehow ‘restrict’ or modify the draw of Christ. But it is important as He is telling all the proselytes that He IS the light, the Messiah they seek, and that He will soon die. But He is also giving them hope, knowing that many if not most of them will be in the same crowd calling for Him to be crucified: His death/Resurrection will scatter many seeds (gospel to all nations,) the Father WILL glorify Him again, His death will draw all things/people and win victory over the devil, etc.

          “RH: Even if we accept the notion that Jesus meant that He would draw each and every individual to Him, we still have John 6 where Christ said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” So, Christ recognizes the need for God to draw the person if a person is to be saved.”

          ?? “No one can come unless X happens” and “X now happens to everyone” are not contradictory concepts. Drawing is a necessary condition, but the person still has to come. Christ recognized the importance of the Father drawing someone for them to come to Christ. John 6 was pre-cross. Christ’s death and Resurrection had yet to happen. The Father was not drawing everyone to Christ through the cross yet. Only through Christ’s death and Resurrection does the Father draw all people.

          Soteriology101 has a blog post on John 6:44 already: https://soteriology101.com/2017/08/13/john-644/ I love this analogy in particular: ““No one can join the Army unless they have been recruited, and those who have been recruited will be trained.”

          I won’t add much to it at this time except to say that helko/draw doesn’t directly mean enable, but implies enables.

          For example: “Elvis drew the girls in with his crooning voice” implies that the girls are indeed able to hear the voice and be persuaded by it, and that the sound/style of his voice had an attractive power that influenced them to become fans. It doesn’t mean or mandate that every girl who ever listens to Elvis must like the sound of his voice, or that the only girls who would possibly reject it are tonedeaf, etc.

          I do plan to write you a bit on John 6 in general as well, but am waiting to get a bit more time to commit to it. Maybe I will try to make it a blog post. 🙂 If I spent this long on Jn 12:32 imagine how long it would be for me to try and analyze a whole chapter 😉

          Loading...

       6. Hi Jenai! Such long posts remind me of wordy early Christian writers I have read. I think becoming more succinct – with which I also have difficulty, will catch more who will take the time to read your good thoughts.

          Here are my exegetical thoughts on John 12:32 – …πάντας ἑλκύσω… literally “all [men] I will draw”

          Thayers: STRONGS NT 3956: πᾶς – II. without a substantive; 1. masculine and feminine every one, any one: in the singular, without any addition…. Plural, πάντες, without any addition, all men….

          Sounds to me like no one is left out from being drawn in this verse. But being drawn does not prove that one must get saved once they are confronted by Jesus! Neh 9:30 uses in the LXX the same word for “draw” used here in John 12:32, and 6:44. And much of Israel, though they were all drawn, did not come.

          Loading...

       7. Yes, I know I can get pretty wordy, especially when analyzing a text. 🙂 I generally try to make things more concise if I have time to edit. I do a lot of Q/A type answers that are more summarized like https://ebible.com/questions/3273-how-are-predestination-and-election-connected-with-foreknowledge that I spend a good bit of time in double checking and editing.

          But this comment thread moves so fast I’ve just been posting as I get a moment to – and my first drafts always come out pretty wordy. Working on that. 🙂

          Loading...

       8. Excellent points!

          And I might add – even thought Calvinists try to put the blame for certain things onto the creature – (e.g. man does not have faith).
          It is still the case that “mere” permission does not exist in Calvinism.

          Calvin’s god does NOT “merely” PERMIT the creature to determine or have anything.
          Therefore if faith does not exist – the UNDERLYING REASON is Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT it.

          Everything is the ABSOLUTE CONSEQUENCE of Calvin’s god’s will.

          Loading...

       9. Keep posting Jenai!! Love it!

          Not sure it will even be heard by RH, but very good for many other readers out there.

          Loading...

36. Posted again on this string:

    Have any of you seen prayercast.com?

    Fantastic ministry! One of their recent posts is a former Muslim from Central Asia found here:

    https://www.prayercast.com/shavkat.html

    Notice in the first minute how this guy is disgusted with the Determinist aspect of Islam. This is called Qadr in Islam. God determined everything.

    Try to tell this recent convert to Christ about Calvinism-Determinism. I can just hear his likely response:

    Are you kidding! I just left that in Islam!

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Thank you FOH for sharing that link on the intro
       I watched the video and it was a blessing!

       And yes – he TRULY escaped theological determinism :-]

       Loading...

       Reply

37. Reading through the Bible I am in 2 Kings 5. The story of pagan Naaman.

    13 But his officers tried to reason with him and said, “Sir, if the prophet had told you to do something very difficult, wouldn’t you have done it? So you should certainly obey him when he says simply, ‘Go and wash and be cured!’” 14 So Naaman went down to the Jordan River and dipped himself seven times, as the man of God had instructed him. And his skin became as healthy as the skin of a young child, and he was healed!

    Here we see pagan Naaman being “reasoned with.” Then he exercises faith and dips himself seven times in a filthy river.

    He even states previously:
    “I expected him to wave his hand over the leprosy and call on the name of the Lord his God and heal me!”

    Even pagan Naaman can see that God CAN heal with the wave of a hand (or not even that). But here we see a CONDITION. Naaman must have faith, must obey.

    This is how God operates in hundreds of places in the Bible. There is no indication that God “gave the faith” to Naaman. He just expects pagans to obey…. and they can.

    Yet…. Calvinists just come to the table with the idea of “given faith” as a “given”. As if we are supposed to all share that presupposition.

    They impose that on the Scriptures.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. A great example!

       The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing not because they “can’t understand it” but because it is so simple and rests on simple faith in what God has done verses some elaborate ritual or cultivation of man. Foolishness is literally “dull, lacking sharpness” – unbelievers can see the gospel as a stupid thing – like “Faith, that’s so dumb! Why would God make such a silly method? For the Greeks, the general thought was that life was about *duty* – to self, to the gods, to society. If one did one’s duty in life and was a good enough person to be remembered by others in death, then one could spend eternity in bliss. If one failed to do one’s duty, one could end up in Tartarus or worse. But with the gospel, anyone could come to God through the cross! It was far too simple – anyone could come by that method, so the method was ‘foolish’ to them.

       Modern similar thoughts might hold that “wiser” conditions for salvation might be: “follow the ten commandments” or “suffer hardships and cultivate yourself as you are reincarnated on the wheel of life, closer and closer to enlightenment: or even “karma – if your overall good outweighs the overall bad, you are counted a good person,” etc.

       But God made the method “easy” since man couldn’t ever achieve salvation by any of his own plans! “For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”…”

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Jenai:

          I find it incomprehensible that Calvinists want to use the “foolishness” verse to “prove” that man is “too-dead” to understand.

          Of course when we first hear it, it is foolishness….. until it isnt.

          Even “the Calvinist elect” think it is foolishness until they are “reasoned with” (says Paul).

          We have many, many biblical examples where people go from foolishness to “being persuaded”…. but we have NOT ONE example where it says — or even implies— that man is “given faith”.

          And yet….. they continue to impose that on the Scripture.

          Loading...

       2. Does not ‘foolishness’ by definition demand an ability to reason? How does a person assert that something is foolishness – by hearing and considering it. The very thing that ‘dead’ unregenerates supposedly cannot do.

          The more I read from Calvinists, the less sense their logic makes.

          Loading...

       3. Good point!

          Someone assesses a position are foolish…. at least he is assessing!

          Loading...

       4. FOH
          Good point!
          Someone assesses a position are foolish…. at least he is assessing!

          br.d
          Yes – and on top of that LIBERTARIAN assessing (i.e. thinking) doesn’t exist in Calvinism.

          LIBERTARIAN thinking or LIBERTARIAN choice is defined as:
          The ability to genuinely examine a range of options and make decisions about that range of options.

          In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) LIBERTARIAN thinking and LIBERTARIAN choice don’t exist.

          Determinism is defined as:
          The thesis that there is at any instant exactly *ONE* physically possible future – which has been predestined in the past – by an external mind.

          Therefore in Theological Determinism a person can’t examine and choose among a range of options – because all thoughts and choices have all been predestined by an external mind. And only *ONE* thought and *ONE* choice can be predestined to come to pass.

          Therefore in Calvinism if a person thinks something is foolish – its because they were predestined to think that.
          There is not such thing as people having their own independent thoughts or choices.

          But we see Calvinists speaking *AS-IF* human thoughts/choices are not predestined.
          And Calvinists speaking *AS-IF* people do have their own independent thoughts and choices

          This is part of Calvinism’s DOUBLE-THINK.

          Loading...

       5. br.d writes, “Therefore in Calvinism if a person thinks something is foolish – its because they were predestined to think that.
          There is not such thing as people having their own independent thoughts or choices.”

          In Calvinism people have thoughts that are independent form other people but not independent from God. Thus, Matthew, “But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?” and Luke, “But He, knowing their thoughts, said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a house falls.” God, because He is omniscient, knows the thoughts of people before they think them and knows them without compelling them.

          Loading...

       6. br.d
          “Therefore in Calvinism if a person thinks something is foolish – its because they were predestined to think that.
          There is not such thing as people having their own independent thoughts or choices.”

          rhutchin
          In Calvinism people have thoughts that are independent form other people but not independent from God.

          br.d
          When I stated “independent thoughts or choices” I meant “independent from Calvin’s god” – that should go without saying.
          There is nothing in Theological Determinism that would consequent people having the same exact thoughts – since people are not the DETERMINER in Theological Determinism – the THEOS is..

          But since the THEOS RENDERS-CERTAIN *ALL* creaturely neurological impulses – it goes without saying – in Calvinism people don’t have their own independent thoughts or choices.

          Loading...

       7. TS00
          Does not ‘foolishness’ by definition demand an ability to reason? How does a person assert that something is foolishness – by hearing and considering it. The very thing that ‘dead’ unregenerates supposedly cannot do.
          The more I read from Calvinists, the less sense their logic makes.

          br.d
          A great catch TS00!
          Another self-contradiction.
          They just keep coming!

          If it wasn’t for DOUBLE-THINK – there wouldn’t be any THINK at all! :-]

          Loading...

       8. JR: “The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing not because they “can’t understand it” but because it is so simple and rests on simple faith in what God has done…”

          It is the lack of faith that results in a person seeing the gospel as foolishness. So, we have Paul, “before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

          Loading...

    2. FOH
       Yet…. Calvinists just come to the table with the idea of “given faith” as a “given”. As if we are supposed to all share that presupposition.
       They impose that on the Scriptures.

       br.d
       For a little humor on this subject see: CALVINISM’S CUPS, POTS, AND BRAZEN VESSELS

       https://soteriology101.com/2018/10/18/kingswood-hart-who-are-the-elect/#comment-30894

       Loading...

       Reply

    3. FOH
       Yet…. Calvinists just come to the table with the idea of “given faith” as a “given”. As if we are supposed to all share that presupposition.
       They impose that on the Scriptures.

       br.d
       For a little humor on this subject see: CALVINISM’S CUPS, POTS, AND BRAZEN VESSELS

       https://soteriology101.com/2018/10/18/kingswood-hart-who-are-the-elect/#comment-30894

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Excellent comment.

          Loading...

38. you were DEAD… but God MADE you ALIVE.

    Made… not offered

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. If this is TRUE – then the “MANY” are MADE Totally Depraved
       Being designed specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure

       MADE to be …. not “merely” PERMITTED to be

       Logical consistency is the key here – you can’t have one without the other! :-]

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. br.d writes, “If this is TRUE – then the “MANY” are MADE Totally Depraved Being designed specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure”

          As Paul explains in Romans 9, “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?”

          Loading...

       2. br.d
          If this is TRUE – then the “MANY” are MADE Totally Depraved Being designed specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure”

          rhutchin
          As Paul explains in Romans 9, “What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, ENDURE with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,….etc

          br.d
          Boy – its too bad Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN things that he is then forced to ENDURE .
          He sure makes life difficult for himself! :-]

          Loading...

    2. WHEN does God make us alive? At baptism, not prior to belief! God baptizes the believer into the death of Christ and raises the believer to new life in Christ. The believer, before God makes him alive, is not yet alive and is still dead. Fortunately for us, God does this instantly (for the believer, passing us from death to life. We aren’t made alive pre-faith, nor does faith itself make us alive. Rather God makes us alive, fulfilling His promise, as we met the condition He chose to set – faith.

       II Cor 5:17, Rom 5:1-10, Rom 6:2-10, etc

       “In Him you were also circumcised in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. 12And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses,” Col 2:11-13

       “So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5For when we were in the realm of the flesh, a the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” Rom 7:4-10

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Jenai – Jesus, Paul and Peter clearly taught that the new birth is through faith in hearing (and understanding) the gospel… before baptism in water, and not before faith in a strange zapping of the will of a predetermined few.

          Jhn 12:36 NKJV – “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.”

          1Co 4:15 NKJV – For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [you do] not [have] many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

          1Pe 1:23, 25 NKJV – having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, … 25… Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.

          Paul confirms being an instrument of regeneration in his preaching of the gospel (faith comes by hearing the message about Christ)… and not as an instrument of it through baptism… since he baptized very few in Corinth. Adding water baptism to the gospel creates a false gospel like when circumcision was added by some and rejected (Acts 15).

          1 Corinthians 1:17 NKJV — For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

          Please don’t make the cross of Christ of no effect by adding baptism to the gospel.

          Loading...

       2. Brian,

          You had said:
          “Please don’t make the cross of Christ of no effect by adding baptism to the gospel.”

          My response:

          Jenai Rothnie had said:

          WHEN does God make us alive? At baptism, not prior to belief!

          I agree with Jenai here. She is stating a fact that the Calvinists think that you are made alive BEFORE belief.

          Acts 1:5
          For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

          That verse clearly shows that the REAL Baptism that we get is with the Holy Ghost, NOT WATER.

          Without that Holy Ghost, which is GOD, INSIDE OUR BODY, then we are NOT alive at all, spiritually alive, that is. If we don’t have that Holy Ghost (GOD) in our body, then we are spiritually dead. Therefore, God makes us alive at Baptism, just like she said, hence, Acts 1:5.

          She wasn’t talking about Paul dunking anyone in water, aka Acts 1:5 regarding John’s Baptism in water, but the rest of the verse.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

       3. We agree Ed about baptism by the Spirit being salvation through faith. I’m assuming you see that happening before water baptism. I am also assuming Jenai sees them happening at the same time. Let’s see what Jenai says. 🙄

          Loading...

       4. Brian,

          Not a problem!!

          Loading...

       5. Ed, I absolutely agree. It is baptism of the Spirit, which was foreshadowed by baptism in water, which makes men spiritually alive. It is a travesty that christianity has clung to the shadow rather than the reality, insisting that water baptism is essential for salvation, rather than the receiving of the Spirit of God.

          Loading...

       6. TS00,

          You had said:
          “It is a travesty that christianity has clung to the shadow rather than the reality, insisting that water baptism is essential for salvation, rather than the receiving of the Spirit of God.”

          My response:

          You are absolutely correct. I see way too much of that in the Baptist world.

          Acts 19 explains, too. People were preaching Jesus, but NEVER HEARD about a Holy Ghost. They were ALREADY baptized in water…but NEVER knew anything about a Holy Ghost.

          But also, did you ever happen to notice in that same book, that once they learned about a Holy Ghost, that they were baptized in the name of Jesus, but they forgot about the FATHER and the Holy Ghost? Was that an OOPS!?

          Acts 19:1-7
          And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

          2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

          3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

          4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

          5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

          6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

          7 And all the men were about twelve.

          But wait!! What about being Baptized in the NAME of the Father and of the Holy Spirit? They only baptized in the name of Jesus in verse 5!!

          Did Paul not follow directions about Baptizing in the name of the Father?

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

       7. Brian thank you for pointing this out unfortunately I have one sister who is a calvinist and the other who adheres to this belief… Her and one of my aunts are in a “click” I like to call it,  because their church is the ONLY real church. my sister has never been unkind or rude to me about it, but we don’t seem to talk about the Lord together🤔 & when my mom has questioned both of them, they gang up on her☹ anyway the first time I actually heard them confess this out loud was… Though I knew something was off already & I knew they believed you had to be baptized to be saved… Anyway one sad day my mom, two aunts and all three of my sisters were at a restaurant right after my son died. The owner happened to be a believer who felt led to ask us if we wanted to pray. She did come right out and ask if we knew Jesus as our Lord and Savior! Each person answered & then my sister and one aunt said something like, “yes we are baptized in or we do believe and we’re baptized”  They made it clear being baptized mattered & its not the first time at least with my aunt. Once my mom asked her if she thought my grandma was in heaven, because she wasn’t baptized & my aunt didn’t answer… I knew just from the thief on the cross this didn’t line up. But I’ve never brought it up, so I appreciate this post I’ve only spoke out about calvinism thus far.

          So thank you for your post and the verses that back it up as well as this statement;
          ((Paul confirms being an instrument of regeneration in his preaching of the gospel (faith comes by hearing the message about Christ)… and not as an instrument of it through baptism… since he baptized very few in Corinth. Adding water baptism to the gospel creates a false gospel like when circumcision was added by some and rejected (Acts 15).))

          Loading...

       8. I’m glad those Scriptures I shared were an encouragement, Reggie. In Romans 4 Paul clearly shows that the imputed/gift of righteousness from God, which is salvation, is only through faith.

          It is not through good works, not through the covenant rite of circumcision (like baptism), and not even through the law of God. It is only through faith. God looks at the heart and purifies it through faith.

          When some wanted to add circumcision to faith for salvation… Peter didn’t answer, “We have baptism now instead”. No he pointed to faith in the gospel.

          Acts 15:7-11 NKJV — And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

          Loading...

       9. Brian I agree with you and thank you for your response!! I like this summary statement ;

          “It is only through faith. God looks at the heart and purifies it through faith.”

          Adding or subtracting reminds me of something Br.d said about man trying to make God in their own image of course that would be a small “g” god not the One true God! how grateful we should all be that through faith we can except His gift of mercy and grace freely🌻

          Loading...

       10. Reggie, I am indeed thankful and rejoicing in God’s grace, which demands only our faith therein! There will be no clipboard at the pearly gate, no inquisitor looking down the long list of our ‘sins’ and telling us, ‘Sorry, I know you put your faith in God’s promised and provided atonement for sin, but you did too many things on The Naughty Boy List. You failed to be Baptised. You smoked. You went to a church with a woman pastor. You never memorized the Ten Commandments. You only gave 9.8% of your income to the church. You watched too much TV.”

           You can make your own list, but you get the picture. This has for so long been the characterization of getting into heaven that many never fully escape it. I haven’t made The Naughty Boy List my bucket list, but I am also not spending every day mulling over if I am getting more ‘perfect’. I believe God views our wobbly faith with grace and acceptance, rather than frowning at how much further we have to grow.

           Loading...

       11. TSOO I like what you say here;
           [[ I believe God views our wobbly faith with grace and acceptance, rather than frowning at how much further we have to grow.]]

           I’m soooooo grateful His love is unconditional as apposed to what we can experience here in our lives from other skin wearers😂 Not to make light of our relationship with our Savior, but it’s true we are all growing and He can be trusted! thanks for the reminder🌻

           Loading...

       12. Brian,

           As we say in the Navy, belay my last. Your answer here is sufficient, which you said regarding Romans 4:

           In Romans 4 Paul clearly shows that the imputed/gift of righteousness from God, which is salvation, is only through faith.

           It is not through good works, not through the covenant rite of circumcision (like baptism), and not even through the law of God. It is only through faith. God looks at the heart and purifies it through faith.

           —————————

           Many people seem to forget about Abraham, and the Bible tells us that we are children of Abraham, and that we inherit the promises given to Abraham. So, I think it’s important to study Abraham in order to find out what those promises were. What was the promises?

           Was it a specific piece of real estate in the middle east? Hmmmmm.

           Loading...

       13. Yes, Ed, we probably agree on this one! 😊… It is the righteousness of God given to Abraham and the same righteousness given through faith in Christ, the seed of Abraham. It is not the human earned righteousness of Christ in His obedience to the law of Moses.

           So that one gift to Abraham we have also received. How God wants to work out the rest of our inheritance and how it’s tied to those promises given to Abraham is ok by me.

           We can ask Jesus how it all works out when He returns to Jerusalem and the 12 apostles sit on 12 thrones ruling over the 12 tribes of Israel. 😉😎

           Loading...

       14. Brian,

           Yep, and I think that this needs to be preached about MORE than anything, because the LAW was never intended for Abraham, nor us. Just faith.

           1 John 3:4 is in regards to the law. I’m not a fan of the modern day translation that states “sin is lawlessness”. That does not have the same significance as “sin is the transgression of the law”, coupled with Romans 3:20, “the law is the knowledge of sin”.

           But under ABRAHAM, sin is anything that is not of faith.

           Two different systems of thought here about what sin is.
           1. Sin under the law
           2. Sin under faith

           Ed

           Loading...

       15. Jenai Rothie asks, “WHEN does God make us alive?”

           1. When we are still dead in sin – “you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,…” (Ephesians 2) As you say, “The believer, before God makes him alive, is not yet alive and is still dead.”
           2. Prior to one being able to see and enter the kingdom of God, (John 3)
           3. After hearing the gospel, “having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God…” (1 Peter 1)
           4. Prior to receiving/believing in Christ – “as many as received Him,…to those who believe in His name: who were born…of God.” (John 1)

           The new birth affects change in a person, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17)
           The new birth predicated on Christ’s death, “when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” (Romans 5) and “Christ was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.” (Romans 4)

           When you say, “God baptizes the believer into the death of Christ and raises the believer to new life in Christ,” you are describing the “born again” experience.

           Loading...

       16. rhutchin states:
           “When you say, “God baptizes the believer into the death of Christ and raises the believer to new life in Christ,” you are describing the “born again” experience.”

           My response:

           WHAT is the significance of the word, “AGAIN” in the PHRASE, “BORN AGAIN”?

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       17. When he takes out the first floppy disk labeled “TOTALLY DEPRAVED” and inserts the new floppy disk “SAVED”
           Then the bio-bot Calvinist starts to run according to the program within that floppy disk

           However, – Calvin’s god also has a 3rd floppy disk
           This one is called “Have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance”

           These bio-bots have a floppy disk program that deceives them into believing they are saved Calvinists
           But they are actually still running around as TOTALLY DEPRAVED Calvinists

           And these Calvinist – just like the other Calvinists – spend their time looking over Eve’s shoulder telling her what god REALLY said.

           And not one Calvinist in the Calvinist fold has the discernment to know who is who – cuz that’s a SECRET. :-].

           Loading...

       18. Again and again I find myself wondering what could possibly make this hideous picture of a narcissistic, controlling God appear both factual and praiseworthy? The only answer I can come up with is that this is the only ground for OSAS and the lack of personal responsibility they believe this grants them to live their life as they wish. I know many non-Calvinist Baptists embrace OSAS, but it makes little logical sense minus Divine Determinism. I tend to believe in more of a limited lifetime warranty, in which the only thing that will void one’s covenant of faith is the purposeful rescinding of that faith – not any lack of perfection in keeping the law. We do not need to fear God’s condemnation at our every stumble, but certainly if we turn once again to a life of deliberate wickedness. There may indeed be a fine line that no man can judge, but God is up to the task.

           Loading...

       19. I think its all about man making god in his own image.
           rhutchin comes up with some doozy examples :-]

           As the joke goes:
           Scripture says God made man in his own image – and John Calvin decided to return the favor! :-]

           Loading...

       20. TSOO writes, “The only answer I can come up with is that this is the only ground for OSAS and the lack of personal responsibility they believe this grants them to live their life as they wish.”

           A position that Paul strongly argued against, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.”

           John reiterated this, “He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.”

           Loading...

       21. TS00… do you break the first and great commandment everyday? Could that be seen by God as sinning a great sin everyday?

           Matthew 22:37-38 NKJV — Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
           This is the first and great commandment.”

           Loading...

       22. My admittedly limited understanding is that Jesus dealt with sin for the believer. It is only should we trample that so great atonement underfoot, once having understood it, do we spurn the grace we once knew. As I said, I do not think it is a matter of keeping the law well enough (never sinning), but the genuine reflection of our faith in God, of which only he can rightly judge.

           I would suppose such things are rare, but I do read the warnings of scripture to suggest that that which we freely receive we can also freely cast aside. It isn’t something I think upon, or worry about, as I cannot imagine shunning this life-giving grace. I do not think it is a matter of a misstep, but a deliberate turning away.

           Loading...

       23. TS00,
           This is because our good friend Brian is equating sinning with “losing salvation” and you are references the many verses (Paul has at least one in every epistle) about “shipwrecking your faith” or “returning to your former life.”

           One is occasional sinning for which Christ died.

           The other is the returning to a non-Christ life after you have tasted of the joy of salvation that the author of Hebrews talks about.

           Loading...

       24. Thank you TS00 for your thoughtful reply. I am assuming that was a yes to my questions. You can tell me different, if it wasn’t. But also I think you were saying that when you break that great commandment everyday you don’t see it as “deliberate turning away” but more like a “misstep”. Is that a fair analysis?

           Also, if unbelievers can be sanctified in someway (set apart by having a believing spouse for example) to receive a special drawing by God’s grace, and if unbelievers can be convinced of the truth, even responding to it positively, affirming at least in their minds the truth of the gospel, then is it possible for them to make a false profession of faith (perhaps really trusting in the sinner’s prayer or baptism and thinking that they are thus trusting in Jesus for salvation) and then they have a “deliberate turning away” from that false profession, never actually having been born again?

           Loading...

       25. Brian, I would hazard that we define ‘sin’ differently. I would not classify our less than perfect love as sin, but as the consequence of not being fully Christlike, which I do not imagine will be complete until we are in our glorified state.

           Again, I make no claims to being a theologian, but am allowing my former theology – in large part received from men – to be transformed as I live, study and grow. At this point, I view sin as a deliberate, willful rebellion against the known will of God.

           Getting angry and saying something less than gracious is wrong; I would not classify it as sin. Struggling with doubt and confusion is immature and can lead to trouble; yet I would not view it as sin.

           I recall my spouse once doing something in ignorance that took me a month of hard, physical labor to rectify. I was digging in the broiling sin, getting angrier by the minute, and thinking of choice words to say.

           Then I stopped for a rest, and the spirit started working on me. Long story short, I realized that my spouse was ignorant and sometimes made poor decisions; just like me. My anger quickly dissipated and I had a tiny, one man revival in my family room. I do not think my initial frustration was sin; however, had I taken it up again in coming days, after having been gently enlightened and corrected, would have been sin.

           Those are just my little, layperson’s thoughts. 😉

           Loading...

       26. Thankyou TS00 for your thoughtful reply. I hope you will consider my following thoughts, that your definition of sin doesn’t square with clear Scripture.

           1 John 3:4 NKJV — Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
           1 John 5:17 NKJV — All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.
           Romans 14:23 NKJV — But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
           James 4:17 NKJV — Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

           I think breaking the first and great commandment everyday would fall into those Bible definitions of sin. Thank the Lord we have the gift of His righteousness that makes us accepted in Christ even though our flesh still sins that great sin of breaking the great commandment everyday…

           Even though we know it is the good thing to do, we still doubt often and react with a lack of faith often, taking matters into our own hands often. That is sin… falling short daily, in our lives, of the glory of God, though thankfully in Christ we are already seated with Him in heavenly places… glorified, hidden in Him.

           Our salvation is dependent on who we are in Him, not on what we think we have to do to stay in Him. The changes He has made in our hearts and the discipline He brings in our lives and the guaranteed leading of His indwelling Spirit confirm who we are in Him. We still sin everyday… but we will always hate it and will never stop trusting our Savior because of that new heart, discipline, and guaranteed leading.

           Loading...

       27. Perhaps it is mere semantics, perhaps more. I see the verses you quoted as precisely backing up what I said. 😉 Being a perfectionist by nature, I deeply regret that I am not perfect in righteousness, anymore than I am perfect in anything. Then, I also suspect that the terms translated as ‘perfect’ in English scriptures do not have the meaning we commonly assign to the word ‘perfect’.

           I may be all wrong, but I increasingly see God as a gracious, loving, patient Father. I do not believe he looks upon us and despises our weakness, rather, he perfectly understands and patiently endures that we are mere, sensual, fleshly mortals. The perfection he desires I view as the ability to become all that he lovingly designed us to be. We need his help. We are weak. Immature. Fearful. Sensual. Easily deceived and distracted.

           I believe God looks upon us as a loving parent looks upon his two-year-old. The parent knows that the child has much to learn, much wisdom and ability to grow into, and his goal is to equip him with the knowledge, character and tools which will serve him well during that process. There is a difference between the toddler who grows distracted from the task of picking up and begins zooming cars across the floor and the toddler who looks you in the eyes and screams ‘No!’ when you ask him to pick up. One is young and immature, the other is rebellious.

           If sin means being less than perfect, then your characterizations are so. If sin means deliberate, willful rebellion, then being less than perfect – as we all are – does not equate to being sinful or unrighteous. Either way, I believe we share much the same mindset, in that we both desire to grow in wisdom, maturity, selflessness and all that is Christlike, and both are glad for God’s patience and grace as we inch forward toward our goal.

           Loading...

       28. We do agree, TS00, that God is a loving Father to all who have been born into His family through family!

           Loading...

       29. Brian,

           Just a question out of curiosity…

           I hear a LOT about the following, from what you said, from your circles:

           “Thank the Lord we have the gift of His righteousness that makes us accepted in Christ even though our flesh still sins that great sin of breaking the great commandment everyday…”

           Now, I’m assuming when you state “His”, you mean Jesus, for being sinless, right?

           Abraham was considered righteous LONG before Jesus came on the scene. And Abraham is also For all have sinned, and yet, Abraham had NO WRITTEN CODE of what sin was/is.

           So, how do you guys explain that one? Jesus wasn’t even on the scene yet, and yet, Abraham was righteous. How?

           How is it that Abraham didn’t have any written code about what sin is? Abraham could NOT quote 1 John 3:4, now could he?

           He could not even quote, THOU SHALT NOT this or that.

           Time travel back to Abraham and ask him if he can quote the Ten Commandments. What would Abraham say was the GREATEST commandment?

           Ed Chapman

           Loading...

       30. Sorry Brian, it’s not letting me reply directly to you. You have seriously misunderstood what I was saying! I should have defined terms, sorry. I’m not talking about being plunked in water, here, but Rom 6 baptism.

           From one of my other many comments in this thread:

           “How are these believers then born as new children of God? Of their own power and will? By two parents having intercourse? By the believer deciding ‘hey I’m gonna be adopted now, poof?’ No! Of God’s power and will, as detailed above. Through baptism the believer unites with the death of Christ and God raises the believer to new life and grants the indwelling Spirit. Now that the believer has the Holy Spirit, the believer is an adopted child of God via the regeneration God gave.”

           That isn’t about being immersed in water (though that gives an outward testimony of the process, sure, but that rarely coincides with the first instant of faith.) Baptism is the process by which God cleanses the conscience of the believer. We identify with the death of Christ by faith, and so God raises us to new life by the Spirit. That’s what regeneration is, our becoming a new creation in Christ, and it happens logically post-faith (though temporarily at the same instant.)

           I’ll respond more later, out of time!

           Loading...

       31. Thanks for clarifying, Jennifer. I’ve run into too many sacramentalists in my life… I just wanted to be sure. Few talk about baptism by the Holy Spirit as the moment of salvation through faith… but indeed it is.

           Loading...

39. I understand the notion that someone could choose to “unfaith” their relationship with God, but then why would they, knowing full well the consequence? The fear of eternal torment alone would cause me to never want separation from God. Do I ever get frustrated with God? Do I ever rebel? Do I ever say things or do things I shouldn’t? Of course I do. Daily (sadly). But at the end of the day, I ask for mercy and grace. I am not a sinner because I sin. No. I sin because I am a sinner. God knows this.

    Graciously, out of love (not election), He sent His Son to live the life I couldn’t (and wouldn’t) live and He died the death I deserve.

    As far as disobedience to God, there is no sin that I (as a child of God) can commit that isn’t covered by the blood of Christ. Period.

    1 Corinthians 3:10-15 (NKJV)…..
    According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work (gold, silver, or precious stones) which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work (wood, hay, or straw) is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

    The above tells me all I need to know. There will be some in heaven who will have no rewards. Nothing to show for it. But as long as his/her foundation is Jesus Christ, they will be saved. Thus, we are saved by grace, thru faith, and not by works.

    To use the old sports analogy, there will be some in the stadium/arena with courtside seats (like Abraham, Paul, etc.) and there will be some in the nose bleed/rafter section as well (I must remember to bring my binoculars).

    Thanks for your grace, mercy, and compassion, Lord Jesus.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. “Why would they?” is a great question, but it does happen, and is easier to see why in context of the various verses which speak of it. People who didn’t endure in faith, but denied Christ to escape brutal torture or death. Jewish Christians who fell away from faith because they didn’t want to lose esteem in the eyes of their Jewish peers. Christians who gave up when things got a little tough (like the seed on rocky soil with shallow root.) People who in the end wanted to return to their sin since it was more desirable in the short term. People whose faith was overturned because they listened to false teachers who claimed the Resurrection had already passed. Etc.

       Tragic, yes, Near unthinkable, yes. But that’s precisely why there are so many warnings to stand firm and endure in faith – because it *is* possible for us to give in to the pleasures of the world or want to escape persecution by denying Christ. And if we dismiss it as impossible, we might not be prepared to endure even to the point of shedding blood.

       Even Jn 3:16 shows that we only hold eternal life (present active) as we believe (present active.) Jn 15 shows we are rooted in the vine only if we abide in Christ. If we stop abiding, we are instantly cut off. II Tim 2 shows that if a believer later denies Christ, Christ in turn will deny him before the Father.

       But this is a sort of different topic than the main one, which is about God initiating salvation, not particularly whether it is possible or not for a person to believe for a time but then reject Christ.

       Loading...

       Reply

40. Those who don’t believe in a Permanent Salvation provided by God will surely rely to man’s self efforts in order to maintain the gift of Salvation. The challenge is : No one (unbelievers or believers) are righteous enough to save themselves and have the capacity to maintain being connected to the true vine. It is God who saves sinners. God will become insincere if He cannot fully stand to His promises of security to the believers in Christ as reflected in His holy words.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Firstly, the subject of this post is not really related to OSAS as God initiating salvation applies both to those who believe in Eternal Security and those who do not. I’m guessing some people have resurrected this thread due to lots of discussion on OSAS over in the Soteriology101 Discussion group, which is a better place for it.

       But I’ll touch on your post, since you highlight a huge problem as to why discussions on difficult topics in soteriology rarely go very far: logical fallacies,muddy/fluid definitions, conflating terms incorrectly, and either ignorant or deliberate misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what others believe.

       A. Strawman [Those who don’t believe in a Permanent Salvation provided by God will surely rely to man’s self efforts in order to maintain the gift of Salvation.]

       Faith is not a “self-effort,” it is humble trust in the work of Christ. Christians don’t “maintain” our salvation – it is God who delivers us from sin, grafts us into Christ, and prunes the vine. One could say we “keep faith” and a good conscience lest we make shipwreck of it (I Tim 1:19,) that we have to “abide” in Christ (Jn 15,) and that we need to be in a productive relationship with Christ rooted in faith (II Pet 1:3-11.) But faith is not salvation.

       I’m not going to speak for everyone here since there are so many variations on how people interpret the nuances of salvation. But I really like this phrase I saw on an Arminian page, that we have “monergistic salvation” but “synergystic faith.” Basically, God is 100% the one who saves us. We cannot deliver ourselves from sin or raise ourselves up to new life or justify ourselves, etc. Faith, however, is synergistic as it incorporates God’s grace/offer/revelation and man’s humble trusting response into a living, relational faith with Christ.

       It’s like the Israelites. They didn’t have to “maintain salvation” somehow – God was always ready to deliver them and fulfill promises. But when they turned from God and trusted self instead of God, God would send judgement or allow some other calamity to arise. God didn’t make them continue following or deliver them anyway.

       B. No one disagrees regardless of their position on eternal security. [The challenge is : No one (unbelievers or believers) are righteous enough to save themselves]

       C. Seems to be wordy gobbledygook, but also wrong. Jesus puts it far more simply, “Remain in me (Jn 15.)” Paul is also pretty straightforward about how we stay in the vine: “You stand by faith.” There is never a hint that this is something a believer cannot do. But there is a warning that failure to remain in faith will lead to God casting the branch out (Rom 11:20-21, Jn 15:6.)

       D. No one disagrees regardless of their position on eternal security. [It is God who saves sinners.]

       E. Again, everyone agrees. [God will become insincere if He cannot fully stand to His promises of security to the believers in Christ as reflected in His holy words.] That promise of security is *to believers,* not to those who believe for a time but then reject faith and fall away.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Jenai writes: “But there is a warning that failure to remain in faith will lead to God casting the branch out (Rom 11:20-21, Jn 15:6.)”

          My Response:

          God may cut off the branch but He will also put it back according to: Romans 11:20-21 and onwards… don’t focus only to the “cutting off”
          God blinded Israel for a purpose so that they were cut off as a branch, but you need to read also the continuing verses. i.e.:

          v. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them again. [God can both do the act of cutting off and putting it back. Jenai focuses only to the issue of cutting off to mean lost of Salvation]

          v. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? [meaning, the cutting off is just temporal. It is not their destiny which Jenai seems to assert here]

          v. 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 [means their unblinding is temporary. There will come a time wherein God will unblind them] has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

          v. 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. [ ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED according to this verse, but Jenai says and believes in a salvation that can be lost. Also the verse is saying irresistible grace because it is God who will cleanse them from all unrighteousness even if they don’t for the sake of God’s covenant for them. see Romans 11:28-29]

          “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of their fathers.” Romans 11:28

          “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable”. Romans 11:29 – [This is the letter “I” that the Calvinists believes in]

          Loading...

       2. Jennifer,

          I really appreciate your posts! In this new flurry of input, yours is the most thoughtful.

          Dont hold the mixed up syntax and word-choice from JTL against him. English is not his first language. I have had these conversations in three other languages myself and it aint easy! (outside of your mother tongue).

          I often make the example of the Israelites (the OT examples do not seem to count for Calvinists). The “chosen people” have to have faith to apply blood on their door…..step into the raging Jordan river….. circle Jericho seven times…..etc. But never afterward do they do a victory dance saying…… “He he he, we sure showed those guys with our great power!”

          Nah…. that is just a straw man that Sproul take chapters to create in his books! “Non-Calvinists think they save themselves!”

          Just when we get the point across to one or two Calvinists….. along comes another newly-minted YRR to yell the same accusation at us. Oh well….

          Loading...

       3. I think the OT has a lot of great examples to pull from to understand salvation as well! It always surprises me a little when a claim is made by reading in a personal philosophy divorced from any scripture (e.g. “if just one drop of Jesus’ blood was shed for someone who didn’t believe, it was wasted, and that would make His sacrifice less than perfect!.”) Then, when I point out an OT scripture directly countering (e.g. “Most of the blood of the Passover lamb ended up in a bowl. Only a small part was sprinkled onto the doorframe with some hyssop, so some was left on the plant or got on the ground as well. Scripture isn’t concerned with drops wasted; it’s concerned with showing us that only a drop applied in faith is required to cover us from the judgement of death.”) I get told things like, “That’s not relevant!” or “That was the OT, this is the new!” Or the weirdest, “We shouldn’t use the Passover lamb as an analogy for Christ.”

          But the whole Old Testament is full of types and shadows that can help us understand Christ.

          My longer comment to JTL is awaiting moderation (I think because I linked to a couple words in the Biblehub lexicon,) but I do have to say his post was pretty honest and straightforward. Most Calvinists I debate with don’t want to come right out and say they believe God made some soil good and other soil bad, or that the gospel is only legitimately offered to some. Ironically, when I’ve asked some Calvinists why it seems that in Calvinism God’s offer to the world is illusory and only “a real offer” to the elect, I just get accused of not understanding Calvinism. 😉 And the compatibility-Calvinists just say things like, “Well the world just means the elect, and everyone else doesn’t have a desire to accept it anyway.”

          So I appreciate that JTL is frank in his views, though, since that makes it simple to point to scriptures that refute them and show that his claim about God making the soil bad is not based in anything Jesus or other scripture says. I feel like in many conversations on soteriology the dance of hidden re-definitions and hidden philosophies/assumptions and ‘non-answers’ make it hard to get anywhere.

          Loading...

       4. JR…you are so right!

          On these very pages Calvinist RH has given some unclear, wish-it-were-so answers (like Piper) that Christ “offers” Himself to men (“in a certain way”) but they are not willing to accept. Whereas JTL (a bit more strident) holds the in-your-face Calvinist position that there was NO OFFER.

          We have tried to get RH (and Piper-ites) to be honest and see that the L in TULIP automatically dictates that the offer is NOT EVEN GIVEN or “Limited”. But they will not admit it in a way that incriminates themselves.

          They just insist on having it both ways!

          They insist that man deserves Hell because he “refused the offer of Christ” while at the same time saying that before the foundations of the world…. God decide who would receive the offer. The rest…. according to consistent Calvinism….. never even received an offer. They are intended to be bad soil.

          They are not rejecting it —-if it was never offered.

          Nor are they personally accepting it—- if it is irresistible.

          Loading...

       5. FOH writes, “RH has given some unclear, wish-it-were-so answers (like Piper) that Christ “offers” Himself to men (“in a certain way”) but they are not willing to accept. ”

          Christ said, ““Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature….” Thus, the gospel is offered to all people who hear the gospel preached.

          Then, “Whereas JTL (a bit more strident) holds the in-your-face Calvinist position that there was NO OFFER. ”

          This is also true. One cannot see or enter the kingdom of God unless one is born again by the Holy Spirit and not everyone is born again. Thus, when you say, “We have tried to get RH…to be honest and see that the L in TULIP automatically dictates that the offer is NOT EVEN GIVEN or “Limited”., ” you are being disingenuous.

          Then, “They insist that man deserves Hell because he “refused the offer of Christ” …”

          NO!. Man deserves hell because of his sin and lack of righteousness. You know this; hwy be so devious? The offer of Christ is the means to escape the hell that he deserves.

          Loading...

       6. “…it is impossible to admire Jesus as a wise and loving teacher while rejecting him as your risen and living Master….”

          “… O do not be like the builders this morning! Do not reject Jesus Christ. Do not stumble over this rejected stone.”

          Above are two of the 25 times Piper uses the word “rejected” in one message.

          You cannot reject something that is not offered.

          Piper pleads with people not to reject Christ. This is inconsistent of him. If Christ is not offered (to the “non-elect” …since it is “limited”) then they are not rejecting Him. If they are “elect” they cannot reject Him.

          Loading...

       7. FOH writes, “You cannot reject something that is not offered. ”

          The gospel is offered and rejected. This is what Paul explains, “…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,…” People understand the message of the gospel; they just consider it foolishness and reject it. Piper appeals to those who do not consider the gospel foolishness because it is these that God is saving. as Paul also explains, “to us who are being saved [the gospel] is the power of God.” There is no rational basis for anyone to reject the gospel; those who reject the gospel are behaving irrationally.

          Loading...

       8. FOH
          You cannot reject something that is not offered.

          br.d
          And in Theological Determinism – absolutely NOTHING is “UP TO YOU” anyway.
          If Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN you reject – then he does not PERMIT you to do anything other than reject.

          Loading...

       9. FOH writes:
          “You cannot reject something that is not offered.”

          You are both touching around the edges, and because I’m that sort of person, I just want to spell it out, loud and clear:

          Under Determinism, there can be no such thing as an offer, thus there can be no such thing as rejection. Any suggestion of an offer, and of accepting or rejecting an offer is deceptive and misleading, if God deterministically ordains whatsoever will come to pass before a person is ever born.

          Neither semantic games nor the invention of words and definitions can mask this fact. I declare the concept of Compatibilism a farce, whether multiple philosophers accept it or not. It is absurd to suggest that a man is ‘free to choose’ that which has been irresistibly ordained and which he cannot choose against.

          Thus, if Calvinism is true, both Calvinists and their Calvi-god are deceivers and deliberately engage in misleading language, apparently to disguise or hide the reality of Determinism. One might justly ask why God would so carefully mask his determinism in scripture, so much so that no one even noticed it until Augustine came along. (That’s not to say that there were not pagan religions that asserted deistic determinism, but none who claimed to hold to the scriptures of Christianity.)

          If this is who God is, and how he works, and he wants glory in and through it, why didn’t he just state it plainly and clearly? Why all the games, and fake offers, and demands to ‘believe’ (wink, wink) and commands to ‘obey’ (wink, wink). Why suggest the absurd notion of sin, which cannot possibly exist as defined if men simply do as God has ordained they irresistibly must?

          I do not buy it for a second. The most obvious alternative is that this is a faulty interpretation, held by a minority of those who love God and study his Word. I go with the obvious, non-contradictory gospel of John 3:16. Because God made man free, he could and does choose to sin. Because God is love, he chose to offer man a second chance. Each man must choose what he will believe about God and his grace and whom he will serve. No script. No predetermined ‘choices’. Just real, genuine living, with the freedom to think or not think, seek wisdom or follow folly, love God or love self. The choice is real and the consequences are real, and all men are without excuse, for God has made himself known.

          Loading...

       10. Totally correct TS00!

           Loading...

    2. Jtleosala
       Those who don’t believe in a Permanent Salvation provided by God will surely rely to man’s self efforts in order to maintain the gift of Salvation.

       br.d
       This is a claim only.
       Why don’t you try and show this through a LOGICAL argument?

       Jtleosala
       The challenge is : No one (unbelievers or believers) are righteous enough to save themselves and have the capacity to maintain being connected to the true vine.

       br.d
       This may appear to be a challenge to you – but its no challenge for the vast majority of Christians who reject the notion that man can save himself. No Christian in his right mind would claim to save himself.

       Jtleosala
       God will become insincere if He cannot fully stand to His promises of security to the believers in Christ as reflected in His holy words.

       br.d
       Calvin’s god is inherently insincere.
       He deceives Adam into believing it is his will for Adam to obey – while SECRETLY NOT PERMITTING Adam to obey.
       And according to Calvin – he deceives a -quote LARGE MIXTURE of Calvinists into believing they are saved – holding salvation out to them as a -quote “savor of greater condemnation” to later -quote “strike them with greater blindness”

       Deception is the essence of insincerity.

       Loading...

       Reply

41. Jenai writes: “Christians who gave up when things got a little tough (like the seed on rocky soil with shallow root.) People who in the end wanted to return to their sin since it was more desirable in the short term.”

    My Response: The gospel was not intended to the rocky soil, the reason that it dies It was not legitimately offered to them and so it dies. But look at the good soil… the only type of soil that will stand and will prosper. They had been regenerated by God. It was God who prepared them (made them good soil) before hand the gospel was sown to them. There was nothing that was lost for those people who have not actually possessed in them the legitimate offer of salvation.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. 1. “My Response: The gospel was not intended to the rocky soil,”

       The farmer sows on the rocky soil just as much as on the good soil. There’s nothing in the analogy to hint that the farmer doesn’t really intend for there to be a crop and is just wasting seed for the fun of it. I’m curious as to what you are basing that philosophical claim in, because it isn’t present in Mk 4 or Matt 13 or Luke 8.

       2. “the reason that it dies It was not legitimately offered to them and so it dies.”

       Strange, that’s not the reason Christ gives.

       “Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.” Luke 8:13

       That word “receive” there? It means to welcome what is offered. https://biblehub.com/greek/1209.htm No hint that Jesus is throwing in a secret extra layer to the parable where he expects the disciples to distinguish an offer from God with a “legitimate” off from God or trying to portray God as doing a fake out.

       “”In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy;”

       A different word for receive here, this one means to actively take what is offered. https://biblehub.com/greek/2983.htm

       So these people welcomed God’s offer and believed. But why did they fall away?

       “and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they fall away.” Mk 4:17

       Nothing about the offer not being intended for them or not legitimate. *They* only lasted for a season https://biblehub.com/greek/4340.htm. (Which is longer than never at all,) *They* succumbed to persecution and fell away. Their failure to continue believing is on them here, not because God didn’t supply a legitimate offer or want them to grow.

       3. ” But look at the good soil… the only type of soil that will stand and will prosper.”

       Yes, Jesus also describes why the soil is good. “But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.” (Lk 8:14)

       4. “They had been regenerated by God.”

       So had the ones on rocky soil. God passes every believer from death to life as they unite with the death and Resurrection of Christ (Rom 6, etc.) But the ones on rocky soil fell away, so would have died a second time and returned to the world and slavery to sin. Tragic, but God is faithful to keep His promises no matter whether or not we are or are going to be in the future.

       5. “It was God who prepared them (made them good soil) before hand the gospel was sown to them.”

       Jesus says nothing in the parable about the farmer being responsible for the various states of the soil, and the implication of the parable seems to lean towards the hearts of man being responsible for their state of soil/readiness for the Messiah vs. God somehow being the one making the soil good or rocky or thorny.

       6. “There was nothing that was lost for those people who have not actually possessed in them the legitimate offer of salvation.”

       No where in the parable of the sower or elsewhere in scripture is a mystic “legitimate offer” distinguished from the offer of salvation through Christ to all who will trust in Him.

       That’s kind of like saying that the people who refused to come to the wedding feast did not receive “legitimate invites,” and is a nonsensical distinction.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. JR,
          Your exegesis is right on!

          JTL overlooks all the words in the text and imposes what it “must be” (using a few key Calvin-interpreted verses as filter).

          That is what led me out of Calvinism—-actually reading what the text said!

          Loading...

       2. Jenai posted these ones:

          1. “My Response: The gospel was not intended to the rocky soil,”

          The farmer sows on the rocky soil just as much as on the good soil. There’s nothing in the analogy to hint that the farmer doesn’t really intend for there to be a crop and is just wasting seed for the fun of it. I’m curious as to what you are basing that philosophical claim in, because it isn’t present in Mk 4 or Matt 13 or Luke 8.
          ————-My response is the one typed inside the bracket————

          [In reality no farmer will sow seeds to a type of ground that is still unprepared for planting. There could also be an instance that some of the seeds will be carried away by the wind to the unprepared ground by accident. The same thing applies to Spiritual mandate of sowing. Deep within us we want the gospel to be in the hands of the elect, but the problem is we don’t have the capacity to determine spiritually who are the elect]

          2. “the reason that it dies It was not legitimately offered to them and so it dies.”

          Strange, that’s not the reason Christ gives.

          “Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.” Luke 8:13

          That word “receive” there? It means to welcome what is offered. https://biblehub.com/greek/1209.htm No hint that Jesus is throwing in a secret extra layer to the parable where he expects the disciples to distinguish an offer from God with a “legitimate” off from God or trying to portray God as doing a fake out.

          “”In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy;”

          A different word for receive here, this one means to actively take what is offered. https://biblehub.com/greek/2983.htm

          So these people welcomed God’s offer and believed. But why did they fall away?

          “and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they fall away.” Mk 4:17

          Nothing about the offer not being intended for them or not legitimate. *They* only lasted for a season https://biblehub.com/greek/4340.htm. (Which is longer than never at all,) *They* succumbed to persecution and fell away. Their failure to continue believing is on them here, not because God didn’t supply a legitimate offer or want them to grow.

          ———-My Response is the one typed inside the bracket——-

          [Not all joy are genuine. Most people are so eager and joyful for material things especially if the gospel presented is coated with promises and assurances of gained profits like good health, riches, booming financial gains etc.]

          3. ” But look at the good soil… the only type of soil that will stand and will prosper.”

          Yes, Jesus also describes why the soil is good. “But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.” (Lk 8:14)

          ——My Response is the one typed inside the bracket——

          [The good soil cannot make his own status as “good” because all humans are sinners and are morally unable to access spiritual things. It was God who made intervention in their helpless condition]

          4. “They had been regenerated by God.”

          So had the ones on rocky soil. God passes every believer from death to life as they unite with the death and Resurrection of Christ (Rom 6, etc.) But the ones on rocky soil fell away, so would have died a second time and returned to the world and slavery to sin. Tragic, but God is faithful to keep His promises no matter whether or not we are or are going to be in the future.

          ——My Response is typed inside the bracket———-

          [I see no reason WHY would God ever attempt to regenerate the rocky soil, if the gospel was not intended for them. If He did not write their names in the book of life before time, why He would regenerate the rocky soil?]

          5. “It was God who prepared them (made them good soil) before hand the gospel was sown to them.”

          Jesus says nothing in the parable about the farmer being responsible for the various states of the soil, and the implication of the parable seems to lean towards the hearts of man being responsible for their state of soil/readiness for the Messiah vs. God somehow being the one making the soil good or rocky or thorny.

          ——–My Response is the one typed inside the bracket——–

          [All soil-humanity are sinners and became bad after the fall of Adam and Eve, dead to sin and are morally incapable to access God on their own. God in His mercy choose a people on His own and regenerates them. He did not pick them all, that means the rocky ground, wayside, thorny ground were not picked out.]

          6. “There was nothing that was lost for those people who have not actually possessed in them the legitimate offer of salvation.”

          No where in the parable of the sower or elsewhere in scripture is a mystic “legitimate offer” distinguished from the offer of salvation through Christ to all who will trust in Him.

          That’s kind of like saying that the people who refused to come to the wedding feast did not receive “legitimate invites,” and is a nonsensical distinction.

          ——–My Response is the one typed inside the bracket———

          [You said: “nowhere in scripture is a mystic ” legitimate offer”, and yet Jenai cannot afford to deny that the one invited to the wedding without the distinct garment worn was cast out of the wedding. A very clear evidence that the invitation extended to him was illegitimate. The servants have mistakenly invited him. This guest brought by the servants, the name was not in the official list, not a legitimate participant to the wedding]

          Loading...

    2. Your view presumes that God makes faulty or ‘bad’ soil. Scripture denies this, as do I. All are without excuse, and those who reject God do so, not because he made them unable to know and receive his grace, but because they deliberately, knowingly reject the truth for a lie. None will stand before God and say ‘I was unable to do anything else’. All will own their own choices, and acknowledge that they, too, could have believed in who he is and what he offered them, but pursued a lie in order to cling to that which they loved more.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. TSOO writes: “Your view presumes that God makes faulty or ‘bad’ soil. Scripture denies this, as do I. All are without excuse, and those who reject God do so, not because he made them unable to know and receive his grace, but because they deliberately, knowingly reject the truth for a lie. None will stand before God and say ‘I was unable to do anything else’. All will own their own choices, and acknowledge that they, too, could have believed in who he is and what he offered them, but pursued a lie in order to cling to that which they loved more.”

          My Response :

          It was TSOO that says “God makes faulty or bad soil”, not me. Originally when Adam and Eve was created they were all good. They became “bad soil” and the rest of the generations on earth after the fall. It was not God who made them bad. No one is born righteous on this earth for all deserve to be thrown to hell, yet God choose a people of His own before time in order to acknowledge Christ as their Messiah in God’s appointed time.

          Salvation was God’s idea before the foundation of the world, not man’s. God’s plan of Salvation for man started when God initiated and decided for Himself before time whose names to write and not to write in the book of life according to :

          Rev. 13:8 “And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, WHOSE NAMES HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

          [meaning there is no more names added to the book of life of the Lamb. It was done before time]

          Rev. 17:8 “… And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”.

          [meaning, those names that are not to written in the book of life of the Lamb has been decided already by God. You may keep on debating on these and would dream to save all people but God has been done about this issue before time]

          Loading...

       2. You conveniently omit the necessity of God cursing men, i.e. making them into ‘bad soil’. Adam was not capable of cursing mankind. Nor could such a curse (which I deny) have just happened. If the nature of man was cursed, making him Totally Depraved – no longer able to know and desire God – it must have been God that made it thus. So indeed, Calvinism’s claim requires God making ‘bad soil’; no other being has the power to do so.

          Loading...

    3. jtleosala
       The gospel was not intended to the rocky soil, the reason that it dies It was NOT LEGITIMATELY OFFERED to them.

       br.d
       Mark this quote from Calvinist jtleosala!

       Here you have it for all to see
       Calvin’s god does NOT make a LEGITIMATE OFFER to all to who are presented with the gospel.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Br.d thank you & trust me sometimes people need to see this in black and white…. either he hasn’t a clue of the implication or he simply believes this😔

          br.d
          Mark this quote from Calvinist jtleosala!

          jtleosala
          The gospel was not intended to the rocky soil, the reason that it dies It was NOT LEGITIMATELY OFFERED to them.

          Loading...

       2. Yes I think you’re right Reggie!

          He does believe it – and as Calvinists go – he’s actually being more truth-full than most of them – who will try to weasel their way out of giving the opposite answer – using SEMANTIC word games.

          So I have to grant it to him – he’s more honest than most Calvinists on this question. :-]

          Loading...

42. Philip writes: “As far as disobedience to God, there is no sin that I (as a child of God) can commit that isn’t covered by the blood of Christ. Period.”

    My Response : “Amen, I agree…”

    “Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Romans 8:33

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Unless you are a Jew, you are NOT elect. Only Jews get “regenerated”. Regeneration is NOT NEEDED for the Gentiles. The words Elect and Christian are NOT synonymous words.

       Ed Chapman

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Ed C. writes: “Unless you are a Jew, you are NOT elect. Only Jews get “regenerated”. Regeneration is NOT NEEDED for the Gentiles. The words Elect and Christian are NOT synonymous words.”:

          Ed Chapman

          My Response:

          1. Ed C. has a great load of dispute against the Apostle Paul. Ed C’s doctrine presented here is contrary to Paul’s doctrine on the beneficiaries of election.

          Romans 9:15 “For He says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, [but ED C. without any authority to do so, delimits the elect for the Jews only, excluding the Gentile believers] and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” v. 15 – [the “whomever” in this verse collapses Ed C’s spurious doctrine on Jews as only the elect excluding the Gentile believers]

          v. 24 Even us [the pronoun “US” – includes both Jews and Gentiles, but ED C easily spews this out from his mouth] whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles”.

          Loading...

43. Jenai writes: “Jn 15 shows we are rooted in the vine only if we abide in Christ. If we stop abiding, we are instantly cut off.”

    My Response:

    Even if a believer in Christ would attempt to eject from his/her union with Christ would be impossible to do so because of the LOVE of Christ that binds that union according to Romans 8:35 “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ….”

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Jtleosala
       Even if a believer in Christ would attempt to eject from his/her union with Christ would be impossible to do so because of the LOVE of Christ that binds that union according to Romans 8:35 “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ….”

       br.d
       But the Calvinist doesn’t know if he is “elect” or not.
       For all he knows he could be being deceived by Calvin’s god into believing he is “elect” .
       He would be waiting to see whether or not Calvin’s god is holding salvation out as a “savor of greater condemnation” and whether or not Calvin’s god will -quote “strike him with greater blindness”

       For the Calvinist – all of the promises in scripture are what Paul calls AN UNCERTAIN SOUND

       Loading...

       Reply

44. Br.D. writes: “Here you have it for all to see”
    “Calvin’s god does NOT make a LEGITIMATE OFFER to all to who are presented with the gospel.”

    My Response :

    Pls. take not Br.D, I did not say: “to all who are presented with the gospel”. Please don’t misquote me. You are the one who said that. What i said is that:

    “The gospel was not intended to the rocky soil, the reason that it dies It was not legitimately offered to them and so it dies.”

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Br.D
       “Here you have it for all to see”
       “Calvin’s god does NOT make a LEGITIMATE OFFER to all to who are presented with the gospel.”

       jtleosala
       I did not say: “to all who are presented with the gospel”. Please don’t misquote me. You are the one who said that. What i said is that:

       “The gospel was not intended to the rocky soil, the reason that it dies It was not legitimately offered to them and so it dies.”

       br.d
       So lets use an example we will call person_A – who is not “elect” and is therefore “rocky soil”

       Lets say the gospel is presented to Person_A by a Calvinist.

       We simply take your quote and replace the terms “rocky soil” for Person_A

       And we get the following:
       “The gospel was not intended to Person_A, the reason that it dies It was NOT LEGITIMATELY OFFERED to Person_A and so it dies.”

       Therefore my statement is confirmed:

       “Calvin’s god does NOT make a LEGITIMATE OFFER to all to who are presented with the gospel.”

       Loading...

       Reply

45. FOH writes: “You cannot reject something that is not offered.”

    My Response:

    1. If it is a “prosperity gospel” presented to them, of course most people will grab it and will not reject it.

    2. Christ mandate is to preach the gospel to all (Matt. 28:19-20) that is why there was some seed that falls on the wayside, rocky ground and thorny ground. This can be well understood because no soul winner is omniscient (except God) to determine who are the elect from among the audience. FOH cannot afford to accuse Piper, RH and myself as contradicting each other. The truth about the matter remains untarnished despite several attempts to go against the wall, it will just fall down.

    Loading...

    Reply

46. TSOO writes: “You conveniently omit the necessity of God cursing men, i.e. making them into ‘bad soil’. Adam was not capable of cursing mankind. Nor could such a curse (which I deny) have just happened. If the nature of man was cursed, making him Totally Depraved – no longer able to know and desire God – it must have been God that made it thus. So indeed, Calvinism’s claim requires God making ‘bad soil’; no other being has the power to do so.”

    My Response: TSOO keeps on pushing on me his agenda and allegations of God as the one cursing the rocky soil. I suggest you keep that for yourself. That kind of strategy will never work against an opponent for it will just fall to the ground. No one is born righteous/sinless on earth except Christ. It was Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey God that made them bad and that created a negative impact to all succeeding generations. And so… I cannot ever think why TSOO is charging God as the cause of the existence of “bad soil”.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. I fail to see where scripture implies that Adam, in eating of the forbidden fruit, became bad soil and cursed future generations into being three types of bad soil. Rather, death entered the world through Adam. We are all (before Christ) under the penalty of death due to our sin; we are all subject to physical death in our mortal bodies (but for believers, we will be resurrected and clothed in new spiritual bodies;) we all have the knowledge of good and evil and therefore are tempted to sin, and again sin brings that penalty of death.

       1. Adam still followed God. He sinned, and God typed the future forgiveness of sins in the blood of Christ by clothing Adam in animal skin.

       2. Adam apparently taught his children about God, since both Cain and Abel knew of God, made offerings to God, and talked with him. Yet Abel offered from the first and best of his flock, while Cain offered just some of the stuff from the soil. Did Abel somehow escape being bad soil, or did God zap him into good soil while Cain was left bad? God tells Cain if he “does what is right” he will be accepted. There’s no hint that Cain *can’t* do what is right because he’s bad soil.

       3. The fruit was of the tree of the “knowledge of good and evil.” Not the “fruit of cursing everyone to be bad soil who can’t understand or accept the gospel.” Adam had no power to change the nature of his progeny. The fruit wasn’t said to change nature. I’m glad you agree God doesn’t change our nature to make us bad soil. The curse God gave to Adam was toil and to Eve pain, not a change into bad soil. So where are you getting Adam somehow being the one responsible for changing the nature of his descendants into bad soil?

       4. I’ve already gone through the parable of the sower so I won’t repeat all that, but the word was obviously sown on all the soils, even the hardpan path. There is not a ghost of a hint that it wasn’t “really” intended for those soils. What farmer does not intend a harvest? Who plants a seed with the desire it does not grow? This does not fit with Jesus’ explanation or the rest of scripture.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Jenai,

          I tried to say the same thing to jt about six months ago or so. He fails to see the error of his ways. As with most Calvinists, they fail to see the TITLE of that tree has significance. They all seem to think that Adams sin was disobeying a command to not eat of it, and that the TITLE of that tree is of NO SIGNIFICANCE, that it was just a tree that he was commanded not to eat from.

          They can’t even acknowledge what GAVE Adam shame so that he needed to cover up with a fig leaf. They say that God put them in the Garden NAKED, and God thought that was GOOD.

          Yes, IGNORANCE of them being naked was good. But the KNOWLEDGE of being naked was EVIL, hence shame, hence COVER UP and HIDE.

          Then, to top it all off, NO ONE talks about “THAT OTHER TREE”. No one even seems to remember the TITLE of that tree, as it’s never even mentioned, except in passing, and they have no clue what it’s SIGNIFICANCE was regarding “IF” Adam would have eaten of it, whether if he would have BEFORE, and/or AFTER he ate of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.

          In other words, Could Adam had still “OBTAINED” ETERNAL LIFE IN A FALLEN STATE?

          The answer to that is YES.

          What would have been the RESULT of Adam living in a fallen state eternally?

          They don’t ask that question, nor can they answer it.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

       2. Questions that aren’t in the script must be ignored. Otherwise, while winging it, they tend to get caught in the web of the obvious inconsistencies and logical absurdities of their system. When we read scripture, and discover that long-held beliefs just don’t seem to fit the narrative, we have to be willing to surrender our beliefs and start over. You and I might not always come up with the same answers, but we are not afraid to grapple with the hard questions, to think for ourselves, challenge the Grand Poobah’s that supposedly have all the answers and attempt to follow scripture where it leads. I’m not suggesting any of us gets it all right, but to just bald-faced ignore the problems and necessary, unpalatable truths that arise from Calvinist assertions is telling.

          Here’s a short list of the necessary, unpalatable truths arising from their system that Calvinists prefer to ignore:

          Calvi-god is evil.
          Calvi-god is cruel.
          Calvi-god is a narcissist, and cares only about his own image.
          Calvi-god is untrustworthy.
          Calvi-god loves to mock people, commanding them to do what he refuses to enable them to do.
          Calvi-god desires (some) people to perish.
          Calvi-god curses people with an inability to do right, then threatens and punishes them for this inability.
          Calvi-god makes false claims to love ‘all’ and desire that ‘none’ perish, which he does not mean.

          I am so glad that Calvi-god is not God, nor can he be found in scripture. He is a faulty, concocted image, cobbled together from twisted interpretations of verses taken out of context.

          Loading...

       3. Totally agree. We gotta ask the questions, but we gotta research the answer ourselves. If we rely on dead people who decided for us some 600 years ago, then we didn’t learn a thing, except what their opinion was. Do we not have the same book that they did? Do we put our pants on the same way they did? Disregard that question… they wore dresses.

          Ed Chapman

          Loading...

       4. Asking philosophical questions that don’t relate to the main point of the passage drives me nuts when it is used to either ignore the plain meaning/point of the passage or to worse, build dogmatic doctrine of, or both. Figurative language and parables get abused so much in this way, but even explicit texts can to (often when philosophical claims taken from figurative passages are read back into them.) This can happen with any belief, not just Calvinism, but Calvinism does have to take this approach a lot with passages to ignore the text/context/parallel scripture and claim the verse actually supports their view because of philosophic presupposition X read into it.

          JTLs ignoring Jesus’ explanation of the parable in favor of focusing on his philosophic presumption that the parable is all about how the gospel was never intended for the bad soil is one of the more blatant ones, but this happens anytime a passage is studied and responds with something not about the Greek or the context or parallel scripture but with some perceived philosophical implication taken from an out of context figurative word in the text, or taking a different trait from the analogous object than the one intended by the main comparison. E.g. Sheep, dogs, soil, spiritually dead. When interpreting parables and figurative language, the point being made and the relationship/reason presented is key. It’s not that we can’t examine potential secondary symbols or points, but that that can’t be where we start, can’t override the stated or clear meaning of the passage, and can’t be used to build doctrine off of.

          The other big issue being pre-reading their chosen philosophy and definitions into words scripture uses (sovereign, elect, etc.) and then claiming the use of the word proves that their pre-assumption on the definition is correct.

          And Ed Chapman, great points on the two trees. I’ve never heard a sermon on the topic (of what would have happened has God left the tree of Life and Adam ate of it) at any of the local churches I’ve attended. It seems to be relegated to a discussion for niche theology topics online – but it would seem to be a very important question to tackle! Especially since the Bible is almost book ended with the Tree of the Life. It is present in the Garden of Eden, and present in the New Jerusalem.

          Loading...

       5. I believe Matthew Henry touches on this in his commentary on Genesis 3. It has been a number of years, but IIRC it was one of the most moving treatments of the passage I have ever read, full of God’s love and mercy, rather than wrath and condemnation. It was so unlike anything I was hearing at the time in a Calvinist church, it was like water to a thirsting soul. When I brought up this commentary to my then pastor, he immediately disdained it. Sigh; I should have gotten it then, but it took me quite a while longer.

          Loading...

       6. Great recommendation on Matthew Henry’s commentary on Gen 3. I just went and read it over at Biblehub.

          “Genesis 3:22
          And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
          3:22-24 God bid man go out; told him he should no longer occupy and enjoy that garden: but man liked the place, and was unwilling to leave it, therefore God made him go out. This signified the shutting out of him, and all his guilty race, from that communion with God, which was the bliss and glory of paradise. But man was only sent to till the ground out of which he was taken. He was sent to a place of toil, not to a place of torment. Our first parents were shut out from the privileges of their state of innocency, yet they were not left to despair. The way to the tree of life was shut. It was henceforward in vain for him and his to expect righteousness, life, and happiness, by the covenant of works; for the command of that covenant being broken, the curse of it is in full force: we are all undone, if we are judged by that covenant. God revealed this to Adam, not to drive him to despair, but to quicken him to look for life and happiness in the promised Seed, by whom a new and living way into the holiest is laid open for us.”
          – Matthew Henry’s commentary

          Loading...

       7. Jenai,

          Yep, you got it. That’s exactly what I was getting at, and I must add that your comment regarding the tree of life at both ends of the book was right on target, too.

          But it is at this BEGINNING (Genesis 3) that gets skewed by the Calvinists, actually I should say Reformers and Catholics alike to be honest, and once the SKEWING takes place, it’s a whole different Bible than the one I read. And it begins at their (I’m not reformed, and I’m not Catholic, nor am I a Lutheran, either…just non-denomination) doctrine of “Original Sin”. I don’t believe in it at all, DUE to those two trees, and the shame that Adam had for being naked (not for eating of that tree, but for being naked).

          In other words, if I said, don’t put your finger in a light socket, it’s a command, yes. But that’s NOT why I told you to not put your finger in a light socket. So, if you disobey me, you are gonna get shocked. I’m not going to be hot fire mad that you disobeyed…no, I will be MORE upset that you got hurt.

          God did NOT want Adam to KNOW that he was naked, for he asked, “Who told you that you were naked?”

          But also notice that God never said, “Now look what ya did, ya screwed up my plans!” Hence the tree of life at the foot end of the book.

          Hence Matthew Henry’s great commentary, and I don’t read commentary, but his was good.

          This earth was NEVER MEANT TO BE OUR HOME…IN TIME that is. This place, earth, was never in ETERNITY to begin with. But somehow, people think that Adam BEGAN his breathing life here on earth ALREADY ETERNAL, but that he lost it by eating of a tree that God told him not to. But 1 Cor 15:36-end shows that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, that he was PLANTED in dishonor, WEAK, and CORRUPTION (that is discussing a dying body…see the book of Acts where it discusses David being dead and buried, and that the body of Jesus would not see “CORRUPTION”, MEANING a DECAYING body…he still has holes in his hands.

          So, for this and many other reasons, I do not believe in “original sin” as they attempt to prove in Romans 5.

          So, Genesis 3 is skewed by the reformers, especially the Calvinists, therefore, the rest of the story must be skewed, too.

          Ed Chapman..

          Loading...

       8. And it is astounding, the nerve of jtl to simply ignore Jesus’ own interpretation of the parable in order to read his own interpretation into it. The more I see this, the more determined I become to grow less and less certain of my own interpretations and more and more willing to engage with others’ thoughts. I spent so many years in circles in which ‘the clear teaching of scripture’ could not be questioned.

          Loading...

       9. You guys are touching on something very important here.

          The Word has many stories and parable….and then sometimes….Christ even tells us what they mean.

          Very often (as in this case with the soils) Christ’s words directly contradict Calvinism. They (Calvinists) simply say it does not “really mean” what Christ says it means.

          But one question I regularly ask myself and Calvinists is: What does it mean then? What is the point of the passage?

          Frankly: if the point of the Sower Parable is what JTL says it is either (a) so well hidden we cannot see it plainly or (b) misleading as Christ’s words directly contradict it.

          Loading...

       10. FOH writes, “Frankly: if the point of the Sower Parable is what JTL says it is either (a) so well hidden we cannot see it plainly or (b) misleading as Christ’s words directly contradict it.”

           The point of the parable is that only the good soil remains faithful and produces fruit. This, in Luke, is because they had “a noble and good heart.” and in Matthew, they “understand the word.” So, without a noble and good heart and the ability to understand the word, the offer of salvation falls on deaf ears. God would know this so the word was only intended to save those of good soil. We should understand at least this much.

           Loading...

       11. Rhutchin, your interpretation is slightly different than FTLs, but suffers from a similar problem. Note how quickly your summary deviates from the actual parable and explanation to reading in assumptions and philosophy:

           1. “The point of the parable is that only the good soil remains faithful and produces fruit.”

           Close. The main point is actually to be careful how you hear/attend to the word of God (as the parables are book-ended with this point of needing to be attentive, it shows up within the parables, and Matt 13 contains a whole aside about hearing and how Israel is not truly hearing because they have calloused hearts) since only hearing and holding fast to what you hear through faith and patience will lead to a good crop.

           The seed is the word of God, the very word of God which He has been proclaiming from town to town while they watched. *But not everyone responds to it the same way or even attends to it/heeds it in the same way.* Some people are resistant to the very idea of the Messiah – they are like a hardpan path, the seed can’t even root before it’s snatched away. Others welcome it with joy (that the Kingdom was at hand, that Jesus was the Messiah, etc.) and believe, but are looking for an easy fix to their problems and quickly fall away in times of persecution or trial. Others believe, but are trying to have the world and Jesus both, and their material greed and distraction keeps them from being fruitful in Christ. The seed fallen on good soil hears and holds fast to what he hears so as to do it and not be distracted by the cares/desires of the world or frightened by persecution.

           2. This, in Luke, is because they had “a noble and good heart.” and in Matthew, they “understand the word.”

           These believers are said to have beautiful/noble hearts in Like 8:15 because they “held fast” to what they heard and bore fruit with perseverance. E.g. they were like the seed on rocky soil, but they *did* root so the plant was secure.

           3. So, without a noble and good heart and the ability to understand the word, the offer of salvation falls on deaf ears.

           That’s not what the passage actually says.

           All four groups literally hear the gospel. For those on the path, one could say “in one ear, out the other” or “on deaf ears” since the word is snatched before it can take root. But the rocky and thorny groups don’t fit that pattern at all. Those on the rocky soil hear and receive/welcome the word with joy. Mark 4 is especially descriptive – they shoot up quickly (joy, emotion) but they only last for a short time because they weren’t prepared to be persecuted. One could say they heard but misunderstood (e.g. thinking Jesus would rescue them from all trouble, thinking Jesus would be a political Messiah, etc.) but not that they were spiritually ‘deaf.’ Those on thorny soil heard, but the cares of life eventually ‘choked the word.’ So one could say they let the music of the world drown out the voice of God or some other sound-based metaphor, but not that they were spiritually ‘deaf.’

           4. God would know this so the word was only intended to save those of good soil. We should understand at least this much.

           It is true that God will only save believers and only intends for Christ to raise up believers to eternal life. If that is all you mean, vs. God picking out particular people prior to faith that He intends to save, then it i not wrong, though it isn’t the exact point of this particular parable. And if you mean God knows what good soil will respond in faith, and so elects those before spreading the seed, I guess that would one type of Arminianism?

           But to the poor philosophy – God knowing something is not the equivalent of Him intending it. God knowing a person will respond in rejection, but still mercifully allowing that person to hear the gospel, is in no way the same as “God intending” that that person not respond to the gospel in faith. God knowing that not everyone will respond with understanding, enduring faith, and choosing to commission us to go out into the world and preach to everyone anyway does not mean He did not “intend” or desire anyone but the good soil to respond in faith. Israel often rebelled, for example, or even burned their children alive – things God did not intend, but nonetheless knew about and prepared both judgement and redemption for.

           Also, the parable does not treat the soil as something inert or unchangeable. It’s hinted in all the admonishments to hear and attend that hearing/understanding changes one’s readiness/soil for the word. And we know from Jesus’ brother James, and Paul, and others clear up through to today that someone might resist the word at first, but later soften to it and finally receive it.

           Loading...

       12. JR: “These believers are said to have beautiful/noble hearts in Like 8:15 because they “held fast” to what they heard and bear fruit…”

           Luke 8 has, ““But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.” The “noble and good heart” exists first – they heard with a noble and good heart – and enables one to hear, and then they keep the word leading to bearing fruit. We understand this verse in opposite directions. Where is Brian when you need him??

           Then, “All four groups literally hear the gospel.”

           They physically hear the gospel but do not hear it spiritually only the good soil has ears to hear (spiritually). So, the first three groups are spiritually deaf.

           Then. “if you mean God knows what good soil will respond in faith, and so elects those before spreading the seed, I guess that would one type of Arminianism?”

           This makes JTL’s point that the first three groups were known before hand to reject the gospel so that they were only offered something that they would certainly reject. However, what makes the one soil good while the others are not? JTL’s point is that God is the cause of this. What other cause could explain why one soil is good and receptive to the gospel when all others are not?

           Then, “God knowing a person will respond in rejection, but still mercifully allowing that person to hear the gospel, is in no way the same as “God intending” that that person not respond to the gospel in faith.”

           Except where God’s work in a person is the sole reason for the person accepting the gospel and depriving all others of that benefit is the reason for rejection. If two people hear equally with spiritual understanding – both will accept the gospel. If one hears and one does not, only then does one accept and one reject.

           Then, “we know from Jesus’ brother James, and Paul, and others clear up through to today that someone might resist the word at first, but later soften to it and finally receive it.”

           Fine. How can a person “soften to” the gospel? One way is through regeneration. Another way is….What?

           Loading...

       13. This is all so silly! And endless!

           No matter what you say JR….or what the Bible says….. they will say “No! it can’t be that!”

           Even when Luke 1:6 says this about Zechariah and Elizabeth, “Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly,” …. Calvinists must insist that they were God-haters. Or they insist that they were “regenerated” but ….of course Scripture NEVER, EVER says this!!

           Nah….they bring way too much to Scripture!

           Just let it speak!

           Just let the parable speak….and let Christ tell us what it means. But no…..they impose what they must have it mean!

           Loading...

    2. Jtleosala
       I cannot ever think why TSOO is charging God as the cause of the existence of “bad soil”

       br.d
       John Calvin
       -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)

       Author in the Old French of Calvin’s day is defined as: Auctor – meaning Originator, Creator, Instigator

       It logically follows Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world *AUTHORED* every soil – including bad soil.

       Calvin’s god is the divine potter who specifically *DESIGNS* the MANY as vessels of wrath.
       It doesn’t get more clear than that.

       Loading...

       Reply

47. FOH Writes: “Even when Luke 1:6 says this about Zechariah and Elizabeth, “Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly,” ….

    My Response : FOH, are you asserting in your quote above that Zechariah and Elizabeth are sinless?. If they were sinless, then they don’t need Christ anymore. Do you deny Christ’s fulfilment of the laws which the fallen man cannot do for themselves? Are you asserting here that there is another way to obtain salvation through the “observance of all of the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly? I’m sure you will say NO to these, but then what is your purpose of pushing your agenda of the righteousness of Zechariah and Elizabeth? …

    You have also manifested your belief on the Grace of God and yet it seems to me that your version of Grace is adulterated with man’s effort and that I can smell the strong aroma of the fallen man being idolized. It seems to me that you possess just a “decoy” God: The Initiator of Salvation.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. JTL:
       What does the passage say? What does the passage mean for you?

       Were Zechariah and Elizabeth “God-haters” who could do no righteous deed?

       Did they need to be “regenerated”?

       When were they “regenerated”?

       If they were “observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees” does that mean they were “regenerated” or “God-haters”?

       No Calvinists on this site ever wants to answer this.

       What was a “God-fearing Gentile?”

       The Word says about Cornelius (before hearing the Gospel) that he was “a righteous and God-fearing man.” Was he a “God-hater”?

       Was he regenerated? When? How many years regenerated (being “a righteous and God-fearing man”) before he heard the Gospel and got saved?

       No Calvinists ever answer this.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems as if the Calvinist error here is in conflating ‘righteousness’ with ‘sinlessness’. Jesus took care of the sin problem, enabling the righteousness of God-fearing people who lived before the incarnation to earn God’s approval.

          True, no one but Jesus has remained sinless. And yet, scripture cites many examples of men and women declared ‘righteous’ by God. I would suggest that sin implies a rebellious, selfish intent, whereas righteousness, even minus absolute perfection, is the attitude of those who have a pure and noble heart, desiring to know and do what is right.

          Sadly, Calvinists insist this is not true of any of us without some supernatural hocus pocus. I believe scripture suggests otherwise, declaring Able, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and others righteous, even though not sinless.

          They all trusted in God’s promise to deal with their sin, of which Jesus was the embodiment. The same could be said of an isolated individual who had never heard of Jesus, but trusted in the goodness and mercy of a Creator whose name was unknown to him. Such a one, believing the witness of the glorious creation and the faithful providence of God, would have his trust declared as righteousness, without ever naming the name of Jesus or knowing anything about sin.

          Along with other problems, Calvinism does not properly understand sin and righteousness.

          Loading...

       2. TS00 writes, “Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems as if the Calvinist error here is in conflating ‘righteousness’ with ‘sinlessness’.”

          You are wrong. Man has two problems: (1) sin and (2) unrighteousness. Jesus is the answer to both according to Romans 4, “therefore “it was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.” Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.” Christ died for the sins of God’s elect and now His righteousness is imputed to them.

          Then, “scripture cites many examples of men and women declared ‘righteous’ by God.”

          The key phrase, “…declared ‘righteous’ by God.” So, the Psalm, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no deceit.” Then, Jesus in John 6, “Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” God is the source of righteousness in a person.

          How ridiculous your statement, “Sadly, Calvinists insist this is not true of any of us without some supernatural hocus pocus.” “…supernatural hocus pocus…” You reduce God’s mercy to “…supernatural hocus pocus…”

          Then, “The same could be said of an isolated individual who had never heard of Jesus, but trusted in the goodness and mercy of a Creator whose name was unknown to him.”

          Romans 10 puts this to rest. What does Romans 1 tell us, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

          Loading...

       3. Sorry, I reject all of this. It reveals the black and white forensic transaction thinking of the Calvinist, who thinks more like an accountant than a relational being. To the Calvinist God will always be the Big Guy with the clipboard, rather than the loving Father.

          TS00 writes, “Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems as if the Calvinist error here is in conflating ‘righteousness’ with ‘sinlessness’.”

          Rh writes:
          You are wrong. Man has two problems: (1) sin and (2) unrighteousness. Jesus is the answer to both according to Romans 4, “therefore “it was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.” Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.” Christ died for the sins of God’s elect and now His righteousness is imputed to them.

          This response simply demonstrates what I was suggesting. God is not after ‘sinlessness’ in mankind, and had already planned the solution to the problem of sin. Thus, the ‘sin’ of individuals declared ‘righteous’ was never the issue. It is, and always was, a heart issue. It is our sin that Jesus atoned for, not our lack of righteousness. The just or righteous man is the one who trusts in God, even while caught in the trap of sin, and it is for him that Jesus provided the atonement for and power over sin.

          Then, “scripture cites many examples of men and women declared ‘righteous’ by God.”

          Rh writes:
          The key phrase, “…declared ‘righteous’ by God.” So, the Psalm, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no deceit.” Then, Jesus in John 6, “Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” God is the source of righteousness in a person.

          Again, a conflation of the two. This psalm is talking about sin, not righteousness. Here described is the man in whose spirit there is no deceit BEFORE his sin is forgiven (who is righteous). Even though he, as all men, has sin that requires atonement, it is only the noble or righteous man who has not the spirit of deceit, unlike the wicked who will not acknowledge or seek forgiveness for sin. Again, rh demonstrates my suggestion that the Calvinist does not properly understand sin and righteousness.

          Rh writes:
          How ridiculous your statement, “Sadly, Calvinists insist this is not true of any of us without some supernatural hocus pocus.” “…supernatural hocus pocus…” You reduce God’s mercy to “…supernatural hocus pocus…”

          Of course, I do not reduce God’s mercy to supernatural hocus pocus; it is the dearest thing I know. It is the faulty Calvinist concept of an unsought, irresistible, before faith ‘regeneration’ that I view as silly and unbiblical. God’s precious mercy is freely offered to all men, not irresistibly compelled upon a select few.

          Then, “The same could be said of an isolated individual who had never heard of Jesus, but trusted in the goodness and mercy of a Creator whose name was unknown to him.”

          Rh writes:
          Romans 10 puts this to rest. What does Romans 1 tell us, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

          This is a totally unrelated comment by Paul, directed toward those who know and reject God as he has been revealed. My test person was addressed in Romans 2: 14-16, being of those who have not the law, but do what is right due to a pure heart.

          Loading...

       4. TS00,
          You are being so personal here! Calvinism does not want a personal God….they want a “powerful” controlling one.

          In a minute I will post (at the bottom) my take from my daily reading that illustrates this very point!

          Loading...

       5. TS00 writes, “This response simply demonstrates what I was suggesting.”

          But not the part about, “Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems as if the Calvinist error here is in conflating ‘righteousness’ with ‘sinlessness’.” Here, you are still wrong in your original assessment. You agree, when you say, “This response simply demonstrates what I was suggesting.”

          Then, “Again, rh demonstrates my suggestion that the Calvinist does not properly understand sin and righteousness.”

          All this demonstrates is that you believe people are born righteous and i do not.

          Then, “God’s precious mercy is freely offered to all men, not irresistibly compelled upon a select few.”

          Thus, your universalism in contrast to my non-universalist approach.

          Then, “This is a totally unrelated comment by Paul, directed toward those who know and reject God as he has been revealed. My test person was addressed in Romans 2: 14-16,…”

          Then you really did not mean, “The same could be said of an isolated individual who had never heard of Jesus, but trusted in the goodness and mercy of a Creator whose name was unknown to him.” Now, you have rethought it and meant to deal with those who do the law.

          Loading...

    2. FOH
       Luke 1:6 says “Both of them (Zechariah and Elizabeth) were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly,” ….

       jtleosala
       FOH, are you asserting in your quote above that Zechariah and Elizabeth are sinless?…..seems to me your version of Grace is adulterated with man’s effort and that I can smell the strong aroma of the fallen man being idolized.

       br.d
       Look what the Calvinist takes from the quoting a simple verse in scripture!

       We need a theology that ensures man won’t have any efforts!

       And here it is!

       M – Meticulous providence
       U – unconditional election
       P – particular redemption
       P – perseverance of the saints
       E – Effectual grace
       T – total depravity

       :-]

       Loading...

       Reply

48. My daily reading takes me to Nehemiah 9.

    22 “Then you helped our ancestors conquer kingdoms and nations, and you placed your people in every corner of the land.”

    [Here Nehemiah goes away from the more common “You gave us the land.” It says that God “helped” men do something. That is important….and not monergistic.]

    25 “Our ancestors captured fortified cities and fertile land. …So they ate until they were full and grew fat and enjoyed themselves in all your blessings.

    26 But despite all this, they were disobedient and rebelled against you. They turned their backs on your Law, they killed your prophets who warned them to return to you, and they committed terrible blasphemies.”

    [They were the “chosen people” and had all these blessings and yet they turned their backs on the Lord. Does it even remotely sound like this was His desire/ plan/ will? Nope. Man does stuff all the time that God does not want or plan.]

    27 “So you handed them over to their enemies, who made them suffer. But in their time of trouble they cried to you, and you heard them from heaven. In your great mercy, you sent them liberators who rescued them from their enemies.”

    [We see this cycle all over the Bible! Blessing, rebellion, punishment, crying out, “hearing from heaven,” liberation from their enemies. Is it all just “stage” by an impersonal God?

    The passage and book go on and on with this cycle. Why? Why does the Bible record all that for us? What do we learn? That God willed all that? Why impose that Calvinistic idea on the Scriptures? Why not just read the Word and listen to what it tells us.

    Here is the Calvinist version of the hundreds and hundreds of passages like this:

    You blessed your people O Lord. Then you made them rebel and sacrifice children to Baal. Then you punished them. Then you made them cry out to you to deliver them. Then you delivered them. Then you made them worship false gods. Then you punished them….etc.

    Not only is that idea imposed on Scripture, but it also begs the question: What is the Scripture for then? I mean if He is gonna micro-manage, force-rebel or force-obey all of us, what is the point of any of these stories?

    Calvinism removes all the personal drama, personal relationship aspect of Scripture. Calvinists do not promote a personal God, just an all-controlling one. ]

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. FOH
       Calvinism removes all the personal drama, personal relationship aspect of Scripture. Calvinists do not promote a personal God, just an all-controlling one

       br.d
       The grand puppet-master theology
       With the supernatural force that forces without forcing.

       Who wouldn’t come running to sign up for it! :-]

       Loading...

       Reply

    2. FOH writes, “[They were the “chosen people” and had all these blessings and yet they turned their backs on the Lord. Does it even remotely sound like this was His desire/ plan/ will? Nope. Man does stuff all the time that God does not want or plan.]”

       LOL!!! Maybe you will read Romans 9 in the future where Paul responds directly to your comment, “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.” It was God’s plan/will.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. FOH
          “[They were the “chosen people” and had all these blessings and yet they turned their backs on the Lord. Does it even remotely sound like this was His desire/ plan/ will? Nope. Man does stuff all the time that God does not want or plan.]”

          rhutchin
          LOL!!! ………It was God’s plan/will.

          br.d
          Yes but of course that would have been Calvin’s god’s SECRET will – which is often the opposite of his ENUNCIATED will.

          But it also says “I know the plans I have for you – to give you a future and hope”

          So again – for the Calvinist – that is also ONLY his ENUNCIATED will
          His SECRET will – for the Calvinist – could very well be eternal torment in the lake of fire.

          Who wouldn’t want to run and sign up for that! :-]

          Loading...

49. My daily reading includes parts of 1 Cor 9-10. Let’s see some of this section in the Calvinist ESV version….

    9:19 “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.”

    [“might win more of them”? So…Paul is saying the more he makes himself a servant, the more “might” be saved? He can affect the number? Paul cannot possibly be a Calvinist and talk like this!!! He is “taking away God’s glory” by saying that the better or harder he works the more will come in. Spoken like a true Pauline Arminian!]

    20 “To the Jews I became as a Jew, … To those under the law I became as one under the law …. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law … To the weak I became weak…. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

    [How can anyone call Paul a Calvinist!!?? He mentions over and over all the effort and contextualization that he is doing so that he “might win more.” It is just ridiculous of our Calvinist friends here to propose that Paul believed that number was unalterably set before time, and nothing he could say or do could change it.

    It was daily reading of an endless number of passages like this that led me out of Calvinism, despite graduating from a Calvinist college and being sent as a missionary from a Reformed church. ]

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. Precisely. It is as if something of a spell is cast over you when you are drawn into Calvinism, and become convinced that their interpretations and explanations are the only valid possibility. It requires something to break that spell, and I have heard testimony of various things from seeing or experiencing abuse to being confronted with a personal crisis and many others. Whatever breaks that spell enables the believer to once again see scripture without the distorting lenses of Calvinist theology.

       I genuinely felt as if I had cast off chains the day I once and for all renounced Calvinism. Even though I faced the difficult prospect of losing my church, friends and possibly family, I felt so free and at peace with the world. The sky was bluer, the flowers were brighter and, best of all, when I picked up my bible, there I found, long missing, the God of my youth, who was full of love, mercy, kindness and grace. It was a marvelous day, and in spite of the challenging path I have faced, I would never go back.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. TS00 writes, “It is as if something of a spell is cast over you when you are drawn into Calvinism…”

          That spell is the conviction that God has infinite understanding of all that could happen; that He ordains by decisions He makes what will happen, that He consequently has perfect knowledge of all future events, and that He incorporates all the actual desires of people into that future.The alternative is to serve a God who does not understand all things, is unable to affect the future He wants, and is subject to the whims of His creation.

          Loading...

       2. TS00,

          The Calvinist approaches this with a presupposition (and one that is de facto written to give him the “moral high ground). they cannot allow themselves to have a God that “is subject to the whims of His creation.”

          They set themselves above Scripture. God Himself tells us hundreds of times in Scripture that He subjects Himself to man’s decisions.

          They cannot have that. They refuse (or “reinterpret”) what the Scripture says hundreds of times.

          The OT is full —-full —- of sayings by the Lord God, Host of the Armies of Israel, where he says “If you decided this, I will do this, but you if decide that I will do that.” He is —sovereignly— subjecting Himself to man’s decisions (often bad ones).

          About Christ it says …”And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.”

          About Christ it says… “And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown and in his own household is a prophet without honor.”

          Christ weeps over a Jerusalem that He called like a mother hen calls her chicks…but they did not come.

          Christ tells the young rich man…. come follow me…. and He does not come.

          Christ says ….”I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me.”

          Of course –to a certain degree — in His sovereign way, God allows man to decide (“choose for yourselves this day”) and He voluntarily, sovereignly subjects Himself to that decision.

          Calvinists reject this idea completely. Which means that every rebellions, rejection, despising of God in the Bible is what He wants and plans.

          Good News!

          Loading...

       3. FOH writes, “Of course –to a certain degree — in His sovereign way, God allows man to decide (“choose for yourselves this day”) and He voluntarily, sovereignly subjects Himself to that decision. ”

          The key phrase, “–to a certain degree —,” Calvinists accept this. Calvinists add that, because of God’s infinite understanding, He knew all these decisions before creation so nothing catches Him by surprise and all of those decisions were written into His plan and in the end, God works all things after the counsel of His will.

          Loading...

       4. rhutchin
          Calvinists add that, because of God’s infinite understanding, He knew all these decisions before creation so nothing catches Him by surprise

          br.d
          Oh how the Calvinists are good at DOUBLE-SPEAK!

          Here nothing catches Calvin’s god by surprise
          *AS-IF* he didn’t FIRST-CONCEIVE and then RENDER-CERTAIN every part of it!

          Understanding Calvinism is easy
          A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking points.

          Loading...

       5. br.d writes, “Here nothing catches Calvin’s god by surprise *AS-IF* he didn’t FIRST-CONCEIVE and then RENDER-CERTAIN every part of it!”

          Because br.d’s god is not omniscient, his god cannot render any future event certain. Calvinism says that God is omniscient and knows the future perfectly and that future is certain.

          Loading...

       6. br.d
          Here nothing catches Calvin’s god by surprise *AS-IF* he didn’t FIRST-CONCEIVE and then RENDER-CERTAIN every part of it!”

          rhutchin
          Because br.d’s god is not omniscient, his god cannot render any future event certain. Calvinism says that God is omniscient and knows the future perfectly and that future is certain.

          br.d
          If after FIRST-CONCEIVING and then RENDERING-CERTAIN an event – Calvin’s god doesn’t have enough omniscience to know it – then his brain is probably a few french-fries short of a happy meal! :-]

          Loading...

       7. rhutchin
          The alternative is to serve a God who does not understand all things, is unable to affect the future He wants, and is subject to the whims of His creation.

          br.d
          The irony here is – the Theological Determinist’s (aka Calvinist’s) perception of TRUTH is determined by the THEOS – exactly the same as the Jehovah’s Witness and the crazy cult leader next door’s perception of TRUTH is determined.

          Since the THEOS determines what everyone (including the Calvinist) perceives as TRUE – and the THEOS determines them to perceive FALSEHOODS AS TRUE – none of them (including the Calvinist) have any way of knowing which one’s perception is TRUE any more than the other one.

          Thus it follows – the Calvinist doesn’t have any way of knowing his belief is TRUE any more than the Jehovah’s witness and the crazy cult leader next door does.

          But of course the THEOS makes each of them believe their perception is the TRUE and the others perception is not
          Their all in the same boat!

          What a hoot! :-]

          Loading...

       8. br.d writes, ‘The irony here is – the Theological Determinist’s (aka Calvinist’s) perception of TRUTH is determined by the THEOS –”

          “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.”

          Truth comes from the word and the word is Christ, so truth is determined by God. br.d’s god does not have perfect understanding nor is he omniscient, so we are not surprised that his god is not the source of truth.

          Loading...

       9. br.d
          The irony here is – the Theological Determinist’s (aka Calvinist’s) perception of TRUTH is determined by the THEOS –”

          rhutchin
          “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.”

          br.d
          But Calvin’s god determines every person’s perception – including the Muslim, the Jehovah’s witness, the cult leader, and the Calvinist.
          Each is determined by Calvin’s god – to believe they know the truth and that truth is making them free.
          Each is determined by Calvin’s god – to believe the others perception is FALSE and theirs is TRUE.

          So the Calvinist has no way of affirming TRUTH any more than the Muslim or the Jehovah’s witness, or the cult leader.

          Calvin’s god is having a good joke on the Calvinist – by determining he perceive he knows the truth! :-]

          Loading...

       10. wonderful testimony of deliverance!

           Loading...

    2. FOH writes, “9:19 “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.”
       [“might win more of them”? So…Paul is saying the more he makes himself a servant, the more “might” be saved? He can affect the number?”

       Paul makes himself a servant of all so that he might preach the gospel to all. Paul is confident that God is using his preaching as the means to vall God’s elect to salvation but Paul is not under any illusion that his preaching is anything other than a tool in God’s hands.

       Then, “He mentions over and over all the effort and contextualization that he is doing so that he “might win more.””

       LOL!!! Did you not read where Paul wrote, “To His saints God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily.” and “For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance,…” You read the Scriptures through your understanding and not through Paul’s.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. TS00,
          We see here regular examples of how Calvinist will directly re-word Scripture. I even quoted the Calvinist ESV “that I might win more of them…” and withing minutes the Calvinist quotes back the re-worded version:

          “Paul makes himself a servant of all so that he might preach the gospel to all. ”

          Paul said “might win” not “might preach”!

          Blatant twisting or direct ESV quotes from Scripture! (of course changing the whole meaning —rinsing it of its true meaning).

          Loading...

       2. FOH writes, “Paul said “might win” not “might preach”! ”

          In FOH’s philosophy, people are not won to Christ through the preaching of the gospel. Under Calvinist theology, people are won to Christ through the preaching of the gospel.

          Loading...

       3. rhutchin
          Under Calvinist theology, people are won to Christ through the preaching of the gospel.

          br.d
          Calvinist’s just love their own DOUBLE-SPEAK
          Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse
          And the Calvinist wants to call that “winning” someone.

          What a hoot! :-]

          Loading...

       4. rhutchin
          You read the Scriptures through your understanding and not through Paul’s.

          br.d
          And of course every one must conclude that Calvinists know the mind of Paul!

          We know that Calvin’s god is sovereign because he always does what the Calvinist says

          And now we know what Paul’s understanding is because its always what the Calvinist says :-]

          Loading...

       5. br.d writes, “And of course every one must conclude that Calvinists know the mind of Paul!”

          Calvinists know the mind of Paul from the letters he wrote. Paul went to great lengths to make sure that he was understood.

          Loading...

       6. rhutchin
          You read the Scriptures through your understanding and not through Paul’s.

          br.d
          And of course every one must conclude that Calvinists know the mind of Paul!

          We know that Calvin’s god is sovereign because he always does what the Calvinist says

          And now we know what Paul’s understanding is because its always what the Calvinist says :-]

          rhutchin
          Calvinists know the mind of Paul from the letters he wrote. Paul went to great lengths to make sure that he was understood.

          br.d
          And of course the Calvinist doesn’t read Paul through the Calvinist’s own understanding like FOH does! :-]

          Loading...

50. A few more verses on Paul being all things to all men that he might win some…

    2 Corinthians 5:11
    Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others.
    [Paul is “trying to persuade others.”]

    Acts 9:22
    Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah.
    [Who is Paul “proving” it to? Dead mean? Irresistibly-drawn need no proof.]

    1 Cor 9: 19
    Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
    [Paul shows that what he does makes a difference whether people believe.]

    Acts 17:2
    As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures
    [You cannot reason with “dead” men and irresistibly-grace-elect do not need to be reasoned with.]

    Acts 28:23
    When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
    [Paul is “trying to convince them” (even the ESV says this!!).]

    Acts 28:24
    Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe.
    [Well, there you go….. the Bible clearly says that the words of Paul were what convinced some.]

    Acts 18:4
    And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
    [More persuading!!]

    Acts 19:8
    And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
    [Over and over. Persuading and reasoning with. You dont do that with dead men…. and who is Paul to say “he” persuaded them if Calvinism is true!?]

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. FOH Posted this one:
       “Acts 19:8
       And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
       [Over and over. Persuading and reasoning with. You dont do that with dead men…. and who is Paul to say “he” persuaded them if Calvinism is true!?]”

       —-My response—–
       1. FOH’s understanding of dead men here is literal. To the Calvinist side it is “Spiritually Dead” – meaning unable to access spiritual matters. To the Calvinist, they are normal persons with cognitive reasoning power.

       2. Even the apostle Paul himself was a former blind Pharisee, a persecutor of Christians. He was unblinded by God and restored his spiritual hearing on his way to Damascus. Even Paul cannot unblind himself for only God can do that thing. So… how can Paul win some if God will not unblind his fellow Jews that he is reasoning with. Paul is dependent on God’s intervention in his every attempts to bring the gospel to unbelievers but sadly FOH ignores this due to his anger towards the “T” and the “I” of the Calvinists.

       2. FOH’s is jut putting on to Paul’s account his personal agenda of a “Conditional Salvation”. A “decoy grace” that is adulterated with the virus of Pelagianism.

       Loading...

       Reply

       1. jtleosala
          1. FOH’s understanding of dead men here is literal. To the Calvinist side it is “Spiritually Dead” – meaning unable to access spiritual matters. To the Calvinist, they are normal persons with cognitive reasoning power.

          br.d
          Actually FOH’s statement does not presuppose non-cognition. This response simply jumps to that conclusion.
          FOH’s statement is just as LOGICALLY viable with human cognition.
          DEAD in this case can easily presuppose INABILITY

          jtleosala
          how can Paul win some if God will not unblind his fellow Jews

          br.d
          What is going on here is Calvinism’s SUBJUNCTIVE CONDITIONAL which is stated as follows:
          IF and only IF Calvin’s god has decreed human ability have existence – THEN human ability will exist

          But what FOH is pointing out – is preponderance of the language of the text does not convey the Calvinist’s SUBJUNCTIVE CONDITIONAL
          Which leads one to conclude that the Calvinist SUPERIMPOSES it onto the text

          jtleosala
          2. FOH’s is jut putting on to Paul’s account his personal agenda of a “Conditional Salvation”. A “decoy grace” that is adulterated with the virus of Pelagianism.

          br.d
          Actually – it is the Calvinist here who is reading his own personal agenda – where Calvin’s god judges people for an NOT being/doing the very things he DOES NOT PERMIT them to be/do. Therefore the Calvinist reading creates a contorted picture.

          Loading...

       2. Br.d
          I have written this many times and many ways and JTL either never responds but responds in some deflective way.

          The point is simple: Paul says “convince,” “reason with” “persuade” and “become all things to all men that he might win some….” and many phrases like this.

          If JTL wants to call me a Polynesian, he must do it to Paul also! Paul is constantly saying that he convinces people (meaning they are doing some deciding themselves). He is constantly saying what he (Paul) did makes a difference in their decision.

          But JTL is so committed to a man-made idea that he cannot see it.

          Why in the world would Paul talk about “persuading men” if they are too-dead (cannot be persuaded) but one day will be “regenerated” and then “irresistibly” (no persuading necessary) drawn to the Gospel. There is no “persuading” needed in Calvinism!!!

          In Calvinism these verses just make no sense….because the verses say that Paul is partly responsible (becomes all things to all men) for them being convinced.

          JTL never, ever deals with this. He only deflects, sets up a straw man, calls me a Polynesian, and ignores what Paul says in Scripture.

          Loading...

       3. FOH writes, “The point is simple: Paul says “convince,” “reason with” “persuade” and “become all things to all men that he might win some….” and many phrases like this. ”

          JTL also understands that Paul says,
          – “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” and

          – “we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” and

          – “Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life.” and

          – “I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” and

          – “For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel.” and

          – “if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us.”

          All these, you, like Jefferson before you, seem to have cut out of your Bible because you don’t want to believe them. Beware less that which Jesus said of the Jews should apply to you, “Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” or, “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not preached in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”

          Loading...