This is a re-blog from Transformed Theology, “A Critical Look at Romans 8:29-30” by Pastor Bob Hadley; Pastor of Westside Baptist Church in Daytona Beach, Florida.
Pastor Bob succinctly shows how the Calvinistic reading of Romans 8 is out of bounds given the grammatical context of the passage; both the objects of the verbs and their tenses.
Romans 8:29-30 is perhaps the most Calvinistic passage of Scripture in the Bible. Here the Apostle Paul makes the following declaration: “29 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. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” (NKJV) The question of the hour is, what do these two verses mean? Is Paul speaking in salvific terms? Is he giving the world a glimpse into the mind of God as He reaches out to touch the hearts of sinners to make them part of His eternal family? The Calvinist says this is exactly what Paul is doing and this is exactly what these two verses are referring to.
In looking at the Greek,
“for those He knew beforehand, He indeed appointed beforehand (predestined) those to be fashioned in the image of His Son that He might be the first born among many brothers. Those He predestined He called by name, invited and those He called those He also justified and those He justified He also glorified.”
These verbs are all aorist active indicative tenses. They indicate that the action of the verb has already taken place with respect to the subject of the verb. Given the tense of the verb, it is clear at least grammatically speaking, this cannot refer to action that is yet to be taken. The Calvinist argument that glorification is so set in the mind of God that it is virtually already settled is not easily substantiated grammatically in this passage of Scripture. This will be highlighted in greater detail later. With this in mind, is there a contextual application that might better suit Paul’s statement?
Paul begins chapter 8 with these words, “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (Rom 8:1-2 NKJV) It is clear that Paul is speaking if not to Christians, about Christians. In verse 4 he settles that question when he wrote, “that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”(NKJV) He goes on to say “8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.” (Rom 8:8-9 NKJV) “16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs — heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.” (Rom 8:16-17 NKJV) Paul is establishing the foundation for their inclusion in the family of God.
Notice the phrase, “if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together.” This is an important phrase in the exegesis of this text. Paul has taken great lengths to identify the Roman Christians with the family of God; they are heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus. So, how are these Roman Christians to respond to the persecution they are facing? This present suffering will end in glorification. What about the tenses in this verse? If we “suffer” is a present active indicative which indicates that Paul is speaking of persecution they are currently experiencing and “that we may be glorified together” is aorist passive subjunctive; which carries with it an intended action that is yet to be completed. The subjunctive voice even with the aorist tense is an indication that there is no past time indicated by the aorist tense of the verb but anticipates some hypothetical event in the future. So Paul is indicating here that the present suffering the Roman Christians are going through will culminate in glory someday.
Paul says that the world itself is going through this futility and “the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (Rom 8:21NKJV) Paul continues this concept as he argues the necessity of their present suffering: “23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” (Rom 8:23-25 NKJV) Notice Paul’s next statement, “we are not alone! We have the Holy Spirit helping us and praying on our behalf!” Notice Paul’s next statement: “27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.” (Rom 8:27 NKJV)
Who would these Roman Christians think of when the apostle Paul spoke of “the saints?” It is at least fair to assume they might think of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They might think of David, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, all Old Testament saints that God had used to bring Jesus into the world. It is clear that Paul did not think of himself in this category and was not including himself in this company. Notice Paul’s next statement: “28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” (Rom 8:28-29 NKJV) “We know” is a very important statement here. How do these Roman Christians know that God works “all things out for good for those who love the Lord?” Because they had been taught the Old Testament and they knew that God had worked in the lives of those Old Testament saints and He had brought them through untold difficulties to glory!
29 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. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Rom 8:29-30 NKJV) Notice the conjunction, “for”’; it ties what is about to be said with what has just been said. We know what God has done for the Old Testament saints, those that He “already knew, He predestined, (aorist indicative, completed action) to be conformed to the image or likeness of His Son. They died long before Jesus was even born but they are still a part of the promises of God! God planned from the beginning to bring their salvation to completion in Christ Jesus. Moreover, those He predestined (aorist indicative, completed action) He justified (aorist indicative, completed action) and those He justified He glorified (aorist indicative, completed action). If Paul had any intended notion that he was speaking to the Roman Christians he would have used the same tense he used previously in verse 16, that being the aorist passive subjective. He did not do so because he was speaking here of the Old Testament saints who had already died but God had provided hope for.
Paul continues, “31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom 8:31 NKJV) If God took care of the Old Testament saints, will He not do the same for us? Yes! “32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” (Rom 8:21-36 NKJV) Paul is not at all speaking of predestination of individuals to conversion: he is speaking to these Roman Christians who are suffering immense persecution and encouraging them to “keep the faith” for the God who brought the Old Testament saints to glory is going to bring them to glory!
Paul concludes chapter 8 with this great charge, “37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom 8:37-39 NKJV)
Paul simply wanted the newly born again Christians in Rome to know that they were covered by the blood that covered the saints of old and the same God that brought them out of the immense persecutions they endured would bring them out of those they were enduring.
As Pastor Bob shows, Paul’s point is to encourage the believer as to how they can trust God’s promise that they will be vindicated from their present persecution by glorification. How can the Christian trust this promise? By looking at how God fulfilled that promise to the saints of old. Paul’s point is not to tell believers HOW they became believers as the Calvinist must render it ie. “The Golden Chain of Salvation”
A song of praise – covered by the blood of the lamb
Moses left old Pharaoh, down in Egypt land
Israelites delivered, by God’s almighty hand
They got up to the red sea and found that it was blocked
Israelites were runnin round in shock
Chorus:
But it was covered – covered – covered by the blood of the lamb
Yes it was covered –covered – covered by the blood of the lamb
David and Goliath were champions of old
Of Israelites and Philistines, the way the story is told
Goliath said to David, you’re nothing but a boy, come up to me and you will see I’ll break you like a toy
But David said I’ll bury you beneath six foot of sod, for you come to me with a sword and a spear, but I come in the name of my God.
Repeat Chorus:
Now Jesus went to Calvary and it seemed that all was lost
Satan and his evil host had nailed him to the cross
But he looked up to the heavens and he said “Thy will be done”
And ever since that day for us, the victory has been won.
Chorus:
And we are covered – covered – covered by the blood of the lamb.
But what does the individual Calvinist ACTUALLY have that he can TRUST concerning Calvin’s god’s will for his life?
1) He can trust that Calvin’s god – as the divine potter – designs the MANY out of the human population – for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
2) He can trust that he is either part of the MANY or he is part of the FEW
3) He can trust that the benevolent promises he reads in scripture are Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED will for his life – while Calvin’s god’s SECRET will for his life may be the opposite.
4) He can trust that Calvin’s god holds out salvation as a -quote “Savor of condemnation” to a – quote “LARGE MIXTURE” of Calvinists. And then at some point later – quote “Strikes them with greater blindness”.
5) He can trust that Calvin’s god determines those Calvinists to have a FALSE perception that they are elect when Calvin’s god knows they are not. So he can trust the statistical probability that he is a part of that LARGE MIXTURE and is thus fated for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
CONCLUSION:
He can trust Calvin’s god leads him to believe he is “Jacob whom I love”
When in fact he is REALLY “Esau whom I hate”.
Thanks Eric.
The Calvinist assumes and/or reads into this passage that “proginosko” must necessarily mean that Paul is talking about some future event that God knows before it arrives and that those He foreknew are the Roman Christians (and extrapolated out to all Christians) or that the only other alternative is the Arminian idea of God “looking through the corridors of time.” As Eric notes, the grammatical context of the passage simply doesn’t support either of these. The Calvinist never considers the most basic meaning of “Proginosko,” which is to “know beforehand”. In chapter 11, verse 2, Paul uses the exact same “proginosko” in this very way when he writes “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” Here he is obviously talking about God’s people, the Jews, whom He “knew before.” There is no reason that Paul could not be using the same word in the same way here in chapter 8, and actually a lot more support for him doing just that rather than the Calvinist reading.
ANDY2015 writes, “The Calvinist assumes and/or reads into this passage that “proginosko” must necessarily mean that Paul is talking about some future event that God knows before it arrives and that those He foreknew are…”
The Calvinist takes “foreknew” in Romans 8 to contrast with those of whom Jesus said, “I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” As Jesus was speaking of those in the church, it would also apply to those outside the church. The conclusion is that God foreknew the OT saints if Romans 8 is to be restricted, grammatically, to the OT saints. That which is said of OT saints would apply equally to saints in the first century and in the 21st century. Since God foreknew (knew beforehand), predestined, called, justified, and glorified the OT saints then God would foreknow, predestine, call, justify, and glorify all future saints.
Because Paul writes that God foreknew or knew beforehand those He then called, we knows that God foreknew the OT saints before they came to Jesus. We then remember what Jesus said in John 6, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” Thus, all that God gives to Christ, he foreknows and then calls.
Even if we Read Romans 8 to mean the OT saints, there is no reason to think that God would describe His treatment of future saints differently that He treated OT saints. If Andy thinks differently, maybe he can suggest an order of actions he thinks applies to future saints.
Then, “The Calvinist never considers the most basic meaning of “Proginosko,” which is to “know beforehand”. In chapter 11, verse 2, Paul uses the exact same “proginosko” in this very way when he writes “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” Here he is obviously talking about God’s people, the Jews,…”
In chapter 11, Paul writes, “God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah,…” The reference to Elijah recalls God saying, ““I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” Then Paul’s conclusion, “…at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” In context, when Paul says, ““God has not rejected His people…” he is referring to the remnant and not the Jews in the flesh as Andy has concluded. This follows Paul’s argument begun in Romans 9, “those who are the children of the flesh (the Jews), these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise (the remnant) are counted as the seed.. Paul drives the point home quoting Isaiah in v27, ““Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.”
So, we have the Calvinist saying that God has not rejected His people – the children of promise/the remnant – in Chapter 11, while Andy understands Paul to be referring to His people as the Jews in the flesh.
AndyB2015,
For what its worth, I agree with you. Below is just a few scriptures that support that view…
Isaiah 43:1 (NKJV)….
But now, thus says the LORD, who created you, O Jacob, And He who formed you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by your name; You are Mine.
Isaiah 45:4 (NKJV)…
For Jacob My servant’s sake, And Israel My elect, I have even called you by your name; I have named you, though you have not known Me.
Jeremiah 3:8 (NKJV)….
Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.
Jeremiah 31:31-32 (NKJV)….
“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.
Amos 3:1-2 (NKJV)….
Hear this word that the LORD has spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”
Romans 11:1-2 (NKJV)….
I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.
Blessings.
“As Pastor Bob shows, Paul’s point is to encourage the believer as to how they can trust God’s promise that they will be vindicated from their present persecution by glorification.”
I absolutely believe that the God of the Bible is trustworthy and can be taken at His Word.
But I wonder how Calvinists can ever trust their Calvi-god when he never means what he says or says what he means, when he has “secret double-meanings” for everything he says and the terms he uses, and when he gives commands that are contrary to his real Will (such as when he tells Adam and Eve that he doesn’t want them to eat the forbidden fruit, but then he causes them to eat it because his real Will is that they sin). How can they ever trust Calvi-god’s commands or what he says when there’s always a “hidden layer” that contradicts what he said?
Calvinism destroys God’s trustworthiness, among other things. And if we can’t trust that He says what He means and means what He says, then we may as well throw the Bible out, along with our faith!
Oh, the damage Calvinism has done – using God’s Word to destroy the reliability of God’s Word and His character, and using “humility” against Christians (making them feel that “good humble Christians” accept Calvinism without complaint)!
Calvinism makes a mess of God’s Truth. But when you throw out the Calvinism, it all starts to make sense, it’s all consistent, and you realize that God is indeed good, holy, righteous, loving, and trustworthy! Just like the Bible says (when it’s read as it is written, without wearing “Calvinist glasses” or having Calvinist theologians tell you how to read it).
Wonderful post Heather!
Well said!
Heather, I second all that you said. And your description make me think of how Satan deceived Adam to not trust that God meant well for him, and that what he said could be trusted completely. Adam became convinced that God had a secret agenda, that he wanted to ‘keep Adam down’ rather than that he loved him so much that he would give his all for him.
Calvinism reminds me so much of its father, from which it came.
Heather posted this one:
“Calvinism destroys God’s trustworthiness, among other things. And if we can’t trust that He says what He means and means what He says, then we may as well throw the Bible out, along with our faith!”
——–Here’s My counter argument——-
No, it is those people who argues that God loves the entire humanity, yet the rest are thrown to hell. These people wants to claim their own desires not God’s desires which no one can tamper even if they will continue rumble and protest. These are the people who destroys God’s trustworthiness presenting God us a weak God who needs to beg for people to agree with Him and yet does not Get what God wants for Himself in the end. The ultimate decision rests on man not God’s.
Jtleosala
No, it is those people who argues that God loves the entire humanity, yet the rest are thrown to hell. These people wants to claim their own desires not God’s desires which no one can tamper even if they will continue rumble and protest. These are the people who destroys God’s trustworthiness presenting God us a weak God who needs to beg for people to agree with Him and yet does not Get what God wants for Himself in the end. The ultimate decision rests on man not God’s.
br.d
Sorry JT this is DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS.
Calvin’s god – as the divine potter – DESIGNS people to be everything they are – and he DOES NOT PERMIT them to do anything otherwise than what he DECREES.
So if they “rumble and protest” then Calvin’s god DECREED it and does NOT PERMIT them to do otherwise.
Jtleosala
The ultimate decision rests on man not God’s.
br.d
For a Calvinist this is DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the only decisions that Calvin’s god makes available to man are those decisions Calvin’s god DECREES man to make.
Nothing comes into existence without Calvin’s god DECREEING it into existence.
What he does not DECREE – does not exist.
And what does not exist is not available to man.
Its just that simple! :-]
br.d to JTL writes, “So if the “rumble and protest” then Calvin’s god DECREED it and does NOT PERMIT them to do otherwise.”
“…does NOT ENABLE them to do otherwise.” (This because some people have problems with the term, “permit.”)
Then, “In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the only decisions that Calvin’s god makes available to man are those decisions Calvin’s god DECREES man to make.”
This being the conclusion from Ephesians 1, “…God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” br.d is not disputing this verse; he just likes to remind people of Ephesians 1.
br.d to JTL writes, “So if the “rumble and protest” then Calvin’s god DECREED it and does NOT PERMIT them to do otherwise.”
rhutchin
“…does NOT ENABLE them to do otherwise.” (This because some people have problems with the term, “permit.”)
br.d
Well sure – cuz in Theological Determinism it goes without saying – DOES NOT PERMIT equates to DOES NOT ENABLE.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the only decisions that Calvin’s god makes available to man are those decisions Calvin’s god DECREES man to make.
What Calvin’s god does not DECREE does not exist
What does not exist – is not available to man
rhutchin
This being the conclusion from Ephesians 1, “…God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” br.d is not disputing this verse; he just likes to remind people of Ephesians 1.
br.d
AH! This will be FALSE Perception #7 that Calvin’s god has determined you to have rhutchin.
And in the face of br.d repeatedly assuring you he does not conflate Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) with scripture. Calvin’s god is a master at planting FALSE perceptions in your brain – and making it unable to see contradictions.
But of course in Theological Determinism that is exactly what we would expect to see :-]
br.d writes, ‘Well sure – cuz in Theological Determinism it goes without saying – DOES NOT PERMIT equates to DOES NOT ENABLE. ”
Good. Some people see “permit” as something else. So, we can use “enable” (or I can) and you will understand.
Then, “And in the face of br.d repeatedly assuring you he does not conflate Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) with scripture. Calvin’s god is a master at planting FALSE perceptions in your brain – and making it unable to see contradictions. ”
That’s br.ds way of saying that he cannot dispute the Calvinist understanding of Ephesians 1:11, ““…God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” As br.d says, “…in Theological Determinism that is exactly what we would expect to see.”
rh writes:
“That’s br.ds way of saying that he cannot dispute the Calvinist understanding of Ephesians 1:11, “…God works all things according to the counsel of His will,””
Personally, I have never been able to grasp why Calvinism conflates God using all things to accomplish his will with God determining that those things he uses come into existence. There is a huge difference; really huge.
Perhaps if you had a father like mine, who had no money but a great deal of intuitive ingenuity, you would better understand the distinction between causing events and making the best of events.
My dad, by necessity, could basically keep a car running with duct tape and wire. Despite no training, he could repair nearly any appliance or motor with a few handtools, and scavenged or handcrafted parts. Did he desire or cause our appliances and cars to break down? Absolutely not! Yet, he accepted the hand he was dealt, and used what little he had to work with, and an amazing amount of clever ingenuity, to make things work.
We once had a major ice storm, and, like everyone else, had been out of power for a week, and were told it could be a few weeks more before they could get to us. Tired of huddling around the open gas oven, my father went out and reconnected the wires on our house himself. It’s a wonder he didn’t kill himself.
I am grateful that my Dad taught me a bit about how God works. He neither desires nor decrees the sins and poor choices of men, but made them free, morally responsible creatures. Being far wiser and ingenious than my dad – not to mention having the ability to see the future and control things like weather, life and death, dreams, etc. – God can take whatever comes into existence and still work it all into something usable and good.
I honestly do not understand why this seems so difficult to grasp, nor ever considered for a second the Calvinist interpretation of Eph 1:11 in all my years of reading the bible.
TS00 writes, “…Calvinism conflates God using all things to accomplish his will with God determining that those things he uses come into existence. There is a huge difference; really huge.”
Calvinists don’t see a difference. You seem to agree on what God does – you just give it a different slant.
Then, “Perhaps if you had a father like mine, who had no money but a great deal of intuitive ingenuity, you would better understand the distinction between causing events and making the best of events.”
“…making the best of events,” or as you describe above, “…making the best of events…that he determined to come into existence.”
br.d
‘Well sure – cuz in Theological Determinism it goes without saying – DOES NOT PERMIT equates to DOES NOT ENABLE. ”
rhutchin
Good. Some people see “permit” as something else. So, we can use “enable” (or I can) and you will understand.
br.d
You’ll want to think that one through a little more.
Whales are mammals – so in a given context – whale equates to mammal
However the two terms don’t specify the same thing.
Likewise PERMIT and ENABLE don’t specify the same thing – even though it LOGICALLY follows Calvin’s god is not going to ENABLE that which he does not PERMIT –
And per the 7th FALSE perception Calvin’s god determined you to have – and even in the face of br.d repeatedly assuring you he does not conflate Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) with scripture. Calvin’s god is a master at planting FALSE perceptions in your brain – and making it unable to see contradictions. ”
rhutchin
That’s br.ds way of saying that he cannot dispute the Calvinist understanding of Ephesians 1:11, ““…
br.d
If that’s a perception you have – then Calvin’s god has given you an 8th FALSE perception.
br.d knows its a silly mistake to conflate Calvinism with scripture.
Disputing with IRRATIONAL is a dead-end road.
rhutchin
God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” As br.d says, “…in Theological Determinism that is exactly what we would expect to see.”
br.d
Now your just twisting my words the same way you sometimes twist John Calvin’s and Vincent Chung’s.
Not a manifestation of intellectual honesty I’m afraid.
But it does follow a certain manifestation of an age demographic which I’ve previously noted.
br.d writes, “Likewise PERMIT and ENABLE don’t specify the same thing”
OK. Then you modify your earlier statement, “DOES NOT PERMIT equates to DOES NOT ENABLE. ” Given that you know that the terms, “permit,” and “enable,” do not specify the same thing, then you can understand the problems Calvinists have with the term, “permit.” So, “permit” is the wrong term to use when explaining Calvinist doctrine; “enable” is the better term to describe what God does.
Then, ‘rhutchin: “That’s br.ds way of saying that he cannot dispute the Calvinist understanding of Ephesians 1:11, ““…
br.d: “if that’s a perception you have – then Calvin’s god has given you an 8th FALSE perception.”
The key term, “if.” In this case, your failure to deny the Calvinist explanation of Ephesians 1:11 and provide an alternative explanation means that you cannot dispute the Calvinist explanation. You say, “br.d knows its a silly mistake to conflate Calvinism with scripture,” and in this case, you have not, and probably cannot, explain any conflation by the Calvinists. At least, as long as you refuse to provide an explanation.
Then, “rhutchin: “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” As br.d says, “…in Theological Determinism that is exactly what we would expect to see.”
br.d: “Now your just twisting my words the same way you sometimes twist John Calvin’s and Vincent Chung’s.”
Then again, maybe you are just confused on this point given your inability to frame an argument against the Calvinist explanation of the verse.
br.d
PERMIT and ENABLE don’t specify the same thing
rhutchin
OK. Then you modify your earlier statement, “DOES NOT PERMIT equates to DOES NOT ENABLE. ”
br.d
rhutchin – go back and read my last post – something went over your head.
rhutchin
Given that you know that the terms, “permit,” and “enable,” do not specify the same thing, then you can understand the problems Calvinists have with the term, “permit.”
br.d
I understand Theological Determinism and IN-determinism mutually exclude each other.
One’s existence LOGICALLY excludes the existence of the other.
Now in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) divine PERMISSION is limited to ONLY and EXACTLY what Calvin’s god DECREES. Nothing more and nothing less is PERMITTED.
Divine permission does not become an Biblically-ethical problem for the Calvinist in the context of “good” events. But it does become a problem for the Calvinist in the context of “evil” events. And that is quite understandable because of those LOGICAL consequences of Theological Determinism stand in contrast to Biblical ethics.
For example – where Calvin’s god DECREES Adam disobey – it LOGICALLY follows Adam is not permitted to obey – because Calvin’s god would be permitting Adam to falsify/negate the DECREE – and doing so cannot be permitted. Therefore it follows Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT Adam to obey.
rhutchin
So, “permit” is the wrong term to use when explaining Calvinist doctrine; “enable” is the better term to describe what God does.
br.d
I used LOGIC (above) to show that is FALSE
If you can’t understand the LOGIC then I won’t go in circles trying to explain it.
But I certainly understand why the Calvinist wants to masquerade determinism as IN-determinism – because of the Biblically ethical problems that LOGICALLY follow with Theological Determinism.
rhutchin
The key term, “if.” In this case, your failure to deny the Calvinist explanation of Ephesians 1:11 and provide an alternative explanation means that you cannot dispute the Calvinist explanation. You say, “br.d knows its a silly mistake to conflate Calvinism with scripture,” and in this case, you have not, and probably cannot, explain any conflation by the Calvinists. At least, as long as you refuse to provide an explanation.
br.d
rhutchin – the fact that you are obsessed with that particular issue just tells me you’re obsessed with it.
I’m happy with the contribution I provide at SOT101 – sorry if that doesn’t work for you.
rhutchin
maybe you are just confused on this point given your inability to frame an argument against the Calvinist explanation of the verse.
br.d
Well – we simply have different points of view.
Given your track record on magical or irrational thinking, and the logical fallacies in so many of your posts – and my track record in exposing them – I think we have a win-win situation. :-]
br.d writes, ‘For example – where Calvin’s god DECREES Adam disobey – it LOGICALLY follows Adam is not permitted to obey…Therefore it follows Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT Adam to obey.”
The better word here is “enabled” not “permitted.” When God gives Satan freedom to enter the garden, He understands all that could follow – Eve eating the fruit, offering the fruit to Adam, and Adam eating the fruit – and God then enacts His earlier decision/decree that these events are to happen. Adam is permitted to refuse to eat the fruit but Adam will not refuse to eat the fruit and cannot refuse without God’s help which God earlier decreed not to provide. Adam could not overcome his desires without God’s help.
Then, “If you can’t understand the LOGIC then I won’t go in circles trying to explain it.”
Unfortunately, you cannot explain your logic – all you seem able to do is to make claims of logic.
Then, “I’m happy with the contribution I provide at SOT101 – sorry if that doesn’t work for you.”
A contribution that consists of many claims and no explanations in support of those claims. You seem unable to tie your claims to the truth of the Scriptures.
Then, “Well – we simply have different points of view.”
Except that you seem unable to explain your point of view. You will say, “its a silly mistake to conflate Calvinism with scripture,” and then cannot give examples of any conflation or otherwise explain conflation.
rh writes:
“When God gives Satan freedom to enter the garden, He understands all that could follow – Eve eating the fruit, offering the fruit to Adam, and Adam eating the fruit – and God then enacts His earlier decision/decree that these events are to happen. Adam is permitted to refuse to eat the fruit but Adam will not refuse to eat the fruit and cannot refuse without God’s help which God earlier decreed not to provide. Adam could not overcome his desires without God’s help.”
Talk about convoluted nonsense. God understands what he formerly decreed (duh) then enacts this decree. Adam supposedly is permitted to resist God’s decree, but not really, because he cannot. Unless God provides help to enable Adam to resist his decree, which God decreed to not provide. (God decrees to not enable people to resist his decrees?) Thus Adam could not really resist God’s decree unless God enabled him to, which would make his making of decrees useless and pretty darn silly. Why would God declare a decree, then enable it to be resisted? Ah, sounds like only a little dose of freedom will rescue us from this insanity.
Well summed up TS00!
TS00 writes, “Talk about convoluted nonsense. God understands what he formerly decreed (duh) then enacts this decree.”
Under Calvinism, God’s understanding precedes His decrees and is the basis for the counsel of His will.
TS00 writes, “Thus Adam could not really resist God’s decree unless God enabled him to,”
Just like you cannot resist God’s decrees unless God enables you.
Then, “Why would God declare a decree, then enable it to be resisted?”
God enabling you to do X would be part of His decree. God decrees that Satan enter the garden and tempt Eve. Had God also decreed to give Eve wisdom to say, No, she would have said, No. Because Eve said Yes and ate the fruit we have evidence of God’s decree not to give Eve wisdom to say, No. God’s decrees become known to us as time passes and we observe the events that occur.
Then, “sounds like only a little dose of freedom will rescue us from this insanity.”
Only God has true libertarian free will – this because God has infinite understanding of His creation and is omnipotent so he can do anything He wants. People cannot have LFW because they have limited understanding of the impacts of their decisions and make decisions for reasons that seem best to them but reflect their limited understanding – those reasons determine their decisions.
rhutchin
Just like you cannot resist God’s decrees unless God enables you.
br.d
Thank you for a marvelous example of Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK. :-]
What a hoot, eh? God enabling someone to resist what he has decreed. Just try to picture that.
God: ‘I decreed that you marry at the age of 17 and have 14 children.’
Woman: ‘But I never married or had any children at all!’
God: ‘That’s because I enabled you to resist my decree.’
What, pray tell, kind of decree is that? Nonsense. It’s all just word jugglery to this sort of Calvinist.
Absolutely!
Its just the Calvinist’s way of hedging in order to have it both ways.
They make big claims about embracing Theological Determinism – sovereignty – the DECREES etc – but they really NEED IN-determinism to make their system palatable. They constantly work to have the very things they reject.
Speaking out of both sides of the mouth is the typical way of going about that isn’t it?.
TS00
It’s all just word jugglery to this sort of Calvinist.
br.d
Immanuel Kant:
-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.”
Those quotes are so perfect. Thanks for sharing.
br.d
‘For example – where Calvin’s god DECREES Adam disobey – it LOGICALLY follows Adam is not permitted to obey…Therefore it follows Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT Adam to obey.”
rhutchin
The better word here is “enabled” not “permitted.”
br.d
The better word for those who can’t speak the WHOLE TRUTH.
The Calvinist strong suit is manipulating words – to Masquerade his system as something it is not.
So this response is quite understandable
rhutchin
When God gives Satan freedom to enter the garden, He understands all that could follow
br.d
Calvin’s god gives the creature freedom ONLY to be/do what Calvin’s god DECREES.
Calvin’s god understands what he meticulously DECREES – and thus he understands what WILL follow.
Calvin’s god – as the divine potter – knows what he has DESIGNED each creature for.
And most of them – for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
rhutchin
Adam is permitted to refuse to eat the fruit
br.d
FALSE
NO creature is PERMITTED to falsify or negate the divine DECREE
rhutchin
Adam will not refuse to eat the fruit
br.d
Because Calvin’s god CANNOT PERMIT his DECREE to be falsified or negated.
rhutchin
And cannot refuse without God’s help which God earlier decreed not to provide.
br.d
A great example of DOUBLE-SPEAK
Calvin’s god is not going to do anything that would falsify or negate his DECREE either
rhutchin
Adam could not overcome his desires without God’s help.
br.d
Every attribute of Adam is *TOTALLY* determined by Calvin’s god – the divine potter who DESIGNS vessels of wrath – and the creature (including Adam) is NOT PERMITTED to be/do otherwise.
rhutchin
Unfortunately, you cannot explain your logic – all you seem able to do is to make claims of logic.
br.d
After all that DOUBLE-SPEAK – you want to claim I can’t explain what is LOGICAL
Good one!
Thank you for that example rhutchin! :-]
jtl writes:
“These are the people who destroys God’s trustworthiness presenting God us a weak God who needs to beg for people to agree with Him and yet does not Get what God wants for Himself in the end.”
Actually, God gets exactly what he wants for himself in the end, without using any force or coercive measures: He gets a people who freely love him in response to his incomparable love and mercy, while allowing all who reject his love and mercy to fit themselves for destruction.
The astounding thing, one which Calvinism is unwilling to consider, is that God is unafraid to be challenged, resisted and rejected. He does not need to impose his will upon resistless victims in order to have a people who love him and desire to live in proper relationship with him.
I pity and fear those who value a ‘strong’ God who always gets what he wants by force and tyranny. God is not a God of rape and force. He will not demand that his will be done, but will assist and reward those who respond to his goodness and love with humble obedience. Such a far cry from the egotistic, controlling tyrant of Calvinism.
TS00 writes, “Actually, God gets exactly what he wants for himself in the end, without using any force or coercive measures:…”
I think JTL would agree with this. Examples are the sale of Joseph by his brothers, God’s use of the Assyrians in Isaiah 10, the crucifixion of Christ, etc.
Then, “He gets a people who freely love him in response to his incomparable love and mercy,…”
Recognizing that they freely love God because God draws them to Christ, teaches them, opens their hearts, as with Lydia, convicts them of sin through the Holy Spirit, etc. After all that, who wouldn’t love Christ and God?
Then, “…while allowing all who reject his love and mercy to fit themselves for destruction.”
True, but they do not get the benefit God accords to His elect (those who freely love him).
Then, “He does not need to impose his will upon resistless victims in order to have a people who love him and desire to live in proper relationship with him. ”
Tell that to Saul of Tarsus (not that he complained).
TS00 writes, “Actually, God gets exactly what he wants for himself in the end, without using any force or coercive measures:…”
rhutchin
I think JTL would agree with this. Examples are the sale of Joseph by his brothers, God’s use of the Assyrians in Isaiah 10, the crucifixion of Christ, etc.
br.d
All except that Calvin’s god meticulously choreographs the whole puppet show.
rhutchin
Recognizing that they freely love God because God draws them to Christ
br.d
With the caveat that in Theological determinism they are ONLY Free to be/do what Calvin’s god DECREES them to be/do. And NOT FREE to be/do otherwise.
rhutchin
, teaches them, opens their hearts, as with Lydia,
br.d
Well – as we’ve discussed – in Theological Determinism – humans really don’t “learn” anything – technically speaking. What happens there is Calvin’s god gives humans FALSE and TRUE perceptions. Technically that cannot be called “learning”.
rhutchin
convicts them of sin through the Holy Spirit, etc. After all that, who wouldn’t love Christ and God?
br.d
In Theological Determinism’s case – DECREES their first perceptions to perceive sin as NOT sin
And then latter changes their perceptions to perceive some sin as sin.
But again – technically speaking – that cannot be called “conviction” because “conviction” is something the person would have to determine for themselves – and Calvin’s god determines *ALL* exclusively.
br.d writes, “All except that Calvin’s god meticulously choreographs the whole puppet show.”
This from Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.’ br.d is not disputing the Calvinist understanding (How could he?).
Then, “Well – as we’ve discussed – in Theological Determinism – humans really don’t “learn” anything – technically speaking. What happens there is Calvin’s god gives humans FALSE and TRUE perceptions. Technically that cannot be called “learning”. ”
According to John 6, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ,” God does teach and people do learn and this accounts for a person coming to Christ. So, Calvinism deviates from Theological Determinism on this point.
Then, ‘In Theological Determinism’s case – DECREES their first perceptions to perceive sin as NOT sin”
This by virtue of the depraved heart that Jeremiah describes – “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;” The depraved person has no ability to perceive sin as not sin.
Then, “And then latter changes their perceptions to perceive some sin as sin.”
This, by giving a person faith.
br.d
All except that in Theological Determinism Calvin’s god meticulously choreographs the whole puppet show.”
rhutchin
This from Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.’ br.d is not disputing the Calvinist understanding (How could he?).
br.d
Now why would br.d put any stock in an IRRATIONAL understanding?
And – as we’ve discussed – in Theological Determinism – humans really don’t “learn” anything – technically speaking. What happens there is Calvin’s god gives humans FALSE and TRUE perceptions. Technically that cannot be called “learning”. ”
rhutchin
According to John 6, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ,” God does teach and people do learn and this accounts for a person coming to Christ. So, Calvinism deviates from Theological Determinism on this point.
br.d
This reminds me of the kinder garden boy who chose vanilla ice cream and then argued it was chocolate. :-]
Also in Theological Determinism’s case – Calvin’s god firstly DECREES the a person’s perceptions to perceive sin as NOT sin.
rhutchin
This by virtue of the depraved heart that Jeremiah describes – “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;” The depraved person has no ability to perceive sin as not sin.
br.d
We’re all to aware of your circular thinking here:
An attribute of the creature caused an attribute of the creature – caused an attribute of the creature – caused an attribute of the creature – and on into infinite regress.
We understand – its the Calvinist’s “go to” escape mechanism.
Calvin’s god may latter change a persons perceptions to perceive some sin as sin.
rhutchin
This, by giving a person faith.
br.d
Leave it to a Calvinist to think a person can have faith in [X] without being able to perceive [X].
Another good example of why IRRATIONAL thinking will always resolve to an IRRATIONAL interpretation.
JTLEOSALA: “These people wants to claim their own desires not God’s desires which no one can tamper even if they will continue rumble and protest. These are the people who destroys God’s trustworthiness presenting God us a weak God ”
Wow … brilliant way of making lies sound good and God-glorifying! Such is how Satan operates and such is Calvinism.
Reminds me of the brilliant ways that the world turns sexual immorality (affairs, sex before marriage, immoral relationships, etc.) into “good and godly” by claiming things like “Well, God is love, and He is all about the love. All He wants us to do is love each other. The greatest commandment is to love one another! So He doesn’t care about who we love or how we love, just so long as we love each other. Besides, it’s those who judge who are really in the wrong, because God says not to judge others. Jesus never judged; He just loved others and accepted them as they are. He loved sinners and hated the proud religious people because they judged people.” (And FYI, they claim the greatest commandment is to love one another, but it’s not. It’s love God first, then love others. And if they get this wrong from the very beginning, then it will all be wrong!)
See how easy it is to use the Bible and God’s character to make lies sound like truth!
And that’s what you are doing here. Using God’s character against Him. Using Scripture against Truth.
(Well said, Br.d., about the double-mindedness of the Calvinist. They have to be double-minded in order to make their theology fit with Scripture and to be “content” with it. Because any rational, logic person would be – should be – horrified by Calvinism and what it does to God’s truth and character.)
It’s classic Calvinism: Shame those who disagree with Calvinism by accusing them of being unhumble and of fighting God.
You are making it sound like we disagree with Calvinism because we don’t want it to be true, because we want to make God into the kind of God we want Him to be instead of accepting Him as you say He is. It’s trying to shed doubt on our motives so that you can tear down our message.
But we who disagree with Calvinism are not contradicting the Bible or God as He is. We are fighting against the major distortions Calvinism makes of the Bible and God. We are fighting FOR truth, not against it!
2 Corinthians 11:12-15: “And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.”
And on a different note, in reference to a comment by someone else: When Calvinists quote “God works all things according to the counsel of his will …”, they mean “God causes all things according to his will.” They change Scripture from “working all things together” to “causing all things that happen.” Another subtle, brilliant way to make their flawed theology sound more valid.
And well said, TS00: “The astounding thing, one which Calvinism is unwilling to consider, is that God is unafraid to be challenged, resisted and rejected. He does not need to impose his will upon resistless victims in order to have a people who love him and desire to live in proper relationship with him. I pity and fear those who value a ‘strong’ God who always gets what he wants by force and tyranny.”
Great Article and Great post BR.D – Responding to your post BR.D on what can be Trusted by the Calvinist.
The Calvinist Biggest question is NOT: a.) What is the gospel? What is Truth?
Nor is it 2.) Have I placed my faith/trust in the gospel?
Those questions in a very practical sense are totally irrelevant. The ONLY thing that matters is, AM I Elect?
The ONLY question that really matters in Calvinism is: AM I irresistibly and unconditionally elect for Salvation or Am I irresistibly Elect for Damnation by God? Nothing else matters !!!! Never has Never will.
Like you point out the Calvinist doesn’t know and can’t know if the “faith/trust” that has been given him is a “genuine saving faith” or a “temporary faith” or a “counterfeit faith” as JMAC calls it. For the Calvinist the Best proof that he has genuine faith is the P of TULIP “his own works” so he looks constantly to his own doings to see if maybe there is enough indication that he might be the elect BUT even there he can’t be sure because in Calvinism the ONLY guarantee that he is saved is IF he has enough good works all the way to the end. BUT once again those good works could be “counterfeit works” the Pharasees were very very very devoted to the end and they were not saved. So the honest Calvinist can never have assurance of his Salvation even though he might teach “Eternal Security”. He can’t know that he is actually one of the “Eternally Secure”.
The Calvinist paradigm takes peoples focus away from the Gospel and trusting in the Gospel and Christ alone to a Constant looking to ones own works, ones own desires, owns own goodness inside of ones self.
Notice how this young lady wants assurance NOT once does JMac point her to the cross and Jesus crucified on her behalf. Not once does JMac ask her if she is trusting in His sacrifice Alone for her Salvation.
The ONLY thing JMac does is get her to examine her own deeds and desires… Calvinism leads people down the wrong path, changes the focus from Jesus Christ and HIM crucified. To are you and your deeds… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHivtfyUmMc
Check the link out. It is sad.
Thanks GraceAdict – per your posting it – I listened to it.
For me – MacArthur is doing what all Calvinists do:
1) Speak “little” truths designed to HIDE the WHOLE truth of their systematic.
2) Highlight the “good” side of their systematic in order to HIDE the “evil” side of it.
Like JT here asserts that the Calvinist’s elect status is not kept as a SECRET from the Calvinist.
By stating: “how can god betray his elect”?
Which of course – when you think that through – is totally IRRATIONAL.
I think it understandable that if they allow their brains to connect with the possibility that Calvin’s god may have designed them for eternal torment in the lake of fire – they would be emotionally devastated by that reality and people would probably leave Calvinist churches in droves.
Therefore MacArthur must HIDE the bad news.
The reason that girl was asking those question is because she’s RATIONAL enough to connect those dots.
MacArthur’s answer is: “ignore the little man in front of that curtain over there” :-]
Graceadict: “The Calvinist paradigm takes peoples focus away from the Gospel and trusting in the Gospel and Christ alone to a Constant looking to ones own works, ones own desires, owns own goodness inside of ones self.”
Br.d. “CONCLUSION: He can trust Calvin’s god leads him to believe he is “Jacob whom I love”
When in fact he is REALLY “Esau whom I hate”.”
Great points, both of you!
And AndyB: “The Calvinist assumes and/or reads into this passage that “proginosko” must necessarily mean that …”
This right here hits the nail on the head about the fundamental flaw of Calvinism. Calvinists assume things and read things into Scripture based on what they believe it SHOULD NECESSARILY MEAN. This error is abundant all throughout their theology!
One big one is that for God to be sovereign, it necessarily means that He must always be controlling everything. But Scripture shows that God has chosen to exercise His sovereignty NOT by controlling everything all the time, but by giving people real choices and working their choices into His plans.
And another big one is that God’s love necessarily ends in saved people. Therefore, if God really loves you,, He will save you. And therefore, He only really loves those He saves. And then they have to go and change the meanings of “God’s love” (creating two different kinds of love, one for the elect and one for the non-elect) and “all men” and “the world” and things like that, to make it fit their view that God really only loves those He saves and saves those He loves. Because their fundamental flawed belief is that God’s love necessarily ends in salvation.
But in reality, in the Bible, God’s love bought salvation for all men, through Jesus’s death. But He leaves it up to us to accept or reject that gift.
Heather writes:” And another big one is that God’s love necessarily ends in saved people. Therefore, if God really loves you,, He will save you. And therefore, He only really loves those He saves. And then they have to go and change the meanings of “God’s love” (creating two different kinds of love, one for the elect and one for the non-elect) and “all men” and “the world” and things like that, to make it fit their view…”
Exactly correct Heather…The Calvinist thinking is so wired that when we argue from Scripture that God Really, Authentically Loves All people and we show it from scripture…the Calvinist will call you two names:
1. So you are a “Universalist”… or if you say not all are saved he then will call you another name…
2. So You are a Semi-pelegian – you believe God’s love is incapable of saving and man has to save himself.
These are the tactics they will use…this tactic is dishonest and ignores the 975 scriptures that clearly state man must believe the Gospel.
Great points Grace Addict, BrD, and great additional points Heather,
I am more convinced than ever that Calvinism is a man-created theology that overlays the erroneous ideas of Augustine and then Calvin on top of scripture and makes scripture mean what the man-created ideas of Calvinism require them to mean, not what scripture actually says if read without Calvinist glasses on. I know a lot of Calvinists (used to attend what I consider to be a hyper-Calvinist church) and I’m still looking to try to find one, but have yet to find a single Calvinist who became a Calvinist by simply reading their Bible for what it says. It just doesn’t happen. No one comes up with this stuff on their own or from just reading and studying scripture. Every Calvinist I know became a Calvinist only when they were exposed to it’s teaching from another person, either a friend who was a Calvinist or from a Calvinist preacher or professor/teacher or famous author who taught them what specific Bible passages “really mean”, or what things such as God’s sovereignty and God’s love “must necessarily mean,”
Great post Anyyb2015
Years ago when I first started examining Calvinism – I looked at it statistical demographics.
And realized its a religion predominantly for the white anglo-saxon male.
And one who has a tendency to believe whatever he’s told.
Strain at a gnats and swallow really big camels! :-]
All,
The below are not my words, though I have posted some of the same thoughts/observations here before. I am not saying I agree with every tit for tat, but I do agree with the overall point that Romans 8:29-30 is about Israel. Sorry in advance for the length of this post.
Here goes….
Who God Foreknew and Predestined
At Romans 8:29, Paul says that God predestined some people to be conformed to the image of God’s Son. Who are these people? Who had God known beforehand in the past? If we look forward just a little in this same letter, we find Paul more clearly identifying who he has in mind – Israel.
I ask, then, has God rejected His people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.” (11:1-2).
Now in Romans 9-11, Paul will get into this in more specific detail but here in chapter 8 he simply wants to show that God had predestined the nation of Israel to be conformed to the image of His Son. Paul’s whole line of argumentation from chapter 2 right through chapter 11 involves establishing that the Law of Moses could not justify the Jew and God sent his Son to do what the Law could not do (8:3-4). In the book of Acts, Paul addresses his Jewish brethren in Antioch of Pisidia and explains to them that forgiveness of sins was now available to them that they could not receive under the Law of Moses (13:16-39). He tells the same message right here in Romans when he says that now a righteousness of God is manifested which the Law and the Prophets had testified and Jesus’ death was an atoning sacrifice for those sins previously committed under the Law (Rom 3:21-25; cf. Mt 1:21; Heb 9:15). The Law was not given for righteousness but to expose sin (3:20; 5:19-20; 7:1-25; cf. Gal 2:21; 3:19; 1 Cor 15:56). The message of Galatians is similar and Paul tells them that the Law was their tutor and guardian until Christ came to redeem them from the sins committed under the Law and now that the faith of Christ has come they are no longer under the Law (2:19-20; 3:13-4:31). After spending much time explaining that all men are sinners in order to show his Jewish audience they too are sinners, and that the purpose of the Law was to expose sins, the point Paul made at Romans 3:21 is again emphasized at Romans 8:1-4 when he says “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” because God sent his Son to do what the Law of Moses could not do for the Jews of Israel. The Law condemned them and now Christ had finally come to set Israel free from that condemnation. Paul has been explaining to them the new way of the Spirit is now available to them and the Law looked forward to this fulfillment.
The Context of Romans
Paul has had his Roman Jewish brethren in his sights throughout Romans and will have them in his sights until chapter 11 when he turns his attention to the Gentiles of the church in Rome, “Now I am speaking to you Gentiles (11:13). He is appealing to these Jews in the church to understand why the covenant of the Mosaic Law is no longer in effect and that is the reason the nations can come in which is the overall thrust of his purpose in writing Romans (1:5; 16:26). We can see quite clearly that he is specifically addressing his Jewish audience if we simply follow his train of thought through his letter. A Jew was a person who by definition was “under the Law” and a Gentile was one “without the Law” (Rom 2:12). He begins at Romans 2:11 where he distinguishes Jews and Gentiles, “All who have sinned without the Law (Gentiles) will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law (Jews) will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the Law (Jews) who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law (faithful Jews; see 2:29-29) who will be justified” and at 2:17, “you call yourself a Jew.” At Romans 3:1 Paul is still addressing the Jews, “what advantage has the Jew?” Romans 3:9 says, “are we Jews any better?” and 3:19, “whatever the Law speaks it speaks to those under the Law” and “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also” (3:29). And again he includes himself with his Jewish brethren at Romans 4:1, “Abraham our forefather according to flesh” when he proves that justification does not necessarily come through circumcision into the Law since Abraham their very own forefather was not even under the Mosaic Law when God declared his response of faith to be righteous.
Throughout chapter 4, Paul focuses on the Jewish rite of circumcision to show that it was a response of faith and not a righteousness of the Law which did not even appear until Moses 430 years later. (see Gal 3:17) and in this way he foils the Jewish claim that righteousness can only come by obedience to the Law (Acts 15:1). Paul ends chapter 4 by telling them Jesus died for their transgressions they had previously committed under the old covenant (3:25; cf. Heb 9:15) and was raised for their justification and in Romans 5:1-11 he goes on to show them they now have peace with God having been his enemies and sinners because God reconciled them to himself through His Son. Then Paul explains that all humanity is under sin to demonstrate these Jews too are under sin, just as he previously illustrated at Romans 3:9-23, and he ends with giving them the reason for the Law (5:20-21). It was not to make them righteous but to demonstrate to them they were sinners. And in Romans 6 he begins, “what shall we say then?” and advises the Jews they are no longer under the Law because they are under grace (6:14). He begins at Romans 7:1 with the statement, “Do you not know, brethren, for I am speaking to those who know the Law…” and then he reminds those who were baptized into Christ (cf. 6:3-5) were dead to the Mosaic Law because they had died to the Law and were set free from the Law to serve in the newness of the Spirit (7:1-6). And the remainder of Romans 7 illustrates the powerlessness of the Law for the Jew because all men are moral fallen flesh and in bondage to sin. And then at Romans 8:3-4, Paul shows that Jesus came to do what the powerless Law could not do for them, the Jews. It will not be until chapter 11 that Paul turns his attention to his Roman Gentile audience. His gospel is “first for the Jew” (1:16) and his concern is for them first and foremost (9:1-5; 10:1) and since he is the Apostle to the nations (Gentiles), he needs to ensure these Jewish brethren do not try to turn his Gentile converts toward doing works of the Mosaic Law.
Once Paul demonstrates to his Jewish brethren they have died to the Mosaic Law with Christ in their conversions, he turns to the benefits of being raised with Christ in the Spirit and explains to them that the same Spirit of life that is in them is the firstfruits of their resurrection glory (8:5-25) and it is in this Spirit they long to be clothed in that glory while they suffer. So when we come to Romans 8:28, and Paul refers to God working out all things to the good for those who love him, he has the suffering Jews in his sights. What God did for Jesus, Paul says that God will do for them, those he foreknew and had predestined to be conformed the image of God’s son. Romans 8:29 is a statement that God had planned Christ for the nation of Israel. He had planned for them to become conformed to the image of Christ. Christ was the goal and end of the Law (10:4) and now that Christ had come, and died, and rose again, these Jews were to be conformed to his image in suffering and death in the promise that God will glorify them in the sonship of resurrection (8:17-25; cf. Php 3:10-21).
God Foreknew Israel
The chronological point of reference in Romans 8:29 is the cross. Before the cross, God foreknew the Jews of Israel, those who loved him, and were called according to His good purpose. God was calling Israel His good purpose, to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that Jesus might be the firstborn among many brothers by new birth out of the dead. Israel were those Jews under Law and God sent His Son to do what the Law could not do for them. The goal and end of the Law was the death of Jesus Christ. His death was the ultimate purpose of the Law and the Temple and its sacrifices looked forward to Calvary. God had predestined Israel to be conformed to the image of His Son when that day came. And now Paul pleads with his Jewish brethren, to the Jew first, to suffer and die with Christ just as Christ suffered and died in the promise that they would be raised with Christ and reign with him in glory.
The message of Romans 3:20-26 and the message of Romans 8:3-4 and the message of Romans 8:29-30 are essentially the same message, from the Law to Christ and the way one goes about doing this is by dying with him and being raised up with him in the Spirit. If we back up just a few verses to 8:10-11 we find Paul promising the Jews that if the Spirit of Christ lives in them they will be bodily raised on the day of resurrection. He continues in this theme and teaches them that if indeed they suffer with him in the Spirit and put to death the misdeeds of the flesh they will reign with Jesus (8:12-17). And then he explains to them that these present sufferings are nothing compared to the glory that will be revealed in them on the day of resurrection, the Christian hope of glory (8:18-25). Paul is clear when he tells them that one does not hope for something one already has. In Romans 8:30, he says that God will glorify those he predestines in that resurrection. He is discussing the very same thing at 1 Corinthians 2:7-9 and Ephesians 1:5-11. Indeed, this is the final step in being conformed to the image of Christ (1 Cor 15:49). The Jews are to trust God since he works out all things according to his good purpose and will for those who love him (8:28) and their sufferings in Christ will culminate in resurrection glory.
Paul uses the same language at Philippians 3:10-21 where he says:
“That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship his sufferings, being conformed (symmorphoo) to his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own, but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus…. For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ who will conform (symmorphos) our body of humiliation to be like his body of glory, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself.” (Php 3:20-21).
Paul is exhorting these Jews to pick up their cross, suffer with Christ, and be conformed to his image in his suffering unto death and his resurrection unto life. When Christ returns and they are resurrected into glory they will be finished being conformed to his image. These Jews God foreknew, he predestined to be conformed to the image of God’s Son so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers, he being the firstborn out of the dead (cf. Col 1:18; Rev 1:5). Those Jews he predestined to this He calls to this and those Jews He calls to this He justifies and those Jews He justifies he glorifies. God works out all things to the good for those who love him and their sufferings will be worked out to the good of resurrection glory.
How does Romans 8:29-30 apply to me?
Whenever we read our Bibles, we must be very careful that we understand that every message does not apply to us directly. For example, Jesus taught many of his Jewish brothers to be obedient to the Law before he died on the cross. This is no longer applicable to Jews much less Gentiles who never were under the Law. Much of the time the message is directly applicable to us but much of the time it is not. Leviticus is essentially not applicable to our Christian lives although we may learn much from that book. In the same way, we must be careful to filter what was written so that we know what is applicable to us, or at least how it may be applicable to us in a different way. We must read the Bible understanding who it was written to. The words “you” and “us” and “we” do not always necessarily refer to “you” the reader or “we/us” Christians. Sometimes they may refer only to Jewish Christians exclusively such as the word “our” at Romans 4:25. Jesus died for our sins too but this is definitely not what Paul is talking about in that verse and through 5:11 where he uses the words “us”, “we”, and “our” to refer to Jews of which Paul was one. In the case of Romans, it was written to a mixed Jewish/Gentile church in Rome and we must not even then assume that all things said in this letter pertain to every believer in Rome because they do not. Much of it only pertains to those who were Jews before they were Christians. Some of it only pertains to the Gentiles. Some of it pertains to both of them.
At Romans 8:29-30, the contemporary believer may apply the message to himself but he must be very careful. Unless he is a Jew, he must understand that the message of Romans 6:14 and 7:1-6 is not applicable to him, at least not in the strict sense Paul intended since no Gentile dies to the Law when they are baptized into Christ. He can read Romans 8:13-25 and know that if he has the Spirit of Christ and share in his sufferings have the blessed hope of resurrection glory. He can know that if he loves God that God works out all things to the good for him. He can know that God now foreknows him prior to the glorification Paul promises in verse 30. He can know that God has predestined for him this inheritance of heavenly glory. He can know that God calls him to that heavenly reward and will justify him and he can know God will glorify him.
phillip quoting someone writes, “At Romans 8:29, Paul says that God predestined some people to be conformed to the image of God’s Son. Who are these people? Who had God known beforehand in the past? If we look forward just a little in this same letter, we find Paul more clearly identifying who he has in mind – Israel. ”
The issue is v29-30, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
Romans 8 begins “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,…” with “those who are in Christ Jesus,…” referring to all believers whether Jew or gentile. This context is maintained through to v28, but then in v29-30. some say that Paul uses the example of ancient Israel – “For whom He foreknew,..” – to drive home his point. So, let’s accept that to be true. Paul’s point is that even as “…whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” in ancient Israel, so Has God predestined believers today so that God will call, justify; and glorify them. The Calvinist point still prevails – those whom God foreknew, He predestines and those God predestines, He will call and those God calls, He will justify, and those God justifies, He will glorify. The order does not change. Whether a believer in ancient Israel or a believer today, it is those whom God foreknows that He predestines, then calls, justifies and glorifies.
Then, ‘Now in Romans 9-11, Paul will get into this in more specific detail but here in chapter 8 he simply wants to show that God had predestined the nation of Israel to be conformed to the image of His Son….”
Paul makes clear in Romans 9, that it is not the nation of Israel that God is conforming to the image of His son. Paul writes, “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 is the children of promise whom God is conforming to His son. The children of promise are described as the “remnant” in chapter 8, “Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.” and chapter 11, “Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
National Israel is not in view in Romans 9-11, as Paul emphasizes, “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.”
From the same article (with the link provided below: for those interested)
“The above passage (Romans 8:29-30) is read by Calvinists to mean God had foreknown those he elected before creation and predestined these chosen individuals to become Christians. We shall now see very clearly and decisively how they have very badly misinterpreted Paul’s message. Paul intends to tell us those faithful Jews whom God had known before the death and resurrection of Christ, had also been before designated to be conformed to the image of Christ. In other words, Paul is saying the death and resurrection of Christ was the fulfillment of the Law and they are now to be conformed to his image in suffering that they may also be conformed to his image in resurrection glory so that Christ would be the firstborn among many brothers.”
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/calvinism/U/Rom8_29.html
phillip quoting someone (maybe himself): “The above passage (Romans 8:29-30) is read by Calvinists to mean God had foreknown those he elected before creation and predestined these chosen individuals to become Christians.”
Romans 8: 29 has, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,…” Those that God foreknew are contrasted, by Calvinists, with those to whom Christ said, “…I never knew you…” in Matthew 7. Whether it deals with Jewish believers in the OT (the children of promise in Romans 9) or all believers does not matter. If we limit “those He foreknew” to Jewish believers in the OT, it is obvious that Paul intends that God will treat all future believers in the same way.
In Ephesians 1, we read, “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…having predestined us to adoption as sons…” God chose (elected) believers having predestined them to adoption. Thus, God’s election of believers is accomplished through His predestination of them. It is through His choosing/predestination that God foreknew them in Romans 8. Then follows God calling, justifying, glorifying.
Even if we accept the notion that Romans 29 refers to just Jewish believers in the OT, it is obvious that we are to extrapolate this to all believers as the process is the same for each. Thus, Paul says, “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?” where “us” include Paul and “To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:”
Brothers/Sisters
Follow the pronouns.
Ephesians 1:1-12 works in perfect harmony with Romans 8:29-30. The “us” and “we” is referring to the Jews who accepted Jesus as the Christ. Verse 12 reads “that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.” “Who” first trusted in Christ? The Jew. The gospel was first for the Jew and only then for the Gentile (Romans 1:16). To whom was predestined the adoption as sons (Ephesians 1:5)? To the same who pertain the adoption (Romans 9:4). The Jews.
Just as Paul is addressing the Jew in Romans 2:17 thru Romans 11:10, Paul is referring to the Jews in Ephesians 1:1-12. Much like Romans 11:13, in Ephesians 1:13 he turns his attention to “you” being the believing Gentiles.
Galatians 4:4 (NKJV)….
But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law (the Jews), that we might receive the adoption as sons.
There is a reason the Lord said “salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22).
phillip writes, “Brothers/Sisters
Follow the pronouns.
Ephesians 1:1-12 works in perfect harmony with Romans 8:29-30. The “us” and “we” is referring to the Jews who accepted Jesus as the Christ.”
Let’s presume that phillip meant “Follow the pronouns back to their antecedent noun.”
In Ephesians 1, we read:
1 Paul…To the saints who are in Ephesus,…
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us (Paul + the saints who are in Ephesus)…
4 just as He chose us Paul + the saints who are in Ephesus)…that we (Paul + the saints who are in Ephesus)…
5 having predestined us (Paul + the saints who are in Ephesus)…
6 …He has made us (Paul + the saints who are in Ephesus)…
8 which He made to abound toward us (Paul + the saints who are in Ephesus)…
9 having made known to us (Paul + the saints who are in Ephesus)…
11 In Him also we (Paul + the saints who are in Ephesus)…
12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
13 In Him you (the saints who are in Ephesus) also trusted, after you (the saints who are in Ephesus) heard the word of truth…having believed, you (the saints who are in Ephesus) were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
15 …after I heard of your (the saints who are in Ephesus) faith in the Lord Jesus and your (the saints who are in Ephesus) love for all the saints,
phillip needs to help us out here by explaining how “us” or “we” became identified with the “Jews” and not the “saints in Ephesus” that is indicated if we follow the pronouns back to v1.
Romans 8:29-30 may well be referring to OT Jewish believers. It cannot refer to all Jews as Paul had earlier said in Romans 2,, “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart,…” and then Romans 9, “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.”
phillip’s focus on Israel of the flesh is not warranted given what he has explained.
Roger,
Your handling of scripture and grammar are well documented here. I’ll let the reader(s) here discern which of us is being consistent with the word of God.
That said, I noticed you skipped verse 12…
“…that we (Paul plus the saints who are in Ephesus) who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.”
Good luck with that one, bro!
phillip writes, ‘Your handling of scripture and grammar are well documented here. I’ll let the reader(s) here discern which of us is being consistent with the word of God.”
??? What about dealing with the pronouns and tracing them back to v1. Why do you think that is the wrong way to look at Ephesians 1.
Hi Philip
Thanks very much for this. Are you able to send this to me as a document please
clareansah@gmail.com
Hi Philip
Seems my reply didn’t didn’t land in the right place. But I mean your “long post”
Clare,
The entire article (which is not mine) can be located at the link below. If you have a problem viewing it, please let me know.
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/calvinism/U/Rom8_29.html
TSOO posted this one:
“I pity and fear those who value a ‘strong’ God who always gets what he wants by force and tyranny. God is not a God of rape and force. He will not demand that his will be done, but will assist and reward those who respond to his goodness and love with humble obedience. Such a far cry from the egotistic, controlling tyrant of Calvinism.”
——–Here’s My Response———
1. God’s anger and tyranny could be better viewed from the doctrine of “Incarnation”. Due to God’s anger and wrath kindled for His creation led Him to brutally kill His only begotten Son. There is nothing in man that we can be proud of when all humanity is worthy to be thrown to hell. But God is not like that. Because of His Love to the elect and Mercy extended to the Gentiles, He picked out some for Himself while passing the rest.
2. TSOO said : “He will not demand that his will be done…” – This statement is in contrary to Jesus Christ’s teaching on Prayer recorded in:
Matt. 6:10 where it says: “Your Kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”.
If God did not intend to save the entire humanity on earth then, who is TSOO to label God as an egoistic tyrant God?
This idea of TSOO unveils to the table the doctrine of synergism or Semi-Pelagian where man has a counterpart in his salvation, that would still require God to give a reward.
3. Mark 14:36 “… take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will”
What was the Will of the Father? – The answer is to kill Jesus Christ due to the sins that was placed on Him.
Jesus Christ is always consistent and in-agreement with the will of God the Father, to the point of willingly sacrificing Himself to die on the cross, but TSOO seems to contradict the will of God by “assisting and rewarding those who respond to His goodness and love with humble obedience”. So… this idea contradicts the sufficiency of the “substitutionary atoning act of Christ” on the cross and the Grace of God that is unconditionally and freely given to undeserving sinners. It promotes the idea that God is obligated to reward Salvation due to the self efort of showing humble obedience which is espoused here by TSOO.
4. God’s manipulation of Pharaoh in Egypt is also another proof of a strong God who gets what He wants by force even to the killing of the entire Egyptian babies, without any sincere intention of saving those Egyptian babies.
Jtleosala
1. God’s anger and tyranny could be better viewed from the doctrine of “Incarnation”. Due to God’s anger and wrath kindled for His creation led Him to brutally kill His only begotten Son.
br.d
With the caveat that Calvin’s god DESIGNS and PROGRAMS man to brutally kill his own begotten son- and does NOT PERMIT man to do otherwise.
Jtleosala
There is nothing in man that we can be proud of when all humanity is worthy to be thrown to hell. But God is not like that.
br.d
Sorry this doesn’t fly. Calvin’s god is making man due exactly what Calvin’s god conceives – which makes Calvin’s god the AUTHOR of EVERYTHING man is like. Kinda hard for him not be like what he AUTHORS
Jtleosala
He picked out some for Himself while passing the rest.
br.d
The priest on the Jericho road – passed over the robbed man.
But in this case Calvin’s god choreographs the whole show.
Jtleosala
If God did not intend to save the entire humanity on earth then, who is TSOO to label God as an egoistic tyrant God?
br.d
If Calvin’s god DESIGNED the vast Marjory of his creatures for eternal torment in lake of fire for his good pleasure – who are they to call him a tyrant?
Jtleosala
This idea of TSOO unveils to the table the doctrine of synergism or Semi-Pelagian where man has a counterpart in his salvation, that would still require God to give a reward.
br.d
Straining at the gnat of synergism – swallowing the camel of Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism.
Jtleosala
What was the Will of the Father? – The answer is to kill Jesus Christ due to the sins that was placed on Him.
br.d
To DESIGN man to kill his own son and NOT PERMIT man to do otherwise.
Jtleosala
4. God’s manipulation of Pharaoh in Egypt is also another proof of a strong God who gets what He wants by force even to the killing of the entire Egyptian babies, without any sincere intention of saving those Egyptian babies.
br.d
Yup – Calvin’s god DESIGNS/PROGRAMS the Egyptians to kill babies – in order to manufacture the excuse of sending them plagues. And that concept is supposed to be derived from scripture.
Great Post BR.D.
Thanks for taking the time to respond that way you do. It is so clear and well presented.
The feeling is mutual GraceAdict :-]
Seriously, Jtl??
There is nothing stronger than love manifested in goodness, kindness, longsuffering and forbearance to allow people to come to their senses, e.g (prodigal son) it wasn’t by force, but through the Father’s goodness and love that caused him to come to his senses
.
Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”:
eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; (Rom. 2:4-7).
(Isaiah 42:1-4) The gentleness of Christ when He came.
He will not cry out, nor raise His voice,
Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street.
A bruised reed He will not break,
And smoking flax He will not quench;
He will bring forth justice for truth.
He will not fail nor be discouraged,
Till He has established justice in the earth;
And the coastlands shall wait for His law.”
No force and tyranny in these passages: more like goodness and kindness — persuasion, and a willing heart.
Jtleosala: “Because of His Love to the elect and Mercy extended to the Gentiles, He picked out some for Himself while passing the rest.”
Totally misleading! Calvi-god did not “pass over the rest.” He created them specifically so he could hate them and send them to hell. That’s not “passing over them.”
And that’s not a “loving and merciful God.”
That’s a monster! That’s a psychopathic lunatic who walks up to someone at a park, says “I am claiming you for my own because I love you so much” and then he runs around slaughtering everyone else around them, and then he tells the “chosen” person, “See how much I love you and how merciful I am to you. I spared you when I could have destroyed you too.”
Any logical, rational person would call that a “dangerous psychopathic lunatic.”
But Calvinists call him “God.” A “loving, merciful, just God.”
And worse yet is that Calvi-god doesn’t just slaughter those people, he makes them specifically so that he can slaughter them. He causes them to be the unbelieving sinners they are just so he can put them in hell, punishing them for the things he causes.
I’ve said this before, but I shudder to think of how Calvinists will feel when they stand before God, trying to explain their tragically incorrect theology and the horrible misrepresentation they spread of God and His truth!
Agreed. Nor do I find myself able to agree with pretty much anything jtl believes. God did not murder his own Son. That’s absurd, to charge God with murder. Does he realize he is accusing God of breaking his own ‘Law’? Who in their right mind believes God is a murderer, yet murder is a sin for anyone else? That poor guy is so confused it is pitiful to see.
But that’s the kind of insanity that arises from insisting that God’s allowing events to occur equates to God decreeing them to occur. You cannot help but believe God is the chief of sinners if sin arises from his desires and decrees, (and yeah, I know all of the yadda about using secondary, secretive means that supposedly hides his responsibility.) I do not believe for a moment that God ’caused’, inspired or in any way decreed anyone to murder Jesus. He knew full well what evil, ambitious, Satan worshippers would do were the epitome of light, goodness, grace and love to confront them, and he allowed these tragic events to play out. Because he happened to know that evil and death could not keep Jesus in the grave. His intention was to reveal that amazing truth to all men, so that we could be freed from the fear of death and the power over us that it gave to Satan.
How can anyone refrain from laughing out loud at a definition of grace that says ‘I will save you from the horrible fate I alone dreamed up’? Hello? God ‘graciously’ saves a select few from an unthinkable hell, after first cursing them with a ‘sin nature’ that prevents them from doing anything but sin? Gee, thanks, Calvi-god, for saving me from the monster that you are and the monster you made me be. Too bad about the others, eh? Somebody has to burn, just glad it’s not me.
Yes, jtl, I do and will always call your false and blasphemous characterization of God as monstrous, narcissistic, egotistical, tyrannical and evil. Heather’s frightening picture of the psychopathic killer is not at all farfetched as a description of Calvi-god. It is he alone who determines whatsoever comes to pass, then exhibits a violent, murderous wrath against those helpless puppets who simply do as he ordained them to do in some eternity past. He chose to make all mankind sinful. He randomly selected a few to rescue from himself, then acts as if his anger against the other helpless God-created ‘sinners’ is justifiable, glorifying even.
I do not hesitate to declare loudly that I see no glory in such a monster. Nor to state that I see no such monster taught in the written word or exhibited in the life of The Living Word. If Calvinists look forward to hanging out for eternity with the psychopath they have manufactured, I don’t even want to think about what that says about them.
Aidan, Heather, and TS00 – great points… I do feel sorry for JTL, his view of his Calvi-god is not the Biblical GOD.
Jtleosala: “Because of His Love to the elect and Mercy extended to the Gentiles, He picked out some for Himself while passing the rest.”
Heather writes: “Totally misleading! Calvi-god did not “pass over the rest.” He created them specifically so he could hate them and send them to hell. That’s not “passing over them.”
GA: Great way to take the spin off of JTL’s misleading statements. As BR.D. says Calvinist terminology hides at least as much as it reveals. We must be ready to unmask what is being hidden by their statements. What they hide is more revealing than almost everything they say.
The Calvinist tries to paint a picture of their Calvi-god being loving, kind and compassionate when it is not the case from what they actually believe about their Calvi-god. They make it sound like the Calvi-god is just passing through the Universe and just happens to come upon a community of poor miserable creatures who have nothing good about them plus they are all drowning without hope and then their Calvi-god, who is just passing by, decides out of His kindness to pluck some of those miserable souls from the ocean that would certainly destroy all of them. The Calvi-god who was just passing by is sooo good he saved some of them. He didn’t need to save any but He saved some for His Glory. Isn’t He Good? That is the picture that they try and leave the unsuspecting with BUT we know better and Heather you hit the nail on the head saying: “Totally misleading! Calvi-god did not “pass over the rest.” He created them specifically so he could hate them and send them to hell. That’s not “passing over them.”
TS00 writes, ‘God did not murder his own Son. That’s absurd, to charge God with murder.”
Acts says, “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know–Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;…For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.”
You would not use the term, “murder, so how would you describe what God did to Jesus?
Then, “that’s the kind of insanity that arises from insisting that God’s allowing events to occur equates to God decreeing them to occur.”
That’s the conclusion from God being sovereign. Nothing can happen unless God says (or decrees) it happens.
You prove my point. Because God allowed something to happen does not mean he decreed it to happen. To allow is to allow, that blasted ‘Mere permission’ Calvin so hated. To decree is to originate, determine, cause. Big difference. Only Calvinists seem unable to grasp this huge difference.
All acknowledge that God must at least allow evil to be done; Calvinism makes him its author, determinor and source.
TS00 writes, “To decree is to originate, determine, cause.”
Then you define “decree” differently than Calvinism. Under Calvinism, God understands everything that could happen and it is His decision as to what will happen. Of course, to satisfy Brian, God understood these things in eternity past. It is God’s understanding that provides the foundation for His counsel by which God decides, or decrees, all things. Thus, Paul writes, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will…”
However, it is true that God does originate some events. God originated the creation and Adam and Eve. It is God who placed A/E in the garden and then gave Satan free reign to enter the garden to tempt Eve. God originated the flood of Noah and the destruction of Sodom and the division of people by language. God impregnated Mary and gave Joseph a dream that led to Joseph protecting Jesus.
For all other events, God is the ultimate cause because He works all things according to the counsel of His will. In this repsect God uses secondary means using Joseph’s brothers to sell Joseph, using the Assyrians to punish Israel, using the Romans to crucify Jesus.
All of these events resulted from decisions, or decrees, God made.
Then, “All acknowledge that God must at least allow evil to be done; Calvinism makes him its author, determinor and source.”
Calvinism says that nothing can happen, even evil, unless God decides/decrees, according to the counsel of His will, that it should happen.
TS00
To decree is to originate, determine, cause.”
rhutchin
Then you define “decree” differently than Calvinism.
br.d
FALSE
Dr. James N. Anderson – Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte NC
-quote
“It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism”
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – on Theological Determinism
-quote
Theological determinists, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin…….Contemporary theological determinists also appeal to various biblical texts….and confessional creeds (for example the Westminster Confession of Faith)
Dr. William Lane Craig:
-quote
UNIVERSAL DIVINE CAUSAL DETERMINISM cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture. The classical Reformed divines recognized this. They acknowledge that the reconciliation of Scriptural texts affirming human freedom and contingency with Scriptural texts affirming divine sovereignty is inscrutable.
rhutchin don’t you know by now – when you’re being outright dishonest – people are going to call you on it?
br.d writes, “rhutchin don’t you know by now – when you’re being outright dishonest – people are going to call you on it?”
TS00 wrote, “To decree is to originate, determine, cause.” Then you ignore the “originate,,,cause” part of what TS00 wrote and get indignant about the term, “determine.” We can say that God determines all things – after all, that is what Ephesians 1 tells us, “works all things according to the counsel of His will,” That does not mean that God originates or causes all things other than as the ultimate originator and cause of the universe.
br.d
rhutchin don’t you know by now – when you’re being outright dishonest – people are going to call you on it?”
rhutchin
TS00 wrote, “To decree is to originate, determine, cause.” Then you ignore the “originate,,,cause” part of what TS00 wrote and get indignant about the term, “determine.” We can say that God determines all things – after all, that is what Ephesians 1 tells us, “works all things according to the counsel of His will,” That does not mean that God originates or causes all things other than as the ultimate originator and cause of the universe.
br.d
Firstly
William Lane Craig wisely tells us:
-quote
It needs to be kept in mind that universal, divine CAUSAL determinism is an INTERPRETATION of Scripture, an interpretation that some Reformed divines themselves regard as irreconcilable with other clear teachings of Scripture.
Secondly:
Since Calvinists try to HIDE the dark side of the systematic HIDING the fact that Calvin’s god is the ORIGINATOR/SOURCE/CAUSE is understandable – but who is going to call that honest.
I do indeed consider it intellectual dishonesty to subtly redefine decree as ‘allow ‘. You, I and others have provided many quotes from Calvin and other highly regarded Calvinist spokesmen that utterly discount that as consistent with Calvinistic theology.
Few would use the English word ‘decree’ to indicate mere permission. I consider it simply deliberate obfuscation. Because the Calvinist hates to admit that his system unavoidably makes Calvi-god the author and sole originator of evil, along with all other ‘whatsoevers’.
The business of “mere” permission is a real Achilles heel for the Calvinist – because it has traditionally stood out as one of their most observably dishonest SEMANTIC tricks. And its pretty prolific in Calvinist literature.
John Piper always appeals to “mere” permission when the topic goes to Calvin’s god CAUSING evil. While Calvin himself rails against those who appeal to it – calling it “frivolous refuge”.
I think Calvin lived in a time when he didn’t have to worry about the Christian community (mostly Catholic) rejecting his doctrine because of its “Author of evil” problem.
But for Calvinists today its a very real problem.
And that’s why rhutchin is so obsessed trying to dream up argument schemes to hide the problem
I suspect that this was the Achilles’ heel that brought Calvinism down. When Calvin was running a tyrannical theocracy, and all who dared disagree with him could expect banishment, torture or death, it was pretty simple to keep Calvinism afloat. Once the wisdom of men forbid religious tyranny, Calvinism had to win people over the honest way – which they never could do. So we have gone from tyranny to deception. Because no one is going to worship a God who is the author of rape, murder and all other evil. (Okay, there are some scary Calvinists who do, but I don’t even want to know what’s behind that.)
Great Responses TS00 and BR.D.
It is so blatantly obvious that the system of Calvinism often hides more than it reveals.As BR.D says it is NOT a truth telling system. Many of Calvinism’s key doctrines and communication are purposefully misleading. For instance many will proclaim loudly one truth and in their mind sneak in a qualifier or insert a misleading word that the public doesn’t know pretty well obliterated the loud proclamation:
1. God loves the whole world (mental insert -without distinction = most are excluded)
2. God is absolutely Sovereign and Holy (mental insert – means determinism, he authors sin)
3. Man and man alone is 100% responsible for his sin (mental insert – God is irresistibly Determining every sin to happen including rape and murder)
4. Jesus died for the sins of all (mental insert – only the few elect – we call them the all)
5. God loves you (mental insert – He gives you rain -but made most of you For hell)
6. God foreknows and understands all things (mental insert – He decrees and determines all things)
NONE of these statements are meant to be truth telling BUT only make you think they mean one thing when they are really thinking something completely different even while they say them or write them.
As BR.D. says Calvinism is NOT a Truth telling system. What it hides is more telling then what it reveals.
Sound kind of subtle and sneaky? I wonder why?
GA writes:
“As BR.D. says Calvinism is NOT a Truth telling system. What it hides is more telling then what it reveals.
Sound kind of subtle and sneaky? I wonder why?”
I’m pretty sure that was a rhetorical question, but I’ll suggest a few reasons why Calvinists cannot be truthtellers.
1) Their theology completely contradicts the most obvious meaning of the vast majority of scripture.
2) Their theology crafts the most monstrous picture of God that, if told outright, all would reject him.
3) Their theology leads to a fatalism that is completely unlivable, eliminating all purpose and hope.
4) Their theology has redefined the common definition of so many words that, were they to admit it, most would question their integrity and intentions.
TS00
Their theology has redefined the common definition of so many words that, were they to admit it, most would question their integrity and intentions.
br.d
SO TRUE!
Anyone who does not question misleading word games is simply asking to be played the fool.
TS00
Their theology has redefined the common definition of so many words that, were they to admit it, most would question their integrity and intentions.
br.d
SO TRUE!
Anyone who does not question misleading word games is simply asking to be played the fool.
GA: That is why it seems there IS something dark behind the system…Now I know people in the system can be totally deceived and unaware of how their system is manipulative, dishonest and ensnares them, so I feel for those who are unknowingly caught in the trap…BUT I detest the “trap” that catches these people. The “trap” harms people, and it dishonors God.
GraceAdict
BUT I detest the “trap” that catches these people. The “trap” harms people, and it dishonors God.
br.d
Totally agree GraceAdict!
That’s what its all about! :-]
GA, my feelings exactly.
TS00 to br.d writes, “I do indeed consider it intellectual dishonesty to subtly redefine decree as ‘allow ‘.”
That is why we should use words like “decide” or “enable” and not “permit” or “allow.”
Then, “Few would use the English word ‘decree’ to indicate mere permission. I consider it simply deliberate obfuscation.”
You seem to understand Calvin’s objection to “mere permission” and why he opposed that term also.
Then, “the Calvinist hates to admit that his system unavoidably makes Calvi-god the author and sole originator of evil, along with all other ‘whatsoevers’.”
That is because God is the author of evil (God works all things according to the counsel of His will) but God is not the originator of evil (Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed).. God authored all the events in the garden by His decrees but it was Eve who originated her actions to eat the fruit.as God did not coerce, compel, force, or prompt her to eat the fruit.
rh writes:
“That is because God is the author of evil (God works all things according to the counsel of His will) but God is not the originator of evil (Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed).. God authored all the events in the garden by His decrees but it was Eve who originated her actions to eat the fruit.as God did not coerce, compel, force, or prompt her to eat the fruit.”
The same sort of nonsense as before. Now we have rh admitting God is the author of evil – quite contrary to the Westminster Confession – but that he is not the ‘originator’ of evil. Which is, of course, totally contradictory and merely an attempt at semantic deception. If God decreed, authored determined or – fill in the blank – evil, before men were even created, then he indeed is the originator of evil. He is not the direct enactor, but he is most definitely, as the only Sovereign, controlling power of the universe, the originator of evil, as he must be of whatsoever comes to pass.
But rh still thinks that he can first state a false assertion, then somehow justify it by quoting scripture that discounts it. In other words, it is the childlike attempt to pretend to agree with scripture by using a euphemism when you contradict it. Maybe God won’t notice, if you use another word? I guess he is not as clever as he is powerful.
Many a child has tried to insist they did not ‘technically’ disobey their parent’s command: ‘But you told me not to step in any puddles. I didn’t step in any puddles, I jumped!’ Most parents are clever enough to see through such tricks. I might suggest to rh that God can see through his semantic tricks as well.
Word games are all Calvinists have to play with.
TS00 to br.d writes, “I do indeed consider it intellectual dishonesty to subtly redefine decree as ‘allow ‘.”
rhutchin
That is why we should use words like “decide” or “enable” and not “permit” or “allow.”
br.d
And Bill Clinton said “That depends on what you’re definition of what the word ‘is’ is”
If Bill Clinton were religious he would be a Calvinist for sure! :-]
Hey RH your flexibility is astounding to take words and redefine them and take synonyms and say they don’t mean the same thing. You realize with your ability you could make the BIBLE say absolutely ANYTHING.
RH writes: “That is because God is the author of evil (God works all things according to the counsel of His will) but God is not the originator of evil … God authored all the events in the garden by His decrees but it was Eve who originated her actions to eat the fruit as God did not coerce, compel, force, or prompt her to eat the fruit.”
GA: You claim “God is the Author of Evil” lets see what else God is the Author of so that we can see in what way God is the Author of Evil we will use scripture, so that it is clear what you are saying about God Authoring evil. We will see if it makes sense to say “God is the Author of Evil but He does not originate it”. Because if you can say that about evil you can say the same thing about these passages. God authors X but does not originate X.
Act 3:15 and you killed the AUTHOR of life, whom God raised from the dead. esv
Heb 5:8 though being a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.
Heb 5:9 And being perfected, He became the AUTHOR of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him,
Heb 12:2 looking to Jesus the AUTHOR and Finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and sat down at the right of the throne of God. nkjv
GraceAdict writes, ‘”You claim “God is the Author of Evil””
God is the author of evil in the sense of Ephesians 1 – “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” The term “all things” includes those actions described as evil.
Then, ” God authors X but does not originate X.”
This in the sense of Joseph’s treatment by his brothers. Joseph described their actions this way, “…as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good,…” God was the author of these events in that He works all things according to the counsel of His will, but God did not originate the evil desires in the brother’s hearts even though He was able to control those thoughts and turn them to good and did not.
br.d
“Author” in the Old French of Calvin’s day: “Acteor” – meaning: Originator, Creator, Instigator”
Calvin equates CAUSE with ORIGIN
John Piper
-quote
Calvin states “Gods will is the CAUSE of all things” – therefore in Calvinism nothing ORIGINATES outside of his will.”
Piper equates CAUSE with ORIGIN
Oxford Handbook on Free-Will
-quote
Aristotle succinctly put it, “When acting is up to us, so is not acting”.
This “up to us-ness” also suggests that the ORIGINS or SOURCES of our actions are in us and not in something else over which we have no control—whether that something else is fate or God, the laws of nature, birth or upbringing, or other humans”
Christian Philosophers equate CAUSE with ORIGIN/SOURCE
Because it cannot, logically, be otherwise. If God is the cause of X, then God is the originator of X. It matters not one whit how he causes X, through which various means or human instruments he works. If God causes X it is he, and he alone, who is responsible for X.
If X is causing a dog to be hit by a stick in the hand of a child, neither the stick nor the child can be held responsible if this event was irresistibly decreed to occur by an outside, unchallengable power. It does not matter that God made the stick impassive. It does not matter that God placed the desire to hit in the child. The whole event was caused by God, and any means involved are simply tools, and hold no responsibility for doing that which they cannot possibly avoid doing.
This is the gist of Calvinist determinism, which Calvinists will try through semantic trick after semantic trick to avoid, but it simply cannot be honestly denied. Under Calvinism, God alone causes ALL THINGS, thus God alone is responsible for ALL THINGS.
Which is why Calvinism, by its very nature, creates dishonesty, cognitive dissonance and deceptiveness in its followers. I have seen many sincere, honest believers succumb to this trap, in an attempt to cling to man-made Calvinist doctrines without shedding the scripture’s portrayal of God. It cannot be done without intellectual dishonesty, semantic jugglery and compartmentalization to avoid the logical inconsistencies. Honest men are turned into furtive deceivers, of themselves and of others.
TS00
It cannot be done without intellectual dishonesty, semantic jugglery and compartmentalization to avoid the logical inconsistencies. Honest men are turned into furtive deceivers, of themselves and of others.
br.d
And this is why Calvinists always remind me of the sneaky used car salesman who calls himself “Honest John”
He becomes an expert in pointing 10 fingers in 20 directions at the same time. :-]
Not satisfied, Roger! 😉 Sorry. It is illogical to have in determinism before creation both 1.) “God understands everything that could happen” before willing/decreeing what happens and 2.) everything being eternally immutably predestined by God to work out only one way. In determinism there is no sequential event of divine choice after foreknowledge of “coulds” in divine foreknowledge. Therefore there are no “coulds” or other possibilities no matter how often determinists want to affirm that illogical mystery.
In Molinism they want to claim that there was a sequential choice before the decree, but then they deny that any more sequential choices can continue for God after creation because they believe God could only choose a “completed” created world scenario that goes on forever, taking away all His own freedom of choice in it. So they bootleg determinism into their system and claim the free will of God and man existed into that middle knowledge decision, even though man didn’t exist yet for any of those so-called free-will decisions that they still become responsible for in God’s mind. I call Molinism smoke and mirrors determinism.
Brian, thanks for that really helpful comment. I still consider myself an ‘independent’ but I am ‘open’ to the thinking of Open Theism 😉 and always eager to understand it better. Your words shed a lot of light for me on where you are coming from.
I’m glad TS00 that I’ve been of some help in your journey. It took me a few years to get where I am now. And not all open theists are biblically rooted or biblically consistent. If ever you would like me to discuss these things further, let me know.
I appreciate that offer, and my respect for you and the thoughts you have shared would lead me to turn to you for more insight on the subject should it become one I feel the need to explore further. I never know what door God is going to open next.
Let me just share a quick overview of my journey – How I came to the dynamic omniscience view?
I think each generation before and after Christ has struggled with the concepts of determinism and freewill. And if my journey has any commonality in this struggle, I looked around for who were discussing it and what Scriptures they used in support of their views.
My search began in earnest when I read the four view book – Predestination and Free Will. That led me to see Foreknowledge was the issue, and so I read the four view book – Divine Foreknowledge. That led me to see that Eternality was the issue, and so I read the four view book – God and Time. I wasn’t so interested in who was arguing or what else they wrote, but what were their best Scriptural arguments and responses to those that opposed.
Of course, doing a diligent search will make one ask, “Who before these modern voices held to the view that I now think is the most biblical?” During that time when I was working through those debate books, I began researching earlier views of “dynamic omniscience”, a term I did not know back then, but is the best one I choose for my own view now. I found 19th century McCabe – Divine Nescience first. FB discussions on sites like this one has led me to see there were many others in history before him who held to an open view of the future.
Thanks for taking the time to share, Brian, and I am going to save a copy of this post for the bibliography. I am not as concerned as I once was with believing I have it all figured out (I know I never will) but do like to read, think and grapple with things as best I can. I’m not sure I will ever fit into anyone’s camp, but I do like to pick and choose from the best of the best.
I certainly reject Divine Determinism as being either biblical or logical. We have both seen others’ descriptions of God being outside of time, etc. However it genuinely works, I do believe that God has created human beings with the privilege and responsibility of having a meaningful, purposeful existence. I believe that our thoughts and our actions, our sacrifices and prayers have genuine, life-changing consequences. This is sobering, on one hand, as we realize that we are accountable for how we use our minutes and our days, and it also affirms our worth in God’s eyes as valuable, contributing members of his family.
I am grateful that I am not just a cog or a robot, designed and created with no ability to do other than what has been eternally scripted for me. I am also extremely thankful that my failings do not assign me to a hopeless future, but always retain the possibility of redemption and restoration. May we all ever seek to offer ourselves more fully as servants of the living, loving God.
Brian,
Thanks for sharing what you believe and how you arrived at it. I lean towards God being “all knowing”, that being that He sees the future as clearly as He sees the past. However, that belief is not set in stone.
Genesis 22:12 (NKJV)….
And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
Notice it says “Now I know” and not “Now I have always known”. But this is how most the scholars and experts interpret this verse (as if they could provide clarity when the Holy Spirit couldn’t).
The question for me is simply this. Can an all-powerful God choose not to know something? In other words, is God “forced” to know all things?
Blessings, brother.
Thx Phillip. I believe God’s mind accurately reflects what He says in Scripture in tensed language. I don’t believe He can choose not to know something that exists, or to know a falsehood as true. One set future does not exist as a place or in His mind as a completed plan. He is not able to know that “future” as true, for it doesn’t exist.
Verses – future is not completely set.
Genesis 2:19 NKJV — Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
Exodus 33:5 NKJV — For the LORD had said to Moses, “Say to the children of Israel, ‘You are a stiff-necked people. I could come up into your midst in one moment and consume you. Now therefore, take off your ornaments, that I may know what to do to you.’ ”
Jeremiah 18:11 NKJV — “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” ’ ”
Matthew 24:20 NKJV — “And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.”
Matthew 26:39 NKJV — He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”
God’s mind conforms univocally with what He has revealed in His Word. It’s not locked in right now to seeing everything as “will be” or “is”.
1. Was God waiting to see what Adam would call the animals, to know what they would be called?
2. Was God waiting to see if Israel would take off their ornaments to know what He would do next?
3. Was God saying He was devising a plan which means making decisions in His mind not made before about the future.
4. Did Jesus affirm the disciples’ prayer could effect the setting of the date of Jerusalem’s fall, indicating Jesus’ believed it might not yet be set?
5. Did Jesus pray about possible changes that could be made in God’s will because He knew such changes were indeed possible?
The answer is an obvious “yes” to all those questions which are based on the clear meaning of those texts. If anyone thinks those texts don’t clearly show those self evident implications it must be because they are biased against the idea of the future being able to work out more than one way.
********
The underlying issue in foreknowledge is if one is willing to believe that there are truly changes taking place in God’s mind in His knowing a “before” that then becomes known as an “after” and a “might be” that then becomes known as either a “will be” or a “could have been”.
Calvinism rejects that such change in God’s mind exists before or after creation. Arminianism rejects that the idea of “before” creation means “before” and illogically accepts that changes in God’s mind exist and don’t exist at the same time. Molinism believes logically that some kind of change existed in God’s mind before creation but which cannot happen now after creation.
Only Open theism offers the idea that God’s mind corresponds with the truth and sequence revealed in His Word univocally. An event declared as “will be” was known only as “will be” in His mind. Once it happened, it became known as “fulfilled”. Those declared as “might be” are only known as “might be”. He will freely choose to cause or permit one “might be” to change in His mind to a “will be” and another “might be” into a “won’t be/could have been”.
The idea the future is limited to and locked in to working out only one way is a lie… or that changes happening in God’s mind is imperfection is also a lie. God’s Word counters clearly those lies. And God’s mind cannot believe lies as truths.
brianwagner writes, “There is no sequential event of divine choice after foreknowledge of “coulds” in divine foreknowledge. Therefore there are no “coulds” or other possibilities no matter how often determinists want to affirm that illogical mystery. ”
Ephesians 1 says, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” The term, “according to,” establishes the condition upon which “works” are determined, so we do have a sequential order with God’s counsel being the cause of God’s works. As God’s knowledge consists of that which God has decided to work, there is no divine choice after foreknowledge as God has made His decisions and there is no need to change those decisions (God’s understand being infinite allows no room for improvement). All determinism means is that God, according to the counsel of His will, makes decisions about (or determines) what He will do (or work).
And Scripture clearly indicates that God did not make all His decisions before creation. And it does not teach that God’s waiting to make decisions or having a variety of possible choices based on relationships with other free will beings would mean or cause any imperfection. Being locked in and limited to a reality working out only one way forever is imperfection, imo.
Love your post, TS00. This part in particular made me laugh out loud: “If Calvinists look forward to hanging out for eternity with the psychopath they have manufactured, I don’t even want to think about what that says about them.”
Calvinists constantly try to say that God “ordained” sin but isn’t the author of it. Yet Calvin himself would disagree
“… everything done in the world is according to His decree…” (Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 16, section 6).
“… the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as [God] permits – nay, unless in so far as he commands …” (Book 1, Chapter 17, section 11)
“The counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined” (Book 1, Chapter 16, section 8).
It is a deceptive Calvinist who tries to hide the fact that Calvi-god is the author/originator/controller of sin. Besides isn’t it the Calvinists themselves who say that if there’s one tiny thing God doesn’t control/cause, then He isn’t God? And yet then they try to say that God doesn’t cause the evil intentions in a person’s heart.
Make up your mind, Calvinists! Does He or does He not control EVERYTHING!?! Is there or is there not anything outside of His sovereign causation and control, such as mankind’s desires!?!
For a little of what other Calvinists say about God and sin, see …
https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/2019/08/do-calvinists-really-believe-god-causes.html
Nice post Heather
I would add to that the wisdom of Dr. Bella Depaulo, Social Scientist, in her book: The Hows and Whys of Lies:
WHAT IS ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY
“Altruistic dishonesty occurs when a person is working to protect a ‘target’. A high percentage of people who rationalize the use of dishonest language, experience some sub-level degree of discomfort, but which is effectively outweighed by rationalizations. And they generally do not regard their lies as lies. And this is especially true with people who are working to protect a ‘target’.”
These are called “other-oriented” or “altruistic” dishonesties.
Protecting the ‘target’ allows them to perceive themselves as honest rather than dishonest. For the sake of protecting the ‘target,’ a high percentage report they would have felt worse if they had been honest, because honesty would have revealed things about the “target” they do not want people to see.”
heather writes, “Calvinists constantly try to say that God “ordained” sin but isn’t the author of it. Yet Calvin himself would disagree
“… everything done in the world is according to His decree…” (Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 16, section 6). ”
This Calvin’s conclusion from Ephesians 1, “God works (or decrees) all things according to the counsel of His will,” According to this verse, there is nothing outside of God’s sovereign causation and control, such as mankind’s desires. So, how about giving us your understanding of Ephesians on this point.
Note: Rhutchin first said “God was the author of these events in that He works all things according to the counsel of His will, BUT GOD DID NOT ORIGINATE THE EVIL DESIRES IN THE BROTHER’S HEARTS …”
And yet now he says: “This Calvin’s conclusion from Ephesians 1 … there is NOTHING outside of God’s sovereign CAUSATION AND CONTROL, such as mankind’s desires.”
And yet he sees no contradiction here.
Heather
And yet he sees no contradiction here.
br.d
Its not clear to me whether or not rhutchin “sees” his own contradictions – or whether he is simply strategically MAKING-BELIEVE he doesn’t contradict himself – and/or MAKES-BELIEVE Calvinists don’t hold to contradicting positions.
Take for example the two Calvinist positions on whether or not Calvin’s god loves everybody.
The Calvinists who follow A.W. Pink’s position will assert FALSE.
The Calvinist who follows D.A. Carson’s position will assert TRUE.
And as we can see in rhutchin’s posts on this – he tries to claim there is no contradiction in TRUE vs FALSE.
And given the fact that he sometimes appears to display an inclination to love winning rather than to love TRUTH – I suspect he is simply MAKING-BELIEVE no contradictions exist in the face of them.
This behavior pattern parallels his perennial claim that no Non-Calvinist can explain anything.
I suspect these are simply strategies.
And we must remember – Calvinist language is NOT a TRUTH-TELLING language.
After re-looking at my statement “And given the fact that he displays an inclination…” I can see this is outside the boundaries of SOT101 behavior – and should apologize and retract it.
I apologize – and correct it as “And given what APPEARS to be an inclination…..etc”
br.d writes, ‘Its not clear to me whether or not rhutchin “sees” his own contradictions…’
This is a misrepresentation until you back up your claim with an example.
Then, ‘And given the fact that he displays an inclination to love winning rather than to love TRUTH…”
This is also a misrepresentation.
Then, “And as we can see in rhutchin’s posts on this – he tries to claim there is no contradiction in TRUE vs FALSE.”
Again, a misrepresentation because you offer no offer to justify your claim.
Why are you able to misrepresent my positions without proof and jump on me when you allege that I misrepresent people.
Then, ‘This behavior pattern parallels his perennial claim that no Non-Calvinist can explain anything.”
No one, certainly not me, ever said that no Non-Calvinist can explain “anything.” I have said that, with regard to John 6:37, and even you have not proved me wrong by providing a non-Calvinist explanation.
br.d
Its not clear to me whether or not rhutchin “sees” his own contradictions…’
rhutchin
This is a misrepresentation until you back up your claim with an example.
br.d
SOT101 readers can review any number of threads where examples are highlighted.
Then, ‘And given the fact that he displays an inclination to love winning rather than to love TRUTH…”
This is also a misrepresentation.
br.d
Did you not see my follow-up post where I apologized and retracted that statement?
rhutchin
Again, a misrepresentation because you offer no offer to justify your claim.
br.d
SOT101 readers can review any number of threads where examples are highlighted.
rhutchin
Why are you able to misrepresent my positions without proof and jump on me when you allege that I misrepresent people.
br,d
The answer to that is simple
We address positions rather than make claims about persons.
As you can see – if I go over that boundary – I apologize and retract.
rhutchin
No one, certainly not me, ever said that no Non-Calvinist can explain “anything.” I have said that, with regard to John 6:37, and even you have not proved me wrong by providing a non-Calvinist explanation.
br.d
Fair enough – I will retract that “anything” in that statement.
However the “XYZ can’t explain it” argument is seasoned over numerous posts historically – and over many issues – so much so that SOT101 readers remark about its consistency. Whats to prevent people from concluding its simply a strategy.
br.d writes, ‘However the “XYZ can’t explain it” argument is seasoned over numerous posts historically – and over many issues – so much so that SOT101 readers remark about its consistency. Whats to prevent people from concluding its simply a strategy.”
It is a good strategy. It requires that one provide an explanation in order to refute the claim. Non-Calvinists are known for not providing explanations for difficult verses. One of these verses is Ephesians 1:11, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” Another is John 6:37, “All that the Father gives Christ will come to Christ,” Here is a change for SOT101 readers to provide explanations that purport to explain these verses from a non-Calvinist perspective. Even br.d could give it a try.
br.d
However the “XYZ can’t explain it” argument is seasoned over numerous posts historically – and over many issues – so much so that SOT101 readers remark about its consistency. Whats to prevent people from concluding its simply a strategy.”
rhutchin
It is a good strategy. It requires that one provide an explanation in order to refute the claim.
br.d
Its also a subtle way of refusing to acknowledge something one strategically can’t allow himself to acknowledge.
Sorry rhutchin – allowing you to set yourself up as the judge whether or not something is explained – is the equivalent of poking oneself in the eye with a sharp stick. And everyone here at SOT101 at some point acknowledges its simply a game – and they learn not to get seduced into and tricked by it.
The dogmatic Calvinist here says: “Non-Calvinists are known for not providing explanations for difficult verses. ”
If we don’t provide explanations, it’s for this reason: “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” (Matthew 7:6)
We know the dogmatic Calvinists won’t listen anyway!
Heather
We know the dogmatic Calvinists won’t listen anyway!
br.d
Yes – all to often when we first engage – we are led to believe the mind we are engaging will be open.
Then we find ourselves having to re-iterate things 100 different ways because the mind we’re engaged with “supposedly” doesn’t get the explanation.
Then we watch the same thing happen with others – and the light bulb in our heads turns on.
The claim “XYZ can’t explain it” is just a strategy designed to wear people out – and then declare victory.
When we observe this behavior as the rule and not the exception – the gig is up.
In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird. :-]
Seen those nets too many times to fly into them, unless it is for the sake of rescuing another!
TSOO posted these lines:
“I pity and fear those who value a ‘strong’ God who always gets what he wants by force and tyranny.”
“Agreed. Nor do I find myself able to agree with pretty much anything jtl believes. God did not murder his own Son. That’s absurd, to charge God with murder. Does he realize he is accusing God of breaking his own ‘Law’? Who in their right mind believes God is a your murderer, yet murder is a sin for anyone else? That poor guy is so confused it is pitiful to see.”
——–Here’s My Response———
1. It was you (not me) who was the first one who said : “God always gets what He wants by force and tyranny”.
I just responded to you by citing the “incarnation of Jesus Christ” where God the Father totally abandoned His Son while hanging on the cross and decreed for Him to be killed by the Roman soldiers.
2. It was you (not me) who placed on me that “argumentum ad hominem” of accusing God of breaking His own law, even though I had never said it.
3. But anyway, if I go along with your idea it only shows that unknowingly that statement of yours coincides with God commanding Joshua’s army to annihilate the residents of Canaan including their sucklings and animals without giving them any little chance to repent and be saved except Rahab, the harlot.
THE FATED MENTAL PHENOMENON OF THE DELIBERATING DETERMINIST
Dr. Tomis Kapitan – (1949-2016), Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus, Ph.D., of metaphysics, philosophy of language, and international ethics, analyses the phenomenon – of Determinists consistently perceiving/believing their own personal deliberations as OPEN and not predetermined at the very moments in which they are deliberating.
To locate an inconsistency within the beliefs of a DELIBERATING DETERMINIST now seems easy; for as a deliberator, he takes his future act to be yet undetermined.
But as a determinist, he assumes the very opposite – that his future is already determined and fixed in the past, such that everything he does was previously determined by factors beyond his control.
Thus the ascription of RATIONAL-INCONSISTENCY within the mental state of the DELIBERATING DETERMINIST is secured.” -end quote
(The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 36, No. 14 (1986), pp.230-51)
br.d
COMFORTING WORDS FOR THE DELIBERATING DETERMINIST:
1) If one’s perceptions, choices, and actions are settled in the past, and come to pass as one’s unavoidable destiny, then
2) the DELIBERATING DETERMINIST has absolutely no way of determining whether his current perception is TRUE or FALSE. And no way of knowing what his next perception will be.
3) Since he has absolutely no way of knowing either of these things, then
4) It is totally futile to deliberate or worry over what is – or deliberate over what will be
C’est La Vie! What will be is what will be.
– Dr. Tomis Kapitan
-quote
The practically-minded DELIBERATING DETERMINIST, haunted by the specter of his own RATIONAL-INCONSISTENCY and fatalism, can be encouraged by this account of the matter. “
Jonathan Edward’s wrote God willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God’s permission, but not by his “positive agency.”
God is, Edwards says, “the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow.”
He uses the analogy of the way the sun brings about light and warmth by its essential nature, but brings about dark and cold by dropping below the horizon. “If the sun were the proper cause of cold and darkness,” he says, “it would be the fountain of these things, as it is the fountain of light and heat: and then something might be argued from the nature of cold and darkness, to a likeness of nature in the sun.” In other words, “sin is not the fruit of any positive agency or influence of the most High, but on the contrary, arises from the withholding of his action and energy, and under certain circumstances, necessarily follows on the want of his influence.”
Thus in one sense God wills that what he hates come to pass, as well as what he loves. Edwards says,
This is a fundamental truth that helps explain some perplexing things in the Bible, namely, that God often expresses his will to be one way, and then acts to bring about another state of affairs.
God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25—“He turned their hearts to hate his people”).
He hardens Pharaoh’s heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).
He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).
He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father’s wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11).
He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16).
He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).
Shawn
God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God’s permission, but not by his “positive agency.”
br.d
Hello Shawn and welcome!
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the creature is NOT PERMITTED to falsify or negate the divine DECREE.
Therefore when Calvin’s god DECREES [X] – then it is the case [X] is RENDERED-CERTAIN by the DECREE.
And in such case the creature is NOT PERMITTED to refrain from [X].
1 and 1 is always 2.
And LOGIC does not alter itself just because [X] happens to be a good event or an evil event:
Where [X] DECREED is a good event – the creature is NOT PERMITTED to refrain from that good event.
Where [X] DECREED is an evil event – the creature is NOT PERMITTED to refrain from that evil event.
Therefore the LOGIC of Theological Determinism can be stated in the following proposition.
What Calvin’s god DECREES is what Calvin’s god PERMITS
Nothing more – and nothing less is PERMITTED than what is DECREED.
Therefore LOGIC enables us to not to be mislead by terms such as “positive” and “negative” agency – which INFER “activity” vs “passivity”
As John Calvin put it:
-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: Auctor – meaning Originator, Creator, Instigator
And Brd wrote in support of the article :But what does the individual Calvinist ACTUALLY have that he can TRUST concerning Calvin’s god’s will for his life?
You seem to reason logically so let’s say there is a lay off where you work and you being way down the seniority list just know you won’t have a job come Monday and a co-worker tries to comfort you and tells he thinks you that you might still have a job, but then the boss and owner of the company who controls all things assures that you aren’t going anywhere and you will always have a job with him, who can you trust and find rest and comfort in?
That being said why would anyone trust in God who isn’t in control of all things that come to pass ,the only way to have unreserved faith without doubt is to pray, hope and believe in God who is on the throne.
The argument to the article is a pond when flushed out will no longer hold water because the only way to rejoice in my salvation is to depend on Almighty God to bring it to pass and not my sin cursed failure of a free will I have which is what Romans 8:28 -39 plainly teaches without doing greek gymnastics to deny it.
Hi Shawn
Let address specific highlights from your post.
Shawn
You seem to reason logically
br.d
Thanks Shawn! I’ll take that as a compliment :-]
Shawn
so let’s say there is a lay off where you work and you being way down the seniority list just know you won’t have a job come Monday and a co-worker tries to comfort you and tells he thinks you that you might still have a job, but then the boss and owner of the company who controls all things assures that you aren’t going anywhere and you will always have a job with him, who can you trust and find rest and comfort in?
That being said why would anyone trust in God who isn’t in control of all things that come to pass ,the only way to have unreserved faith without doubt is to pray, hope and believe in God who is on the throne.
br,d
You make an interesting analogy!
I’m going to assume your “owner of the company” is the THEOS of Calvinism because you state it as “controls all things”.
And I’ll assume the person worried about getting laid off is a Calvinist.
So here we have the THEOS communicating “you’re not going anywhere”.
But does the Calvinist know whether or not the THEOS is speaking his ENUNCIATED will or his SECRET will?
LOGIC tells us the Calvinist can’t possibly know one way or the other – because the SECRET will is a SECRET.
The Calvinist also knows that the THEOS’ SECRET will can be the exact opposite of his ENUNCIATED will.
This means the THEOS might be misleading the Calvinist – making him believe something that is not true.
And the Calvinist has no way of knowing one way or the other.
Additionally – Calvin teaches that the THEOS communicates things as a -quote “savor of condemnation”.
For example – the gospel communicated to a NON-ELECT person may be to bring about that person’s damnation.
While the same gospel communicated to the ELECT person is communicated to bring about that person’s salvation.
Following that pattern – the THEOS can communicate words to two Calvinists who are in the same room together.
And those words are communicated to bring about one Calvinist’s damnation
While those same words are communicated to bring about the other Calvinist’s salvation.
Neither Calvinist knows whether or not what is communicated to him is for his damnation or his salvation.
So given all of that – what does the Calvinist actually have that he can TRUST in this case?
Shawn says: “That being said why would anyone trust in God who isn’t in control of all things that come to pass ,the only way to have unreserved faith without doubt is to pray, hope and believe in God who is on the throne.”
I would say “How can anyone trust Calvi-god when he lies about what his true will is, causes people to sin and to do the opposite of what he commands, gives some people evanescent grace (fake salvation) so that he can more strongly damn them to hell, pretends to offer salvation to all and to give us a choice about it but then denies most people the chance to be saved, makes it sound like Jesus’s death paid for all sins when Calvi-Jesus really just died for a few people, tells us to seek him and believe in him when he knows we can’t seek him or believe in him unless he causes us to, creates most people specifically for hell because it somehow highlights his justice, grace, and love, etc.?”
If that’s God “in control,” I’d hate to see God out of control!
The problem is not with God and His sovereignty. The problem is with the Calvinist view of God’s control, of His sovereignty. The Calvinist assumes that in order for God to be in control, He has to always be controlling/causing everything all the time. Or else He’s not God, according to their ideas of how God should be.
But it’s they who put their own presuppositions on God, who box Him in to how they think He has to be in order to be God.
But the Bible shows us a God who is “in control” and sovereign in a very different way. The God of the Bible has chosen to work in cooperation with mankind in various ways. He has chosen to give us real choices and to work our real decisions into His plans. He sometimes causes things to happen and sometimes simply allows things to happen, but He is over and above it all, knowing how to work all things (even our choices, our self-chosen obedience or disobedience) into His plans.
Calvi-god is a small, weak god who can’t handle any other factors than what he himself causes. But the God of the Bible is a very BIG, wise God who can work all things together for good, even things He doesn’t cause, the things He allows us to do.
I like these sermons by Tony Evans. They help explain how God chooses to exercise His sovereignty and what mankind’s responsibility is:
About God’s sovereignty:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=tony+evans+sermons+sovereignty&view=detail&mid=553B23AD7C8CA76F4B06553B23AD7C8CA76F4B06&FORM=VIRE
Connecting with God for a Breakthrough:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=tony+evans&qft=+filterui%3aduration-long+filterui%3avideoage-lt43200&view=detail&mid=A0DEC5EF0334BB85A8CBA0DEC5EF0334BB85A8CB&&FORM=VRDGAR
Great post Heather:
The Calvinist Systematic makes their definition of Sovereignty (Universal Divine Casual Determinism ) the Supreme Attribute. In this vein it requires ALL evil to come from God otherwise God is said to have lost His Sovereignty. From the Calvinist systematic ALL of God’s Moral Attributes are Optional, God can turn them on and off in order for their Calvi-god to bring about All evil events even the rape of a child, the hideous acts of Hitler.
Their Understanding of Sovereignty is that the Calvi-god does not have to be true to His moral nature, in their understanding that is what it means to be Sovereign. He can choose evil as easily as He can choose to bring about morally good and upright things. He is Sovereign so He does not have to be true to His moral nature, that to them is what it means to be Sovereign.
1. That is why as Sovereign even though His moral nature is Love, He can Sovereignly choose to turn OFF Love and create most For the express purpose of being Hated and Damned.
2. That is why as Sovereign He can have a revealed will that is Completely Contradicted by His Secret will. As Sovereign He can turn off the Moral Attribute of a “God of Truth”.
3. That is why His moral Attribute of Holiness can be turned off and He as Sovereign can Author Evil.
4.That is why as Sovereign He can say He shows NO partiality but in the Calvinist System their Sovereign Calvi-god can be so partial that even a 5 year old can discern, the extreme level of partiality that He shows. This is because in their system, their Calvi-god can turn off any and all moral attributes.
For the Calvinist that is what it means to be Sovereign. He can be totally untrue to His own moral nature.
Now, even though they teach this, the Calvinist is required to “Declare that all of the Above is good for it came from Sovereign God”.
So as Heather says what can you trust about the Calvi-god? You can trust that He is NOT true to His moral nature…But the creature must declare it as good.
br.d
My Two Cents
I think we will eventually discover the unique “Good-Evil” characteristic of Calvinism is simply a byproduct of MANICHAEISM – a system which many observe as containing “Ontological Dualism” where good and evil are Co-Equal, Co-Necessary, and Co-complimentary.
Mani (210-276 C.E.), the founder of Manichaeism, was raised in a Messianic (Jewish Christian) desert sect known as the Elchasites. At age twenty-four Mani parted ways with the Elchasites and started writing, teaching, and preaching his own doctrines which he considered as final and authoritative. He saw himself as the final seal of the prophets; he closed the revelation which had started with Buddha and Zarathustra and had been passed on through Jesus and Paul.
Professor P. Oktor Skjaervo of Harvard University, an expert on ancient sacred literature, notes that according to Mani his doctrine represented the completion and fulfillment of what previous religions had promised but had not been able to provide.
One central and critical aspect of the Manichean doctrine on Good and Evil is ONTOLOGICAL DUALISM.
Augustine notes that Mani –quote “put together two principles, different from an opposing each other, as well as eternal and co-eternal (that is, having always been), and also two natures or substances, namely, of good and evil.”
Augustine asserts the GOOD-EVIL Dualism, where he writes: “And because this orderly arrangement maintains the harmony of the universe by this very contrast, it comes about that evil things must need be. In this way, the beauty of all things is in a manner configured, as it were, from antitheses, that is, from opposites: this is pleasing to us even in discourse”. (ord 1.7.19)
Calvinist Jonathon Edwards similarly expresses that without evil, -quote “the shining forth of Gods glory would be very imperfect….nay they could scarcely shine forth at all” (The Works of Edwards).
So to understand Calvinism – I think it is best not conceiving of it as a system containing both “good” and “evil”.
But rather a system whose basic form and blue-print is “GOOD-EVIL”.
And that is why we observe a large number of conceptions within Calvinism – always appear in “GOOD-EVIL” pairs.
br.d writes, “So to understand Calvinism – I think it is best not conceiving of it as a system containing both “good” and “evil”. But rather a system whose basic form and blue-print is “GOOD-EVIL”.
This is a misrepresentation of Calvinism (given your incomplete description). Obviously, by “GOOD-EVIL’ you would not mean that God (as GOOD) has an equal counterpart identified as EVIL. God is GOOD and stands over His creation. That creation can contain both good and evil but such good and evil would not be independent forces vying against each other but descriptors of actions that occur in the creation and distinguished as good or evil by what God declares to be good and evil (generally, through His law) Thus, obedience is “good” and disobedience is “evil.”
In ONTOLOGICAL DUALISM – where good and evil are Co-Equal, Co-Necessary, and Co-Complimentary – good and evil can still be opposing forces or substances. It is their Co-relationship (see above) that stands out.
Both the NeoPlatonists and Gnostics of Augustine’s day could easily say “evil is BEAUTIFUL”.
Take Augustine’s quote
“it comes about that evil things MUST NEED BE. In this way, the *BEAUTY* of all things is in a manner configured….this is pleasing to us even in discourse”
Take Edwards quote concerning the NEED for evil.
“the shining forth of Gods glory would be very imperfect….nay they COULD SCARCELY SHINE FORTH AT ALL”
You start to get the picture here.
In ONTOLOGICAL DUALISM – evil is good.
And that is what is meant by “GOOD-EVIL”
And that is again why we see so many conceptions in Calvinism which appear in GOOD-EVIL pairs.
GraceAdict writes, ‘The Calvinist Systematic makes their definition of Sovereignty (Universal Divine Casual Determinism ) the Supreme Attribute. In this vein it requires ALL evil to come from God otherwise God is said to have lost His Sovereignty. From the Calvinist systematic ALL of God’s Moral Attributes are Optional, God can turn them on and off in order for their Calvi-god to bring about ”
Under Calvinism evil comes from the sinful nature of man that resulted from Adam’s sin. Evil actions are subordinate to God and always under God’s authority and control. Anything that happens (even the rape of a child, the hideous acts of Hitler) could have been prevented had God wanted to do so as God has the power and authority to do anything He wants. This is true for non-Calvinism as well as Calvinism, so even GA recognizes God’s sovereign over all things, even evil things.
rhutchin
Under Calvinism evil comes from the sinful nature of man that resulted from Adam’s sin
br.d
Yea right!
An attribute of the creature caused and attribute of the creature – caused an attribute of the creature – caused an attribute of the creature – an on into infinite regress.
Can anyone say “evasion strategy” :-]
br.d writes, “An attribute of the creature caused and attribute of the creature…”
This is explained in genesis where anyone can read the actual transcript.
br.d
An attribute of the creature caused an attribute of the creature – caused an attribute of the creature – caused an attribute of the creature – an on into infinite regress.
rhutchin
br.d
An attribute of the creature caused an attribute of the creature – caused an attribute of the creature – caused an attribute of the creature – an on into infinite regress.
rhutchin
This is explained in genesis where anyone can read the actual transcript.
br.d
Along with the infinite regress – wink wink ;-]
rh writes:
“Under Calvinism evil comes from the sinful nature of man that resulted from Adam’s sin.”
This is such a silly, evasive statement. More accurately, under Calvinism, ‘Evil comes from Calvi-god, who supposedly cursed men with a twisted nature that could do nothing but sin, as punishment for the sin of their father, which was determined by Calvi-god as well, presumably so he could have an excuse to introduce the ‘sin nature’. This would cause endless sin and suffering, but, hey, it will all bring Calvi-god some kind of sick, twisted glory in the end, so what’s a few million people cast into eternal perdition?
Round and round the Calvinist goes, pretending like Adam’s sin was not predetemined, a so-called ‘sin nature’ was not predetermined and forced upon man by Calvi-god and on an on. If ‘evil comes from the ‘sinful nature’, guess who came up with that little beauty? It sure wasn’t Adam, who had no power to force anything upon his progeny, or to do anything that had not been decreed before he was created.
All this silly talk. There are really only two possibilities: evil was God’s intentional plan or it wasn’t.
If God predetermines all things, evil came from him, was his idea, desire, will, etc. Period.
If God does not predetermine all things, but gave humans the freedom to make choices, then evil could arise, apart from God’s will (but not knowledge), upon the free choice of humans to rebel against God’s will.
Any talk of various ‘means’ is simply blowing smoke. Either God deliberately came up with evil, or he allowed the possibility that free men might. Which, no, is not the same thing. One is deterministic and the other is that dratted ‘mere permission’ Calvin so despised.
It is futile to try and distance a deterministic Calvi-god from the sin of Adam, the curse of the sin nature, or ANYTHING that occurs within his meticulousy controlled creation. Remember ‘whatsoever comes to pass’? What lies outside of that? Nothing, absolutely nothing. It is time we stop letting Calvinists pretend otherwise. If they don’t like God being the author of evil, they are going to have to step outside of their deterministic paradigm.
TS00 writes, “There are really only two possibilities: evil was God’s intentional plan or it wasn’t. ”
In God’s plan, Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. So, God knew that evil would result and had planned for it.
Then, “If God does not predetermine all things, but gave humans the freedom to make choices, then evil could arise, apart from God’s will (but not knowledge), upon the free choice of humans to rebel against God’s will. ”
That God predetermined Adam to eat the fruit did not prevent Adam from freely accepting the fruit from Eve and eating it. God did not have to coerce, force, or compel Adam to eat the fruit – he made the decision to eat the fruit and he ate the fruit. That God knew all that Adam would do before Adam knew what he would do and determined all this by creating the universe did not mean that Adam did not act freely. In the same way, God knows every decision that TS00 will make in the next 24 hours and TS)) will make those decisions freely for reasons unique to him.
rhutchin
God knew that evil would result and had planned for it.
br.d
Friday night Calvi walked into his older brother John’s house – just in time to witness his brother murder his own wife.
Later an investigator was questioning Calvi.
Investigator:
Did you see your brother John murder his wife?
Calvi:
What is saw was that my brother John knew that murder had resulted.
rhutchin
That God predetermined Adam to eat the fruit did not prevent Adam from freely accepting the fruit from Eve and eating it.
br.d
People often tell LITTLE truths – in an attempt to hide the WHOLE truth.
Dr. Depaulo – Social Scientist – The Hows and Whys of Lies
-quote
These are called “other-oriented” or “altruistic” dishonesties. Protecting the ‘target’ allows them to perceive themselves as honest rather than dishonest. For the sake of protecting the ‘target,’ a high percentage report they would have felt worse if they had been honest, because honesty would have revealed things about the “target” they do not want people to see.”
The rest of the story:
Calvin’s god predetermined Adam to eat the fruit – and DID PREVENT from Adam the freedom to NOT eat it.
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the creature is NOT FREE to falsify or negate the divine decree.
Therefore NOT eating the fruit was NOT AVAILABLE as an option to Adam
rh writes:
“That God predetermined Adam to eat the fruit did not prevent Adam from freely accepting the fruit from Eve and eating it. God did not have to coerce, force, or compel Adam to eat the fruit – he made the decision to eat the fruit and he ate the fruit. That God knew all that Adam would do before Adam knew what he would do and determined all this by creating the universe did not mean that Adam did not act freely. In the same way, God knows every decision that TS00 will make in the next 24 hours and TS)) will make those decisions freely for reasons unique to him.”
How’s this for one of your twisted illogical pretzels?
Of course God predetermining Adam to eat the fruit did not prevent Adam from eating the fruit. What it did prevent was his ‘freely accepting the fruit’ as he had no other choice than to do what was predetermined by Calvi-god. The Calvinist can twist all he wants, but no amount of tortured logic can negate that if God irresistibly predetermined something no man ever has a ‘free choice’.
“That God knew all that Adam would do before Adam knew what he would do and determined all this by creating the universe did not mean that Adam did not act freely. In the same way, God knows every decision that TS00 will make in the next 24 hours and TS)) will make those decisions freely for reasons unique to him.”
This is an example, not only of pretzel logic, but of the Calvinist sneaking in ‘mere permission’ which, of course, is forbidden under the divine determinism of Calvinism.
Ya can’t have it both ways – either God works by meticulous determinism and decreed whatsoever comes to pass, or he created beings with genuine freedom, meaning they have the ability to resist his will. Which means he cannot predetermine their desires or actions. Which means all things are not predetermined, and men actually have the freedom to make genuine choices, not unavoidably carry out the secretly decreed plan of an irresistible outside power.
TS00
How’s this for one of your twisted illogical pretzels?
br.d
I agree – its all based on evasive trick-language.
I’ve always said – Calvinism always wins the grand-prize for being the most “Subtle Beast” in all of protestant Christianity. :-]
TS00 writes, “How’s this for one of your twisted illogical pretzels?”
br.d said of Calvinists, “…in order to make scriptures APPEAR to say what the Theological Determinist wants it to say requires twisting language into an unnatural pretzel.” So, you need to start with actual Scripture. In this case, how about using Ephesians 1, “…God works all things according to the counsel of His will,…” and show us how Calvinists twist this.
Then, rhutchin:“That God knew all that Adam would do before Adam knew what he would do and determined all this by creating the universe did not mean that Adam did not act freely. In the same way, God knows every decision that TS00 will make in the next 24 hours and TS)) will make those decisions freely for reasons unique to him.”
TS00 “This is an example, not only of pretzel logic, but of the Calvinist sneaking in ‘mere permission’ which, of course, is forbidden under the divine determinism of Calvinism. ”
TS00 makes this claim and then does not explain what he means.
Then, “either God works by meticulous determinism and decreed whatsoever comes to pass, or he created beings with genuine freedom, meaning they have the ability to resist his will. ”
Ephesians tells us that “…God works all things according to the counsel of His will,…” This means that a sovereign God controls everything in His creation so that nothing happens that of which He is ignorant so God rules on all that happens. Thus, Adam will not eat the fruit until God rules that he should. David will not jump into bed with Bathsheba until God rules that He should. On every event, God must rule and He did so before He even created the universe. Once God created the universe, all that was to happen was known to Him and all had been determined. The only logical argument against this has been the Open Theist/Future argument that denies that God knows everything that happens in the future.
rhutchin:“That God knew all that Adam would do before Adam knew what he would do and determined all this by creating the universe did not mean that Adam did not act freely. In the same way, God knows every decision that TS00 will make in the next 24 hours and TS)) will make those decisions freely for reasons unique to him.”
TS00
This is an example, not only of pretzel logic, but of the Calvinist sneaking in ‘mere permission’ which, of course, is forbidden under the divine determinism of Calvinism. ”
rhutchin
TS00 makes this claim and then does not explain what he means.
br.d
I don’t see why anyone would need an explanation for that!
Its clear to me the statement is a bunch of trick exculpatory language.
Does it not say something – that there is only one single person here who always claims “XYZ cannot explain it”?
It makes perfect sense to me why that is the case and why others roll their eyes in response to it.
Its simply part of the strategy of using never-ending denials to wear someone out in order to claim the victory.
And I think everyone here recognizes it for what it is.
I provided almost a dozen quotes from Authors – all acknowledging that Calvinist’s use DOUBLE-SPEAK.
You’re response to that was to claim it couldn’t be true.
I presume if it were ten-thousand authors – you will still claim the same thing.
br.d writes, “I don’t see why anyone would need an explanation for that!”
A citation of the verse TS00 had in mind and an explanation of the manner in which your claim, “…in order to make scriptures APPEAR to say what the Theological Determinist wants it to say requires twisting language into an unnatural pretzel,” is satisfied would seem basic to this.
Here is the example – I state what I mean by it
-quote
Its clear to me the statement is a bunch of trick exculpatory language.
And you delete that explanation and demand another one
rhutchin – we all know this is just your routine of never-ending denials.
Poor Brian used to respond to you over and over endless posts until it was obvious to him all you wanted was the last word – which he would eventually concede simply because you would simply wear his patience out responding to you.
And everyone here knows that is the *REAL* strategy.
Sorry if no one here wants to do that with you.
TS00: “This is an example, not only of pretzel logic, but of the Calvinist sneaking in ‘mere permission’ which, of course, is forbidden under the divine determinism of Calvinism. ”
rhutchin: “TS00 makes this claim and then does not explain what he means.”
br.d: “I don’t see why anyone would need an explanation for that! Its clear to me the statement is a bunch of trick exculpatory language.”
Then, rhutchin wrote, “br.d writes, “I don’t see why anyone would need an explanation for that!”
rhutchin: “A citation of the verse TS00 had in mind and an explanation of the manner in which your claim, “…in order to make scriptures APPEAR to say what the Theological Determinist wants it to say requires twisting language into an unnatural pretzel,” is satisfied would seem basic to this.”
Then, br.d responded, “Here is the example – I state what I mean by it
-quote
Its clear to me the statement is a bunch of trick exculpatory language.
And you delete that explanation and demand another one
rhutchin – we all know this is just your routine of never-ending denials.”
I have no idea what br.d’s problem is or where he is going on this. TS00 made a statement and I said it needed an explanation and then described the points of the explanation that would be in order.. Why is that a big deal?
rhutchin
I have no idea what br.d’s problem is or where he is going on this. TS00 made a statement and I said it needed an explanation and then described the points of the explanation that would be in order.. Why is that a big deal?
br.d
And take a person on a never-ending merry-go-round of denials.
rhutchin – I think you’ve made your own bed here.
If people could trust that you were sincere they might take you up on your requests for explanations.
I learned your strategy within a few weeks of participating here – and it became clear the best solution for examples – is simply to let the Calvinists provide them themselves.
As I’ve stated – when the Calvinist provides them – it becomes obvious – and leaves the Calvinist struggling to back-peddle or use subtle language tricks to try and talk their way out of it.
And when SOT101 readers observe that – it becomes clear that that is a consistent characteristic of Calvinist language.
I personally I think the Lord wants to shine a flashlight on that aspect of Calvinism – and he uses Calvinists as his instruments to do it.
And as a strategy you’re going to deny 10 thousand examples anyway.
So letting the Calvinist provide the examples is the best option.
Rhutchin says: “I have no idea what br.d’s problem is …”
Heather says: And that’s exactly the problem! It seems to me that you can’t see (or refuse to see) what the problem is or the tricks we think you’re employing. Thus the “merry-go-round” that Br.d. is talking about. It comes across as a strategy of making sure the debate never ends so that your arguments can never be seen as “defeated,” accomplished by keeping people in a never-ending loop of you ignoring what they say, accusing them of not stating their case clearly or biblically, and asking for more explanations. While this might give the appearance that you really just want to “better understand” their point, we all know that you don’t really want to understand anyone’s points anyway but that you are just waiting to shoot down anything we say. (Thus other people’s comments that you just want to win, and my warning about not throwing our pearls to swine, and our refusal to engage in your “I just want more explanation” nonsense.)
And Br.d says: “I personally think the Lord wants to shine a flashlight on that aspect of Calvinism – and he uses Calvinists as his instruments to do it.”
Heather says: I actually have been praying that my ex-pastor – if he continues to refuse to see the errors of his Calvinism – that God hardens his heart even more to cause him to pour out his twisted theology even more thickly and dogmatically, including the disgusting parts they often hide. His full-on Calvinist preaching would probably do more to repel people than any warning I could give.
Heather, I suspect that it is more strategy than hardening that leads a pastor to slowly indoctrinate and only show his true colors after winning the trust, affection and loyalty of his congregation. Not to mention making sure they are firmly enmeshed in the community, making it extremely difficult to break away.
My pastor taught non-offensive sermons that any non-Calvinist could agree to for over a decade. Only after all that time did he begin to sprinkle in the more overtly Calvinistic ‘scary stuff*’ [* R.C. Sproul]. As a perfect example, those who had become ‘hardened’ to thinking for themselves, did not appear to hear the sort of teaching that, only a few years earlier, they would have responded to in horror.
It was only those who remained ‘soft’, Berean, willing to examine all that was said who ‘heard’ and rejected the teaching put forth in examples such as God deliberately only rescuing a few children from his burning orphanage, when he could just as easily have saved all. I was gone by then, but I know of at least two families who immediately left the church upon hearing that, both of who had remained uneasy with Calvinism and listened to/read other teaching outside of this pastor’s.
Much as I resisted the idea initially, I have come to believe, through my personal experience and communication with many others, that there is a deliberate strategy, cultlike, which Calvinism uses to lure trusting, naive believers into their systematic. It involves all of the major tactics of mind control, and, unless one is familiar with such things and can recognize them for what they are, is very, very effective. Hence the subtlety, evasion, euphemism, doublespeak, strawmanning and all we have seen actively at work in these threads.
I actually prefer the honesty of those who state outright that God doesn’t love everyone, Jesus didn’t die for all, evil is one of God’s tools and countless millions were created for unavoidable suffering and destruction. Their beliefs are heinous, but at least they are honest about them. What they haven’t learned, and most eventually will, is that this sort of honesty doesn’t sell; you have to learn to hide the truth if you want to win converts to Calvinism. I suspect they teach them this in seminary now.
TS00 writes, “there is a deliberate strategy, cultlike, which Calvinism uses to lure trusting, naive believers into their systematic.”
Yeah. It’s called showing them what the Scriptures say including all those verses non-Calvinists pretend do not exist.
The non-Calvinists that I know are not pretending the Calvie prooftexts do not exist. Rather, they freely offer alternative interpretations and explanations for them. As one sees on these threads day after day. That is a big difference between ignoring and suggesting an alternative meaning. My biggest gripe with dogmatists is they can never start at the necessary beginning – recognizing that there is nearly always more than one possible interpretation of any group of words. In fact, the same group of words, in different contexts, can have various meanings. To deny this simply displays ignorance of language and hermeneutics.
With that essential understanding, and only with that essential understanding, can any productive interactions proceed. Most Calvinists I know think they can just throw out a verse and, voila, their point is proven. As if others do not know and use the very same verse, but understand its meaning to be other than what the Calvinist believes.
Prooftexting wars are pointless, as individuals shout verses at one another, as if the more times you repeat something the more right you are.
TS00
Prooftexting wars are pointless, as individuals shout verses at one another, as if the more times you repeat something the more right you are.
br.d
Amen to that!
TS00 writes, “The non-Calvinists that I know are not pretending the Calvie prooftexts do not exist. Rather, they freely offer alternative interpretations and explanations for them.”
LOL!!! Calvinists identify the truths of Scripture that non-Calvinist cannot refute. Those truths then become the foundation for Calvinist arguments that non-calvinist again cannot refute.
No one starts with prooftexts (except non-Calvinists).
rhutchin
Calvinists identify the truths of Scripture that non-Calvinist cannot refute.
br.d
And how does the Calvinist known what that his perception of scripture is TRUE – since you’ve already acknowledged the Calvinist doesn’t have multiple perceptions (TRUE vs FALSE) available from which he is “merely” permitted to choose?
Remember – whatever perception of scripture Calvin’s god determines the Calvinist to have – is what the Calvinist will have.
And only Calvin’s god knows if that perception is TRUE or FALSE.
Sorry rhutchin – your claim “Calvinists identify the truths of scripture” fails by your own acknowledgement.
br.d writes, ‘And how does the Calvinist known what that his perception of scripture is TRUE – since you’ve already acknowledged the Calvinist doesn’t have multiple perceptions (TRUE vs FALSE) available from which he is “merely” permitted to choose?”
Calvinism knows that the Scriptures tell us the truth. Calvinism begins with the simplest truths understood by all and and builds on these to build to an understanding of the more difficult truths. No one can pick and choose which truths to believe – all must be believed because they are all true.
br.d
And how does the Calvinist known what that his perception of scripture is TRUE – since you’ve already acknowledged the Calvinist doesn’t have multiple perceptions (TRUE vs FALSE) available from which he is “merely” permitted to choose?”
rhutcnin
Calvinism knows that the Scriptures tell us the truth.
br.d
Sorry – Calvin’s god determines your every perception of scripture – and only he knows whether those perceptions of scripture he’s given you are TRUE or FALSE.
At this point Calvin’s god has given you 12 FALSE perceptions of me here at SOT101 alone.
I have no idea how many FALSE perceptions he gives you when you are reading scripture.
But given your track record so far I certainly wouldn’t buy stock with it! :-]
Great points, TS00. I totally agree!
And isn’t this a funny idea for a Calvinist: “… you have to learn to hide the truth if you want to win converts to Calvinism.”
How ironic for them to think they can win more “elected” people if they are careful and strategic in how they present Calvinism … as if they can affect the number of the elect, which they believe has been predetermined before time began.
Very astute, Heather. So all the furtive Calvinist takeovers are not only less than intellectually honest, they totally contradict the theology they claim to affirm. Wow, almost no absurdity within Calvinism surprises me anymore.
Brd wrote :Following that pattern – the THEOS can communicate words to two Calvinists who are in the same room together.
And those words are communicated to bring about one Calvinist’s damnation
While those same words are communicated to bring about the other Calvinist’s salvation.
Neither Calvinist knows whether or not what is communicated to him is for his damnation or his salvation.
So given all of that – what does the Calvinist actually have that he can TRUST in this case?
Shawn :Easily answered we trust His revealed promise of salvation and those that believe on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved and yes they have been secretly decreed to believe.
John 5:24 ¶ “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
Acts 13:48 ¶ Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
Now Brd if the arminian salvation hinges on his free will how does he know that he will be brought into the state of glorification?
br.d
So given all of that – what does the Calvinist actually have that he can TRUST in this case?
Shawn
Easily answered we trust His revealed promise of salvation and those that believe on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved and yes they have been secretly decreed to believe.
John 5:24 and Acts 13:48
br.d
Wait now – not so fast Shawn!
You’re thinking like an Arminian now – and not like a Calvinist.
You forgot that for the Calvinist – the scriptures also represent the THEOS’ ENUNCIATED will – and not his SECRET will.
For example – for the Calvinist – verses that specify the THEOS’ will for the ELECT are obviously not meant to convey his will for the NON-ELECT.
Now do you know if you are elect or not?
John Calvin
-quote
We are *NOT* bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect – that is for God alone, not for us, to do . . . (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV. 1. 3.)
So you can ASSUME that you are elect.
And you can BELIEVE you are elect.
But you have no way of knowing if you are elect or not because that is a divine SECRET.
Remember in Calvinism you have the VISIBLE church – and the INVISIBLE church.
And the INVISIBLE church is called INVISIBLE because the elect are only VISIBLE to the THEOS.
Additionally Calvin says – there is a -quote “LARGE MIXTURE” of those in the Calvinist fold to whom the THEOS has -quote “Held out salvation as a savor of condemnation”. And the THEOS will eventually -quote “Strike them with greater blindness”.
These are Calvinists who are led to believe they are elect – when the THEOS knows they are not.
He has led them to believe they are elect – and will eventually -quote “Strike them with greater blindness”
So those scriptures you quoted are for the ELECT only – and you don’t know if that is you or not.
So again – what is it the Calvinist has to TRUST concerning the THEOS’ will for his life?
I wonder what would happen if Calvinists were to try to place themselves in the perspective of those who are not ‘chosen’ or ‘elected’ by God. Of course the Calvinist always assumes he is elect, so he can glibly talk about God’s right to pass over or damn anyone he wants – because he considers himself safe from such a horrible fate. If the Calvinist were truly able to reflect upon the things he affirms from the perspective of being rejected, I wonder if he might think a little differently.
He can be so bold about accepting God’s right to condemn helpless, hopeless born into sin people – because he is certain that he has been chosen for reprieve. Apparently he doesn’t see how unloving he is to not care about the horrific fate of others, even though scripture command us to love others as self. I have never heard of a Calvinist who considers himself unelect, and yet regards his theology as scriptural, moral and good. I would love to meet and talk to an unelect Calvinist, and see how he defends his partial god who created him irretrievably for destruction. I’m guessing ain’t never gonna happen.
isn’t that what Calvinists (probably in previous generations) called the “Dreaded False Hope”?
Here is a real testimony on that:
Wilbur Ellsworth, – Journey out of Reformed Theology
There was a young man in the church who came to me. Good, loving guy. Seriously involved with a young lady, to marry her. I just loved that couple.
He came to me one day and said; I am deeply depressed. My soul is dark.
I said; Why?
He said; I don’t love God the way I should.
I said; tell me why, what’s happening?
He said; I don’t love God, as I should because I’m not sure he loves me as much as I need.
I’m not sure I’m Elect!.
Well if I needed another stab in the heart—that did it. We sat there for 3 hours. Finally, I said to him, if you believe you can’t be sure of God’s love for you, then I will admit you can’t love him as you need to. What does 1st John say? We love because He first loved us.
I think this is the cruelest moment I’ve ever had in my entire ministry. I said to him, If that is your theology, I have nothing to offer you.
He just stared at me.
I said, I don’t believe for a moment that that is the testimony of scripture.
But if you embrace that theology, I sorrowfully agree with you—you are stuck.
We talked for about another 10 minutes, and he left under that weight.”
————————————————————————————-
I think the way Calvinist pastors today evade this phenomenon is betraying Calvin’s doctrine of the INVISIBLE church and SECRET election.
Some Reformed teachers try to make a distinction between Calvin the Theologian and Calvin the pastor.
Calvin the Theologian communicated like a Calvinist
Calvin the pastor communicated like an Arminian.
Calvin himself was actually the father of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK. :-]
TS00 writes: Apparently he (the Calvinist) doesn’t see how unloving he is to not care about the horrific fate of others, even though scripture command us to love others as self.”
So true TSOO
Another thing that to me is very disturbing about the Calvinist system is that they Believe their God is like that, unloving to most people, and they are being conformed to the image of their God. So the more a Calvinist is being conformed to the image of their God the more normal that becomes to him. His reasoning is: “If God does not love them except very superficially then to be like my God is to also love them very superficially”. Being conformed to the image of the Calvi-god is actually horrific. So sad but true.
Tozer “The most important thing about you is what comes to your mind when you think about God”
Tozer ““When adherents come to believe that God is different from what He actually is; that is heresy of the most insidious and deadly kind.”
Tozer ““We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God. This is true not only of the individual Christian, but of the company of Christians that composes the Church. Always the most revealing thing about the Church is her idea of God.”
Calvinism is an error that has horrific consequences…I have seen it played out many times.
GraceAdict
they are being conformed to the image of their God
br.d
Yes!
Psalm 115:8 teaches us a spiritual principle – we become what we worship
One who worships a deity who takes pleasure in causing torment – will eventually become like that deity.
GA writes:
“Calvinism is an error that has horrific consequences…I have seen it played out many times.”
So have I. Sad to admit, even within myself. I did not like the person I was becoming, the hardness of my heart, the lack of genuine concern for the needs of others. I have seen gentle, kind souls turned into mocking, arrogant pharisees, time and time again, due to a false image of God. I find myself now looking for, and seeking to minister to the random people God sends into my life, rather than just hanging out with my little circle of christian friends.
Like the woman who briefly entered into my life yesterday. She was raised Catholic, her sister is a nun. But she has seen so much abuse, suffering, authoritarianism, etc. that she wants nothing to do with church. She attends occasionally for the music, which she misses. I tried to just listen and express genuine sympathy and compassion. I offered to help her load up her truck, as she had had multiple back surgeries, with another one planned. I sought to encourage her of the goodness and faithfulness of God, whatever men might do or say.
Ah, but this would be viewed as a waste of time by former Calvinist friends, to whom the ceremonies and formalities and rules are what matters. Frankly, since we were neither one in church this Sunday morning, we obviously were ‘not of them’. No one can be a child of God outside of the institutional church, its anointed leaders and its sacred sacraments – except, that is not what scripture actually teaches. God is very near us, and desires that we find him, wherever we are in life. I think he cares deeply for this woman, and wants me to also, even though I will probably never see her again in this life. His love and grace are not just for those who become loyal, tithe-paying church attenders, but also for those who are lost and struggling in the mucky streets, thinking no one cares about them.
TS00 writes: ” I have seen gentle, kind souls turned into mocking, arrogant pharisees, time and time again, due to a false image of God. I find myself now looking for, and seeking to minister to the random people God sends into my life, rather than just hanging out with my little circle of christian friends.”
I thank God for people like you who have been there, seen the evil and harm and can warn others and encourage others to see a God who is demonstrably GOOD to All and genuinely loves ALL. I appreciate you shining the light on this dark system that is deceiving so many at this time.
Brd I answered your question with scripture assurance of salvation of what my convictions are, you may or may not have seen my question for you as you never answered it,here it again.
Now Brd if the arminian salvation hinges on his free will how does he know that he will be brought into the state of glorification?
Shawn
Brd I answered your question with scripture assurance of salvation of what my convictions are, you may or may not have seen my question for you as you never answered it,here it again.
br.d
Actually you simply side-stepped all of the LOGIC presented and made – for a Calvinist – an IRRATIONAL appeal.
You mentioned the Arminian and I’m not promoting that.
But its easy to see on this matter you are thinking like an Arminian – and not like a Calvinist.
To return to your analogy – you don’t know what your boss has in store for you – because you can’t know if he is misleading you with his ENUNCIATED will – while withholding his SECRET will for you.
And its FALSE to assume you can rely on scripture promises because you have no way of knowing if those promises apply to you or not.
Calvin asserts this about the church:
-quote
“But because a small and contemptible number are hidden in a huge multitude and a few grains of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff, we must leave to God alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation is his SECRET election.”
So you see – you don’t know if you are in that “huge multitude of chaff” or one of the “few grains of wheat”.
So far – the TRUST you’ve described is based on simply ASSUMING you are elect without any concrete way of knowing whether that is TRUE or FALSE. Which is basically trusting an assumption.
So if you want us to move forward in RATIONAL reasoning we’ll need you to address that LOGICALLY.
However if the prospects of not knowing whether or not you’ve been designed for eternal torment or not are disquieting to you – we don’t have to move forward with this. I’m certainly not interested in causing you any duress in addressing such matters.
I don’t approach these things with any emotion.
As you’ve noticed – I look at the LOGIC of it.
But so far you haven’t shown anything concrete that the Calvinist can TRUST regarding the THEOS’ will for his life.
Within Calvinism the ONLY question that has ever Really mattered or ever will matter is:
Am I elect for Salvation or Am I chosen by God for Reprobation? And the answer to that can only be ascertained at death.
Since the answer to that question within Calvinism is unattainable this side of eternity.
The Calvinist has to try and discern what kind of faith he has been given, he has to figure out if he has a “temporary faith” a “spurious faith” a “counterfeit faith”, a “human faith” or the “gift faith” for within Calvinism all of the above are very real possibilities, God himself is even the distributor of the different kinds of faith.
Since ascertaining what kind of faith the Calvinist has is kind of difficult. The next step in trying to figure out if he is the elect, the Calvinist looks to his own doings, his own works. Are his own works good, are they good enough to prove to himself and others that he has the genuine “gift faith” for within Calvinism if you have the “gift faith” this faith is NOT a defective faith it is a “constantly working faith” and those works are really good, they do not fail, and they are ever increasing in number and quality.
Here the Calvinist needs to put on an extra dose of pride to answer the question in the affirmative. He has to feel really good about the quality of his works and the quantity of his works in order to believe that God really does love him.
Within Calvinism it is hard to be humble and admit you are a mess because to admit you are a mess is to admit your faith is not the genuine “gift faith” because the genuine faith is not a defective faith but a working faith and a persevering faith always onward and upward.
Within the Calvinist system the most assured of their salvation are also the most prideful and arrogant about their works. To gain assurance that he is the elect the Calvinist goes on a works crusade where he tries to work enough to prove to God and himself that he must be the elect. But then deep down inside he knows that even the Pharisees and Religious zealots of every strip work hard, so even his works don’t leave him with any sense of peace because he could be working just like the JWs or the Pharisees…
At the end of the day the question remains are my works enough and good enough?
I do not know if I am the Elect for Salvation or Elect for Reprobation, I do not know if I have the ” gift faith” or if my “works are good enough” to confirm my salvation and so be saved. Without my good works, being good enough and being great enough in quantity there is NO possible way to “confirm” my salvation.
Only the Arrogant Calvinist is Able to Affirm “I know that I am the Elect and God Genuinely loves me because my works are good enough and great enough in quantity and duration to confirm I have the gift faith – Praise be to God I am Elect”.
So what can the Calvinist Trust about his God?
GraceAdict writes, ‘Within Calvinism the ONLY question that has ever Really mattered or ever will matter is:
Am I elect for Salvation or Am I chosen by God for Reprobation? And the answer to that can only be ascertained at death.”
This might be an issue for those outside Calvinism, but I am not aware that it is an issue inside Calvinism. Calvinists believe that Christ died for their sins and that God gives them faith to believe this. This faith leads them to ask for forgiveness and to turn away from their din. This is the same that non-Calvinists do.
Then, “The Calvinist has to try and discern what kind of faith he has been given,…”
The Calvinist sees the assurance and conviction of Christ that he finds in the Scriptures to be the faith that he has been given. He knows that any “faith” not focused on Christ can be a “temporary faith” a “spurious faith” a “counterfeit faith”, or a “human faith.”
Then, “Since ascertaining what kind of faith the Calvinist has is kind of difficult. The next step in trying to figure out if he is the elect, the Calvinist looks to his own doings, his own works.”
This is wrong. The Calvinist looks to Christ as the source of his salvation. He knows that he would have no desire for Christ if God had not given him faith.
Then, “[The Calvinist] has to feel really good about the quality of his works and the quantity of his works in order to believe that God really does love him. ”
As br.d would say, this is a false representation of the Calvinist.
Then, “Within Calvinism it is hard to be humble and admit you are a mess because to admit you are a mess is to admit your faith is not the genuine “gift faith” ”
For the Calvinist, admitting that you are a mess comes from the faith that God has given him.
Then, ‘Only the Arrogant Calvinist is Able to Affirm “I know that I am the Elect and God Genuinely loves me because my works are good enough and great enough in quantity and duration to confirm I have the gift faith…”
GA has a vivid imagination. Why the need to misrepresent the Calvinist??
rhutchin
Calvinists believe that Christ died for their sins and that God gives them faith to believe this. This faith leads them to ask for forgiveness and to turn away from their din. This is the same that non-Calvinists do.
br.d
John Calvin
-quote
But because a *SMALL* and contemptible number are hidden in a HUGE MULTITUDE and a FEW GRAINS of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff, we must leave to God alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation is his SECRET election.
Looking at Calvin’s doctrine statistically:
What percentage does a “few grains” constitute out of a “pile”?
Statistics tell the Calvinist he has a 99% chance – Calvin’s god has given him a FALSE faith – leading him to ask for a FALSE forgiveness.
That is also something the Calvinist can believe in.
RH seems to thinks it is vivid imagination to take what Calvinists say at face value. That is what we do, we are not used to saying there is a secret message that only a select few can truly understand.
I consider John Piper a pretty good example of Calvinism: check his quotes out below Piper affirms my claims about Calvinism: RH is the one that has a vivid imagination thinking that Calvinism can assert contradictory claims and still be Biblical.
John Piper Quotes to the end of Post:
“No Christian can be sure he is a true believer hence there is an ongoing need to be dedicated to the Lord and deny ourselves so that we might make it.”
“…we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith.”
“You Don’t get into heaven by faith alone, you get justified by faith alone, you get into a position where God is for you by faith alone and in order to get into heaven that faith must bear the fruit of love.”
“Essential to the Christian life and necessary for final salvation is the killing of sin and the pursuit of holiness, mortification of sin, sanctification in holiness.”
“Perseverance is the mark of the elect and necessary for final salvation.
“The Bible sometimes makes love the condition of the ongoing and final experience of future grace… faith in the promise must be so real that the love it produces proves the reality of the faith.”
“Thus love for others is a condition of future grace in the sense that it confirms that the primary condition, faith, is genuine. We could call love for others a secondary condition”
“…a full and free amnesty is offered to all the rebel subjects who will turn from their rebellion, call on him for mercy, bow before his throne, and swear allegiance and faithfulness to him forever.”
Regarding Preaching Piper says: “Heaven and hell are at stake every SUNDAY Morning, not merely because unbelievers might be present, but also because our people are saved if “indeed they continue in the faith”
In other words, labor on behalf of the elect is not icing on the cake of their eternal security. It is God’s appointed means of keeping them secure. Eternal security is a community project…”
“There is as much need of persons exercising care and diligence to persevere in order for their salvation, as there is of their attention and care to repent and be converted.
Preaching is a means of grace to assist the saints to persevere. Perseverance is necessary for final salvation. Therefore, every sermon is a “salvation sermon”- not just because of its aim to convert sinners, but also in its aim to preserve the holy affections of the saints and so enable them to confirm their calling and election and be saved.” END of quotes by Piper
The focus for the Calvinist has to be on his own works other wise “Final Salvation” is a pipe dream.
GraceAdict
John Piper Quotes to the end of Post:
“No Christian can be sure he is a true believer hence there is an ongoing need to be dedicated to the Lord and deny ourselves so that we might make it.”
br.d
This is an excellent quote GraceAdict! – where can I find it?
It is in his book: The Supremacy of God in Preaching… there were some good things in that book BUT also some very Catholic doctrines were being espoused in that book as well.
AH! Yes – I found it! Thanks!
GraceAdict
Am I elect for Salvation or Am I chosen by God for Reprobation? And the answer to that can only be ascertained at death.
br.d
Very true!
Reformed author Francis Wendel puts it this way:
-quote
This is no more than an application of the principle that the judgments of God are incomprehensible and unfathomable to us, and that it is therefore impossible, in spite of all the ‘signs’ that may be given, for us at this present time to distinguish the elect from the reprobate……Predestination will be fully revealed to us only in the life beyond.”
GraceAdict
Only the Arrogant Calvinist is Able to Affirm “I know that I am the Elect and God Genuinely loves me because my works are good enough and great enough in quantity and duration to confirm I have the gift faith – Praise be to God I am Elect”.
br.d
Yes it LOGICALLY follows – this stance is an act of HUMAN confidence – and therefore it is an act of WORKS.
So this actually does resolve to a form of works righteousness – and arrogance is the RED-FLAG. it is HUMAN in nature.
Dr. Erich Fromm – Ph.D Social Psychologist in “Escape from Freedom” writes
-quote
One possible way to escape this unbearable state of uncertainty and a paralyzing feeling of one’s own insignificance, is the very trait which became so prominent in Calvinism: the development of a HYPER ACTIVITY and striving for productivity. Activity in this sense assumes a compulsory quality: the individual has to be active in order to subdue underlying feelings of doubt and powerlessness. This kind of effort and activity works to promote a sense of confidence and conciliation. – (Page 88)
The Calvinist may claim his confidence is in Calvin’s god – when in fact his confidence is in his own works
Calvinists watch each others behavior looking for signs/indicators of that person’s eternal destiny.
And that practice is essentially called READING TEA LEAVES to ascertain one’s future.
br,d writes, “I don’t approach these things with any emotion.”
LOL!!! When it comes to Calvinism, you are as emotional as it gets. Mr. Spock you are not.
br,d
“I don’t approach these things with any emotion.”
rhutchin
LOL!!! When it comes to Calvinism, you are as emotional as it gets. Mr. Spock you are not.
br.d
AH – thank you rhutchin – this will be FALSE perception #9 Calvin’s god has given you.
As the count increments Mr. Spock retains the number! :-]
Rhutchin says: “GraceAdict writes, ‘Within Calvinism the ONLY question that has ever Really mattered or ever will matter is:
Am I elect for Salvation or Am I chosen by God for Reprobation? And the answer to that can only be ascertained at death.” … This might be an issue for those outside Calvinism, but I am not aware that it is an issue inside Calvinism. Calvinists believe that Christ died for their sins and that God gives them faith to believe this.”
Heather says: You just proved TS00’s point that “[The Calvinist] can be so bold about accepting God’s right to condemn helpless, hopeless born into sin people – because he is certain that he has been chosen for reprieve.” You are claiming that Calvinists are certain they have true faith, and not evanescent faith.
Rhutchin says: “[The Calvinist] knows that any “faith” not focused on Christ can be a “temporary faith” a “spurious faith” a “counterfeit faith”, or a “human faith.”
Heather says: And yet Calvin himself taught that those with evanescent faith will be tricked (by Calvi-god) into thinking they have true faith, to the point that they won’t see a difference. See John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 2, Section 11:
“I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for 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 IN THEIR MINDS SUCH A SENSE OF HIS GOODNESS as can be felt WITHOUT the Spirit of adoption.”
Rhutchin says: “The Calvinist looks to Christ as the source of his salvation.”
Heather says: No! The Calvinists looks to his belief that God “elected” him as the source of his salvation, that Calvi-god “forced” him to look to Christ (trusting that Calvi-god didn’t really just give them evanescent grace, yet not knowing for sure till they die). Because the Calvinist cannot look anywhere on his own. He can only do as Calvi-god forces him to do.
Rhutchin claims this is a false representation of the Calvinist: “[The Calvinist] has to feel really good about the quality of his works and the quantity of his works in order to believe that God really does love him. ”
Heather says: But it’s not a false representation. Because if a Calvinist has to wonder if they might have been given evanescent grace (fake election), then they cannot really rest assured in their election as proof of their salvation. They can only find assurance of their salvation if they “persevere in the faith,” in good works, all the way to the end of their lives, thereby “proving” that they had genuine faith and not fake faith. (And if a Calvinist is not concerned that they might have been given evanescent grace instead of genuine, saving grace then they don’t really understand their own theology.)
Rhutchin says: “For the Calvinist, admitting that you are a mess comes from the faith that God has given him.”
Heather says: Wow! How mighty big and humble of the Calvinists! Having “faith from Calvi-god” to admit that Calvi-god (who predestines and causes everything that happens) has caused you to sin and caused you to do things wrong and caused you to be a mess. Very humble! Admitting Calvi-god’s causation of sin for him!
Rhutchin says: “br,d writes, ‘I don’t approach these things with any emotion.’ … LOL!!! When it comes to Calvinism, you are as emotional as it gets. Mr. Spock you are not.”
Heather says: If we don’t get emotional about a theology that completely destroys God’s truth and character then shame on us! Only those who don’t truly understand the Gospel or don’t truly understand (or care about) the damage Calvinism does to the Gospel and to people’s faith could remain unemotional about such wretchedness!
So, Rhutchin, have you given God permission yet, in prayer, to correct your theology if you’re wrong? Or do you just keep assuming that the “wisdom” you ask for and get is actually from the real God, and not some human or demonic source? Asking for wisdom is not the same thing as asking for correction. Because if someone is listening to the wrong source, then they aren’t getting biblical, godly wisdom anyway. Many, many people underestimate Satan’s ability to disguise himself as an angel of light!
Funny stuff!
Since Calvin’s god determines all of RHs perceptions – and determines RH to perceive things TRUE which are in fact FALSE – then it LOGICALLY follows – RH has no way of knowing TRUE from FALSE.
So all of RH’s claims totally collapse anyway – since he has no way of knowing whether they are TRUE or FALSE :-]
Where can I sign up for that! :-]
It’s very possible and dangerous that human reasoning takes over logical reasoning this happens in the doctrine of the trinity as it don’t logically make sense to human reason so therefore it can’t be no matter what the totality of scripture teaches so you don’t believe it,so you become a Mormon,JW,or oneness.
It’s the LBFW people who actually hold to a doctrine that gives no assurance of salvation ,I remember someone telling me he thought he could lose his salvation,and I responded how many sins does it take and what kind and he shrugged his shoulders,well I thought it would be good to know when heaven or hell is the outcome.
We know that we are saved because the Bible says we have passed from death until life and find are hope in the shed blood of Christ alone in His finished work which was freely given unto us by the grace of God.
I asked the question again to someone who might be able to answer, where does someone find full assurance in salvation and in what is the assurance if LBFW is believed?
Shawn, I haven’t read your comments fully or the responses to them (and I am not speaking for LBFW itself because I haven’t looked into what it all entails), but as a Christian who believes the Bible and who believes that God offers salvation to all and that He tells us to choose whom we will serve, I believe that we can find assurance in God’s promise to do what He says (save us, forgive us, give us eternal life) if we truly do what He says (seek Him, repent, willingly and truly make Jesus our Lord and Savior).
He can be trusted to do what He promised He’d do if we do what He commanded us to do. Our assurance is in His Word and in what kind of God He is: honest, loving, trustworthy, merciful, gracious, forgiving, etc.
Yes, some people can convince themselves that they are saved when they are not. But this is because they want to believe it. They want to believe they have the truth, even when they don’t. But God does not keep the truth from them. He has made it available and clear to all. And so they are responsible for lying to themselves, for refusing to see the truth. And they won’t see the truth until they are willing to admit they are wrong.
But, even if faith is still a bumpy ride for most Christians, those who are truly saved (who have the Holy Spirit as an assurance, a seal) will continue on in the faith (because of the Spirit’s help), even if it’s full of ups and downs and setbacks, and even if we falter at times. We might lose heart sometimes, but God never loses hold of those who are truly His.
I’m sure this isn’t the kind of concrete answer you are looking for, but it’s the best I can do. Blessings!
And I’m not sure if this will give any solid answers like you want either, but I did wrote a post on “Can you lose your salvation?”
https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/2019/05/can-you-lose-your-salvation.html
Maybe it will help explain more thoroughly what I think about this issue.
Heather wrote :We might lose heart sometimes, but God never loses hold of those who are truly His.
With due respect you are not being consistent here with free will salvation if a lost depraved sinner has free choice into Christ are you saying he loses freedom after he is in Christ?
Shawn
With due respect you are not being consistent here with free will salvation if a lost depraved sinner has free choice into Christ are you saying he loses freedom after he is in Christ?
br.d
Shawn – in order for anyone to give a correct answer to this question – you need to define what you mean by “free will salvation”.
Br.d.: “Shawn, With due respect you are not being consistent here with free will salvation if a lost depraved sinner has free choice into Christ are you saying he loses freedom after he is in Christ?
br.d: Shawn – in order for anyone to give a correct answer to this question – you need to define what you mean by “free will salvation”.”
Heather: Yes, and he also needs to explain what he means by “loses freedom after he is in Christ.” Does he mean we lose freedom to make decisions? Freedom to make a decision to leave Christ, after having had freedom to choose to come to him?
Assuming he’s talking about losing the right to freely-decide to walk away from Jesus after having freely-decided to chose Jesus as Lord and Savior, I would say that I believe a true believer gets the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion. And so a true Spirit-filled believer WILL NOT walk away from Jesus, even if they might struggle and back-slide from time to time. (I believe some of the “predestination” verses are actually about the path a true believer walks after salvation – that they are destined to grow to be more and more like Christ because of the Holy Spirit’s help – than being about “predestined to heaven or hell.” The general path a believer takes after salvation is what’s been predestined, not whether they will or won’t believe.)
The Spirit is the seal, the guarantee of salvation, for the true believer. But I do not think God gives the Spirit to people who only pretend to choose Jesus as Lord and Savior or who think they did when they really didn’t. Once you are sealed with the Spirit, you are a true believer and can never be lost again. (If you could be, then what is forgiveness really? How effective was Jesus’s death then?)
But if you were never sealed with the Spirit, no matter how “saved” you felt or the rituals you went through, then you are not truly a believer. And I pray that those people would figure it out before it’s too late.
br.d: “…you are not being consistent here with free will salvation if a lost depraved sinner has free choice into Christ are you saying he loses freedom after he is in Christ?”
heather: “Heather: Yes, and he also needs to explain what he means by “loses freedom after he is in Christ.” Does he mean we lose freedom to make decisions? Freedom to make a decision to leave Christ, after having had freedom to choose to come to him?”
Under Calvinism, people are depraved and unable to make any move toward God/Christ because they lack faith and have corrupt hearts. Thus, they are slaves to sin and free only to sin. As Paul wrote in Romans 8, “…the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God [i.e.,they have no faith per Hebrews 11]. Once a person is given a heart transplant and receives faith through hearing the gospel, he is free to come to Christ 9i.e., believe). Technically, he would be free to walk away from Christ except that the Holy Spirit comes to indwell him and prevents that outcome.
rhutchin
Under Calvinism, people are depraved and unable to make any move toward God/Christ because they lack faith and have corrupt hearts.
br.d
Firstly – please review that statement attributed to br.d in your post – I don’t think that was my statement.
Secondly on Calvinism’s doctrine of TOTAL DEPRAVITY it is also the case per Calvin that the Calvinist fold contains a -quote “few grains of wheat” while the rest are – quote “a huge multitude of chaff”.
Statistically speaking – a “few grains” would represent a very small percentage of a “huge multitude”.
So statistically speaking – the Calvinist fold contains a “huge multitude” of TOTALLY DEPRAVED Calvinists.
And no one in the Calvinist fold knows who they are – because that is a SECRET.
I think its just hilarious – TOTALLY DEPRAVED Calvinists assuming to speak with authority! :-]
br.d: “Firstly – please review that statement attributed to br.d in your post – I don’t think that was my statement.”
Sorry. heather had written, “Br.d.: “Shawn, With due respect you are not being consistent here with free will salvation if a lost depraved sinner has free choice into Christ are you saying he loses freedom after he is in Christ?”
Better to have written, “”Br.d.: “Shawn said…”
No problem – thanks.
Rhutchin says: “Under Calvinism, people are depraved and unable to make any move toward God/Christ because they lack faith and have corrupt hearts.”
Heather says: You’re right. UNDER CALVINISM do we find this idea, but not in the Bible!
Rhutchin:: “Under Calvinism, people are depraved and unable to make any move toward God/Christ because they lack faith and have corrupt hearts.”
Heather: ” ou’re right. UNDER CALVINISM do we find this idea, but not in the Bible!’
How do you understand Romans 8, “…he carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”?
Rhutchin says: “Under Calvinism, people are depraved and unable to make any move toward God/Christ …”
And then he asks: “How do you understand Romans 8 …”
Heather asks: And how do you understand these verses:
“God did this [created the nations of the earth] so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.” (Acts 17:27)
“Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near.” (Isaiah 55:6)
“But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.” (Deuteronomy 4:29)
“Those who know Your name will trust in You, for You, Lord, have never forsaken those who seek You.” (Psalm 9:10)
“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.” (Hebrews 11:6)
“This is what the Lord says to the house of Israel: ‘Seek me and live . . .’” (Amos 5:4)
It’s a desperate, self-deluded Calvinist who looks at all these verses and says “God didn’t really mean that we can seek Him, that we can and should take steps towards Him, even though He tells us over and over again to seek Him. It really just means that men CANNOT seek God unless God causes them to seek Him.”
Nonsense and hogwash!
(And my question is rhetorical. I don’t really want to hear your answer.)
Heather wrote, “And then [rhutchin] asks: “How do you understand Romans 8 …” Heather asks: And how do you understand these verses:
“God did this [created the nations of the earth] so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.” (Acts 17:27) etc.
It’s a desperate, self-deluded Calvinist who looks at all these verses and says “God didn’t really mean that we can seek Him, that we can and should take steps towards Him, even though He tells us over and over again to seek Him. It really just means that men CANNOT seek God unless God causes them to seek Him.”
Maybe you could harmonize the verses you cited with Romans 8.
rhutchin
He tells us over and over again to seek Him. It really just means that men CANNOT seek God unless God causes them to seek Him.”
br.d
BING!
Universal Divine CAUSAL Determinism.
And this also applies to all sins and evils – the creature CANNOT commit even one single specific sin or evil unless Calvin’s god CAUSES the creature to do so – and no specific event is PERMITTED and nothing made available – outside of what Calvin’s god specifically DECREES for every specific part of every specific event.
rhutchin
He tells us over and over again to seek Him. It really just means that men CANNOT seek God unless God causes them to seek Him.”
br.d
Dr. William Lane Craig:
-quote
Universal, divine, causal determinism cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture.
God would be like a child who sets up his toy soldiers and moves them about his play world, *PRETENDING* that they are real persons whose every motion is not in fact of his own doing and *PRETENDING* they merit praise or blame. -end quote
On this model:
Where it tells us Calvin’s god commanded Adam to not eat. It really just means Adam CANNOT NOT eat (i.e. obey the ENUNCIATED will) unless Calvin’s god CAUSES Adam to NOT eat (i.e. to obey the ENUNCIATED will).
And here we have a THEOS who communicates to his creatures *AS-IF* his ENUNCIATED will were his SECRET will
When he knows what he is leading them to believe is FALSE.
And that is not turning scripture into unethical and IRRATIONAL?
Historically – the Calvinist will use DOUBLE-SPEAK to talk his way out of this unethical conundrum.
So he becomes an expert at pointing 10 fingers in 20 directions at the same time.
And that process is what we call the IRRATIONAL pretzel.
br.d writes, “And that process is what we call the IRRATIONAL pretzel.”
It starts with br.d attributing to me that which heather wrote who misrepresents the Calvinist as the self-deluded Calvinist. . I thought that was against the rules.
rhutchin
It starts with br.d attributing to me that which heather wrote who misrepresents the Calvinist as the self-deluded Calvinist. . I thought that was against the rules.
br.d
rhutchin you just posted an assertion that Ephesians affirmed the statement posted in your name within that post
Somehow I don’t think it was something Heather stated – or you wouldn’t have tried to affirm it with scripture.
Additionally – my statement “And that process is what we call the IRRATIONAL pretzel.” was the summation of a number of points which I made and not Heather.
heather: “He tells us over and over again to seek Him. It really just means that men CANNOT seek God unless God causes them to seek Him.”
br.d: “BING! Universal Divine CAUSAL Determinism.”
Ephesians is still true, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.”
rhutchin
He tells us over and over again to seek Him.
It really just means that men CANNOT seek God unless God causes them to seek Him.”
br.d
BING!
Universal Divine CAUSAL Determinism.
rhutchin
Ephesians is still true, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.”
br.d
Well – since you want Ephesians to affirm that model – then it LOGICALLY follows – you want it to also affirm the following.
On this model:
Where it tells us Calvin’s god commanded Adam to not eat. It really just means Adam CANNOT obey what Calvin’s god commanded (i.e. the ENUNCIATED will) unless Calvin’s god CAUSES Adam to obey it. And we know Calvin’s god CAUSES Adam to do the opposite ( the SECRET will).
I suppose Ephesians states all of that also. :-]
Rhutchin: “Maybe you could harmonize the verses you cited with Romans 8.”
Heather: Yes, I can. They (those with a carnal mind) are in the flesh because they want to be, not because God created them to be or because He denied them the opportunity to be saved. And God calls all to seek Him because He knows we can. The call/opportunity to seek Him is available to all because Jesus’s death paid for the sins of all men and the offer of salvation is extended to all men. And so if we choose to not seek Him, if we choose the carnal over the spiritual, it’s our fault. (And not in the fake Calvinist way of “men make decisions according to the natures that Calvi-god predetermined they’d have”).
It’s Calvinists who can’t rationally harmonize the “seek God” verses with Romans because they assume that God causes the reprobate to be the reprobate, that He determines who gets a carnal mind and who gets the renewed mind. And they can’t harmonize God’s commands to seek Him (REAL commands to seek Him, where the person actually has a choice) with Him predetermining/causing who would seek Him and who wouldn’t. The only way they can do this is to make up the idea of 2 calls – one call for the elect that they have to respond to because Calvi-god controls them to respond and one call for the non-elect that they are predestined to resist. AS IF that’s a real choice! AS IF God really meant “You can’t really seek Me unless I make you seek Me, and I will only make the elect seek Me” when He says “Seek Me.”
(I don’t say this for your sake, but for others reading. Because I’m going to guess you will not be able to hear or understand what I’m saying.)
heather writes, “They (those with a carnal mind) are in the flesh because they want to be, not because God created them to be or because He denied them the opportunity to be saved.”
Romans 8 says, “you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.” So, you seem to be saying that all people are presumably born in the spirit because, “The call/opportunity to seek Him is available to all because Jesus’s death paid for the sins of all men and the offer of salvation is extended to all men.” Thus, it is only by a conscious free will decision that a person rejects Christ and is then lost; a person is not lost (or in the flesh) prior to exercising the opportunity to reject Christ.
Then, “It’s Calvinists who can’t rationally harmonize the “seek God” verses with Romans because they assume that God causes the reprobate to be the reprobate, that He determines who gets a carnal mind and who gets the renewed mind.”
Calvinists claim that no one can come to Christ without God first drawing them to Christ. Prior to being drawn by God, the preaching of the cross is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles despite all the appeals in Scripture to seek God or come to Christ..
Then, “The only way they can do this is to make up the idea of 2 calls – one call for the elect that they have to respond to because Calvi-god controls them to respond and one call for the non-elect that they are predestined to resist.”
Experience seems to show that the gospel can be preached to many people at one time and some will be drawn to Christ and accept Christ and others will reject Christ. We know why a person would be drawn by the gospel to Christ. What is impossible to explain – on the basis of free will – is why some will reject Christ when others, who are no different, accept Christ. If free will is valid, then one person accepting Christ should mean that all accept Christ as all are equally capable of understanding the gospel and their need for Christ.
rhutchin
Calvinists claim that no one can come to Christ without God first drawing them to Christ
br.d
But of course “Calvinist claims” are strategically designed to HIDE more than they reveal.
Calvinists are taught to divulge “little” truths – like the one above – designed to masquerade as the WHOLE TRUTH.
And that is what Heather has been referring to.
Calvin’s god wills all men saved – and at the same time – wills all men damned.
The Calvinist will “claim” HALF of that TRUTH – while HIDING the other HALF.
And then contort language into an IRRATIONAL pretzel in order to talk his way around it.
And that’s supposed to be a “biblical” mode of communication! :-]
rhutchin: “Calvinists claim that no one can come to Christ without God first drawing them to Christ”
br.d: “Calvinists are taught to divulge “little” truths – like the one above – designed to masquerade as the WHOLE TRUTH.”
Again with the misrepresentation of Calvinism Calvinism searches the Scriptures for all truth and then harmonizes all those individual truths into a whole.So, Calvinism takes these truths among others:
– God works all things according to the counsel of His will.
– All that the Father gives to Christ will come to Christ.
– No one can come to Christ unless the Father who sent Christ draws him.
– 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.
– God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.
– whom God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
– He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?
I noticed that you didn’t add this one to your list
Calvin’s god wills all men saved – and at the same time – wills all men damned.
And I know why!
Just exactly as I stated – speaking “little” truths while HIDING the WHOLE truth.
We all know how the language tricks work. :-]
br.d writes, “I noticed that you didn’t add this one to your list
Calvin’s god wills all men saved – and at the same time – wills all men damned.
OK.
– The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
– Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied 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!’
Thanks rhutchin – I can see that that works for Calvinism :-]
Rhutchin: “What is impossible to explain – on the basis of free will – is why some will reject Christ when others, who are no different, accept Christ. If free will is valid, then one person accepting Christ should mean that all accept Christ as all are equally capable of understanding the gospel and their need for Christ.”
It’s impossible to explain why some people reject Christ and others accept Him!?!
Wow, that’s sad! Do you really think people are all identical automatons or something? That we’re all part of the Borg, and so if we don’t all do the same thing then something must have gone haywire?
Umm … yeah … I guess it’s “impossible” to explain how people can make different “free-will” choices if one doesn’t really believe that free-will means we can make different choices.
If you misunderstand/misrepresent what free-will really is while acting like you are properly understanding/representing free-will then, yeah, it’s pretty “impossible” to explain how people can have the “free-will” to make different choices!
But this would explain why you conclude that if all people were capable of freely choosing to accept Christ, it must necessarily mean that all WOULD accept Christ. Therefore, the Calvinist conclusion is that since all people don’t accept Christ then it must mean that all are not capable of accepting Christ. Which therefore must mean that some people must have been predestined by Calvi-god to accept Christ and the rest were predestined to never be able to accept Him. Which means there is really no such thing as true free-will.
All of this stems from the bizarre idea that having the free-will to accept Christ MUST MEAN that everybody WOULD accept Christ … because, apparently, “free-will” means that we would all do everything exactly the same because there is “no difference” between any of us. Which, actually, would be the exact opposite of free-will. Being locked into making only one choice is NOT free-will!
Oh my goodness, this is too funny! It’s like if Lewis Carroll wrote an episode of The Twilight Zone!
heather writes, ” Do you really think people are all identical automatons or something? That we’re all part of the Borg, and so if we don’t all do the same thing then something must have gone haywire?”
You are arguing that people are not the same and some are more able to accept Christ while some are less able. That goes against free will that says that every person has the same opportunity to accept Christ. It’s a simple decision: eternal life vs eternal death. We can easily understand why a person would choose eternal life, but why would a person choose eternal death. That an illogical decision but free will conveys to people the ability to think logically.
rhutchin
You are arguing that people are not the same and some are more able to accept Christ while some are less able.
br.d
The significant distinction of “ability” in regard to free-will is a Calvinist significant distinction – no LOGICAL reason to presuppose that distinction on the non-Calvinist.
rhutchin
That goes against free will that says that every person has the same opportunity to accept Christ.
br.d
In Theological Determinism everybody does NOT have the same opportunity to accept anything
What Calvin’s god does not DECREE does not exist.
That which does not exist is not available to the creature – and that includes opportunity.
So where Calvin’s god does not DECREE a person accept [X] then accepting [X] is not available to that person.
And Calvin’s god would not PERMIT that person to accept [X] if it were available.
rhutchin
It’s a simple decision: eternal life vs eternal death.
br.d
But in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) humans don’t make that decision for themselves.
It is made for them by Calvin’s god.
Remember – we are talking about *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism – where the THEOS determines *ALL* things – leaving ZERO left over for creatures to determine.
rhutchin
We can easily understand why a person would choose eternal life, but why would a person choose eternal death.
br.d
Who is “we” in this statement?
What the Calvinist knows (per Calvinist doctrine) is the THEOS makes those choices for the creature.
And John Calvin specifically states there is no attribute of the creature which determines that choice
That conception is unique to Calvinists and not shared by Non-Calvinists.
rhutchin
That an illogical decision but free will conveys to people the ability to think logically.
br.d
That is true within IN-Determinism yes – but it is no TRUE in Theological Determinism.
In Theological Determinism we don’t have FULL free-will.
We only have the freedom to be/do what Calvin’s god DECREES.
Creatures are NOT FREE to be/do otherwise.
Additionally – in Theological Determinism – a person wouldn’t know if he were thinking LOGICALLY or not – since Calvin’s god determines his every perception a human will have – and determines people to have FALSE perceptions and to perceive them as TRUE.
Therefore the person has no way of knowing whether a perception they have is TRUE or FALSE.
And one could hardly call that LOGICAL thinking.
Calvinists can get really hung up on their misunderstanding of Ephesians 1:11. When the Bible says that “God works all things…”, the Calvinist hears “God causes/controls all things …”
But according to the concordance, “Works” in that verse doesn’t mean “God causes or controls all things.” It means …
1) to be operative, be at work, put forth power
1a) to work for one, aid one
2) to effect
3) to display one’s activity, show one’s self operative
To be active in something, to aid it, is not the same thing as “to actively cause all factors or to completely control everything.” Why would the writer use a word that says God is merely active in something if they really meant God totally controlled it? If God totally controlled it all, then the writer himself, by using that word, is downplaying God’s involvement.
So who’s right then? The writer or the Calvinist?
The difference is like this (humor me here, don’t read into illustrations too much):
The Bible’s use of “works all things together”: A professional chef go into someone’s kitchen, looks around at the ingredients they have on hand, adds some more of his own, and then “works it all together” into something great.
The Calvinist’s use of “works” in that verse: A chef writes the recipe exactly as he wants it to go, buys exactly the ingredients he needs, follows the steps exactly to get the results he wants. The chef causes all things to be exactly as they are and controls all the factors.
I believe if the writer of Ephesians said that “God works all things together” to get His Will done, he actually meant “God works all things together” to get His Will done. NOT “God causes all things to be exactly as they are and completely controls everything and everyone to get His Will done.”
But that’s just me.
But we can say this to a dogmatic Calvinist till we’re blue in the face, and they’ll simply keep saying “But what about ‘God works all things according to the counsel of his will’?” As if it irrefutably proves that God “causes” all things according to His Will.
And round and round we go on the merry-go-round!
Yep, the ol’ blue in the face routine. It comes from being arrogant, dogmatic and unwilling to consider other points of view. And yes, I know it for what it is because I was once guilty of practicing it.
I have pretty much given up the hope that discussing theology with most Calvinists can ever be productive. I now believe that there is no use even discussing issues until you come to the understanding that what you believe and what I believe are two different interpretations. This is as true of any other disagreement as it is of scriptural debates. The arrogant dogmatist simply cannot allow that they just might be partly wrong, ill informed, missing something or entirely deceived about what a particular verse or verses mean.
It is the height of arrogance to say ‘I believe in what scripture teaches’, thinking, and often saying that everyone else simply hates God or refuses to obey what scripture clearly teaches; as if your, and only your interpretation is 100% accurate and unquestionable. Because you, or your clan, have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – as if such a thing exists outside of God. They appear unable to see that they are, literally, claiming to know as only God knows.
To have a reasonable, productive conversation, you must start with, ‘Let’s examine our different interpretations of the same words, and ponder together, while examining the whole context, why we tend to think one meaning is more likely than the other’.
TS00 writes, “To have a reasonable, productive conversation, you must start with, ‘Let’s examine our different interpretations of the same words, and ponder together, while examining the whole context, why we tend to think one meaning is more likely than the other’.”
Great idea!! We can both start with our understanding of a particular Scripture and work from there. I’m up for it.
rhutchin
Great idea!! We can both start with our understanding of a particular Scripture and work from there. I’m up for it.
br.d
Sorry to say – I certainly wouldn’t be mislead by that!
And I doubt anyone else here – knowing what they’ve observed would – be either.
I think you’ve made you own bed on this one – I’m afraid.
Unfortunate – but true.
Dr. Jack Cottrell – Does Ephesians 1:1-11 Support Calvinism?
The following is a snippet from the original article
-quote
This last verse says that God works “all things” after the counsel of His will. This is why determinists such as Calvinists speak of an eternal decree that is all-inclusive and universal: does not Paul say all things?
But those who take this in an absolute sense have ignored the immediate *CONTEXT* and the main theme of Ephesians as a whole. The term “all things” (panta) is not necessarily absolute and must be understood within the limitations imposed by the *CONTEXT*.
This is seen quite clearly in 1 Corinthians 12:6, which says that God is the one “who works all things [panta] in all persons.” The language is exactly parallel to that of Ephesians 1:11; even the verb is the same [energeo]. Yet the context of 1 Corinthians 12 clearly limits “all things” to spiritual gifts from the Holy Spirit, and verse 11 says so specifically: “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.”
In a similar way, the context of Ephesians 1:11 does not allow us to think of the “all things” in an absolutely inclusive sense, but shows us the specific focus of God’s purpose which is in view here.
What is this focus?…………..the fact that God was now, in Christ,……uniting the Gentiles (the Gentiles!) with the Jews into a new kind of body called the church (3:10). In chapter two he comments on the fact that Jesus broke down the barrier that divided Jews and Gentiles and thus made the two groups into one new man, reconciling them both in one body to God through the cross (2:11-16). Even his reference to marriage–”the two shall become one flesh”–reminds him again of this great mystery, that the two groups (Jews and Gentiles) have become one body in Christ and his church (5:31-32).
“Dr. Jack Cottrell – Does Ephesians 1:1-11 Support Calvinism?
The following is a snippet from the original article
-quote
This is seen quite clearly in 1 Corinthians 12:6, which says that God is the one “who works all things [panta] in all persons.”
Let’s read 1 Corinthians 12: “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:” Here context is obvious, “all in all” refers back to the work of the Holy Spirit within the church. No problem with that.
Now, let’s read Ephesians 1: “God chose us…predestined us…He has made us accepted…He made to abound toward us…having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,…In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will… that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.” At the least, “God works all things” refers to all that was said before, “God chose us…predestined us…made us…etc.” Thus, Paul could say in Ephesians 2, “…we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus…”
In the Scriptures, we find the God described with the phrase, “God who,” so that we have:
– God, who comforts the downcast,
– God who commanded light to shine out of darkness
– God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
– God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ,
– God who always leads us in triumph in Christ
– God the Father who raised Christ from the dead
– God, who is rich in mercy
– God who works in you
– God who tests our hearts.
– God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory
– God who alone is wise
– God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy.
– God, who cannot lie
etc.
When we read, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will, we know that God does indeed work all things and does so according to the counsel of His will – in other words, not capricious or arbitrarily.
Otherwise, Cottrell did a good job explaining context. He just missed the sense of “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” Cotrell writes, “In a similar way [to 1 Corinthians 12], the context of Ephesians 1:11 does not allow us to think of the “all things” in an absolutely inclusive sense, but shows us the specific focus of God’s purpose which is in view here. ”
The only problem is that 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 1 are not contextually similar except that each describes God working in the lives of believers. If anything, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” applies across the board to all that God does.
rhutchin
Cottrell ….just missed the *SENSE* of “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.
br.d
Of course – that is stated simply because it disagrees with the Calvinist’s *SENSE*
And everyone knows the Calvinist *SENSE* is canon! :-]
heather writes, “To be active in something, to aid it, is not the same thing as “to actively cause all factors or to completely control everything.”
The verse does not say that God aids anything – it says God works all things. By adding that God is “aiding,” you are engaging in eisegesis – making the verse say what you want it to say and ignoring what the verse really says.
Then, “Why would the writer use a word that says God is merely active in something if they really meant God totally controlled it?”
God is merely active because He is the one who “works all things.” To “work all thinks” would seem to assume control over all things. So, Paul is being clear – “God works all things.”
Then, ” If God totally controlled it all, then the writer himself, by using that word, is downplaying God’s involvement.”
When Paul writes, “God works all things,” we are to understand that God has control over that which He works. Don’t we? If God did not have control, how could He work all things. Certainly some things out of His control would not work as He planned.
Then, “The Bible’s use of “works all things together”:
hetaher seems to have Romans 8 in view here, “we know that [God works] all things together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” Her example is a little off. Rather than, “A professional chef go(es) into someone’s kitchen, looks around at the ingredients they have on hand, adds some more of his own, and then “works it all together” into something great,” it should be, “A professional chef goes into someone’s kitchen, sees that the people are preparing food, looks around at the ingredients they have on hand, then throws out some ingredients and adds some more of his own while instructing the people in the use of the additional ingredients, and thereby “works it all together” into something great.” Not a perfect example but better.
Actually, under Calvinism, the kitchen would have to be designed and created by Calvi-god, the chefs designed and created by Calvi-god to be deliberately inept, the ingredients would have to have been designed and deliberately placed by Calvi-god, including the rotting vegetables and the absence of important staples, and then Calvi-god, without admitting to being the secret orchestrator of all, rides into town in his white Cadillac, jaunts into the kitchen as if he had never seen it before, and appears to magically save the day, using the inferior and inadequate materials at hand to create a masterpiece for which only he knows the recipe.
Never is it addressed that Calvi-god could have created a perfectly stocked kitchen, created the chefs with perfect knowledge and ability and there would have been no crisis in the first place for him to provide ‘salvation’ for. All a grand, deceptive charade intended to give the tyrannically controlling and deceptively manipulative narcissist, who dreamed up and caused all the problems in the first place, all the glory for ‘working all things together for good’ while casting off the helpless, inept chefs as failures. Yeah, Calvinism is a grand scheme.
TS00 writes, “Actually, under Calvinism, the kitchen would have to be designed and created by Calvi-god,…”
OK. So, do you have an alternative to God doing it?
Then, “Never is it addressed that Calvi-god could have created a perfectly stocked kitchen,…”
That’s because we know that God did not do it that way. We are born as sinful creatures who are at enmity with God and cannot obey Him and do not want to obey Him.
Then, “Yeah, Calvinism is a grand scheme.”
And the non-Calvinist has yet to come up with a different scheme that is consistent with Scripture.
“And the non-Calvinist has yet to come up with a different scheme that is consistent with Scripture.”
Right. Like that is not what this blog and the commenters thereon do without fail, day after day. It is not consistency with scripture that non-Calvinists lack, it is merely consistency with Calvinism’s faulty interpretation of many scriptures.
rh:
“And the non-Calvinist has yet to come up with a different scheme that is consistent with Scripture.”
Same ol’ same ol’.
Yes, the non-Calvinist would say that God did design a perfect kitchen that was well stocked with the finest of quality of ingredients, and did create beings who had the knowledge and capacity to create nothing but fabulous masterpieces from all that was provided.
But these chefs were not robots. They were not controlled by God to use what he provided wisely and well. Instead, they took advantage of the amazing capacity to think and create with which God designed them and crafted a laboratory in one corner of the kitchen. Here they cooked up toxic, unnatural combinations of ingredients, even genetically engineering what was normal into abnormal, dangerous for ingestion substances. They not only cooked up endless cakes and candy, rather than mouthwatering feasts of roast and vegetables, they poured toxic chemicals upon the meat and vegetables until even these were not fit for consumption.
Because God provided the means for intelligent, creative, independent choice these chefs were able to misuse and/or ignore perfectly good resources. Because God designed these chefs in his image, they too were able to create, and were just as able to create unwisely as wisely. Scripture points to pride, greed, desire for undue glory as motivations for the seemingly unthinkable behaviors, such as, in our example, of creating toxic, unhealthily damaged food when delicious, nutritious options would have been even easier to pursue.
Nowhere does scripture suggest that the pride, greed, desire for undue glory, etc. that led to sin and evil were determined and designed by God, but arose from within what were once sinless creatures. How is that possible? I do not know of anyone who has explained it well, including those Calvinists who attempt to deny that their theology demands that God ordained Adam’s original sin. I have not heard a reasonable explanation for that original sin, which is perhaps why most default to it having been decreed by God.
I do not claim to understand how what was created sinless can, on its own, become corrupt. But even more incomprehensible is that a good and perfect God himself dreamed up and brought to pass the deliberate corruption of his good and perfect creation. So choose which inexplicable option you stand behind. Neither are easily understood, but only one demands the rejecting of the self-claimed goodness and sinlessness of God. This one I reject.
heather writes, “To be active in something, to aid it, is not the same thing as “to actively cause all factors or to completely control everything.”
rhutchin
The verse does not say that God aids anything – it says God works all things. By adding that God is “aiding,” you are engaging in eisegesis – making the verse say what you want it to say and ignoring what the verse really says.
br.d
Didn’t you want to use the term “ENABLE” to describe Calvin’s god’s role in Adam’s sin?
How does ENABLE not equate to AID?
Otherwise – following this line of reasoning it LOGICALLY follows Calvin’s god is the only one who WORKS to bring about Adam’s sin.
Adam would then be nothing more than a passive instrument – since Adam doesn’t WORK.
br.d writes, “Didn’t you want to use the term “ENABLE” to describe Calvin’s god’s role in Adam’s sin?
How does ENABLE not equate to AID?”
I don’t see why enable should mean aid. One can enable and not aid.
Then, ‘Otherwise – following this line of reasoning it LOGICALLY follows Calvin’s god is the only one who WORKS to bring about Adam’s sin. Adam would then be nothing more than a passive instrument – since Adam doesn’t WORK.”
God’s working all things can incorporate actions by others – the Assyrians of Isaiah 10 being an example.
br.d
Didn’t you want to use the term “ENABLE” to describe Calvin’s god’s role in Adam’s sin?
How does ENABLE not equate to AID?”
rhutchin
I don’t see why enable should mean aid. One can enable and not aid.
br.d
Two points:
Firstly: if you are RATIONAL – you will agree that ENABLE can equate to AID
Therefore the term ENABLE can have multiple meanings – and as such in this context is EQUIVOCAL
So that provides another example of how Calvinists tend towards EQUIVOCAL terms.
Secondly:
If ENABLE does not mean AID – then it can function as an implicature for “merely” permitting.
And in this case – “mere” permission can be SMUGGLED in – in camouflaged form.
If you care want to argue that Calvinists don’t use EQUIVOCAL language then you will pick a word that doesn’t have so many meanings! :-]
rhutchin
God’s WORKING all things can incorporate actions by others
br.d
But wait – we are talking about WORKING *ALL* things.
Remember Calvinism is predicated on *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism.
In which Calvin’s god Determines *ALL* things – leaving ZERO left over for the creature to determine.
It only makes sense then that Calvin’s god who WORKS *ALL* things – leaves ZERO WORK left over for the creature.
It would then make sense why Calvinists call humans “Instruments”
br.d writes, “If ENABLE does not mean AID – then it can function as an implicature for “merely” permitting.”
But not in the Calvinist context.
Then, “Remember Calvinism is predicated on *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism.”
Calvinism is predicated on God being sovereign, He determines all things through direct action and through secondary means. The example is the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 that you understand.
br.d
If ENABLE does not mean AID – then it can function as an implicature for “merely” permitting.”
rhutchin
But not in the Calvinist context.
br.
AH! This is what Dr. Steven Hassan – expert in religious cults – calls INSIDER LANGUAGE
Insiders within a religious group know what is meant by the meanings they apply to words and phrases within their statements.
Often terms that are used have multiple meanings.
This language model enables OUTSIDERS to misinterpret what is meant by statements. INSIDERS know what they are communicating but the OUTSIDER is mislead – and group members have a silent vested interest in OUTSIDERS being mislead by those terms.
Now Remember Calvinism is predicated on *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism.
rhutchin
Calvinism is predicated on God being sovereign
br.d
A rose is a rose by any other name.
rhutchin
He determines all things through direct action and through secondary means. The example is the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 that you understand.
br.d
Dr. Neal Judisch – Dept. of Philosophy – University of Oklahoma – OnSecondary Means within Calvinism
-quote
Whether or not the control Calvinists imagine exerted by Calvin’s god is immediate or mediated through secondary causes, is ultimately an IRRELEVANT RED-HERRING.
For the ethical problem remains: The CONTROL IS THERE. And that CONTROL IS INTENTIONAL, SUPER-OPERATIVE, AND UNREMITTING.
In the Calvinist scheme it isn’t within one’s power to alter, affect, or to “do otherwise” than what one is being controlled to think, choose, or do.-end quote
br.d writes:
“This is what Dr. Steven Hassan – expert in religious cults – calls INSIDER LANGUAGE
Insiders within a religious group know what is meant by the meanings they apply to words and phrases within their statements.
Often terms that are used have multiple meanings.
This language model enables OUTSIDERS to misinterpret what is meant by statements. INSIDERS know what they are communicating but the OUTSIDER is mislead – and group members have a silent vested interest in OUTSIDERS being mislead by those terms. ”
Take ‘sovereign’ for example. What they mean by this is deterministic, but they prefer to not acknowledge this, as it too clearly shows that Calvi-god is the author of evil. Any my deceptive Calvinist pastor had the nerve to state that all they mean by ‘sovereign’ is that Calvi-god allows evil to happen. So much for the forbidden ‘mere permission’, which they have to sneak in frequently to avoid the charge of God authoring evil.
It is a charge that simply cannot be escaped, and it is a devastatingly awful one. Few who call themselves Calvinists would accept it, which is why the good Westminster Divines sought so hard to hide it, and Calvinists to this day play endless semantic games to mask the truth.
TS00
and Calvinists to this day play endless semantic games to mask the truth.
br.d
So very well said!
Br.d.: “Dr. Jack Cottrell – Does Ephesians 1:1-11 Support Calvinism? …”
Thank you, Br.d. Great quote. Context is key and adds so much to a proper understanding of what God is really saying in His Word!
Rhutchin: “It starts with br.d attributing to me that which heather wrote who misrepresents the Calvinist as the self-deluded Calvinist. . I thought that was against the rules.”
Actually, in my comment that you are referring to, I don’t claim that any old Calvinist (or that all Calvinists in general) is “the self-deluded Calvinist.” But I specified that “It’s a desperate, self-deluded Calvinist who looks at all these verses [where God tells us to seek Him] and says ‘God didn’t really mean that we can seek Him, that we can and should take steps towards Him, even though He tells us over and over again to seek Him. It really just means that men CANNOT seek God unless God causes them to seek Him.'”
If you want to self-identify as one of those Calvinists who says that “seek Me” really means “no one can seek Me unless I make them seek Me,” then that’s your choice.
But if it makes you feel better, I will reword it as “In my opinion, a Calvinist has to be desperate and self-deluded to look right at a verse that says ‘Seek Me’ and convince themselves that it’s really saying ‘No one can seek Me unless I make you seek Me.'”
Do you have a better, more accurate word than “self-deluded” for when someone looks right at a verse that says one thing and claims that it says something else completely? Feel free to substitute that word instead.
And it’s funny how you cry “against the rules” when I share an opinion about Calvinists who misrepresent verses, but time and time again you claim that those who disagree with you have cut verses out of their Bibles and ignored Scripture and fail to read their Bibles and fail to present any Scriptural support for their arguments. If that’s not “misrepresentation” – smug, condescending, judgmental, misrepresenting libel (in my opinion) – then I don’t know what is! And yet no one else seems to cry “against the rules” when you do that.
So … sorry, not sorry.
(And if my frustration here gets me kicked off this site … it’s worth it!)
heather writes, ““In my opinion, a Calvinist has to be desperate and self-deluded to look right at a verse that says ‘Seek Me’ and convince themselves that it’s really saying ‘No one can seek Me unless I make you seek Me.’”
It is actually Romans 3 that says this, “we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.”
Then, we have John 6, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” Then, there is 1 Corinthians 1, “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,…”
So, rather than ranting about deluded Calvinist, how about harmonizing al that the Scriptures say about seeking Christ.
Rhutchin: “It is actually Romans 3 that says … Then, we have John 6 … So, rather than ranting about deluded Calvinist, how about harmonizing al that the Scriptures say about seeking Christ.”
I can’t. Those verses aren’t in my Bible. I cut them out.
heather writes, “I can’t. Those verses aren’t in my Bible. I cut them out.”
I thought FOH was the only one to do that. If you ever put them back in, maybe you could put in some time into harmonizing them.
Tell the truth, Heather; you actually just read them with a different understanding. (I get the joke.:) ) How is it that the Calvinist, time after time after time repeats the same verses, even after being told hundreds of times how those verses can be understood differently? Their prooftexts do not get them off the hook.
Notice what rh does not do? He does not respond to your legitimate complaint. How can one honestly explain God’s repeated command to all men to seek him, turn from wickedness, do what is right, etc. as disingenuous, mocking calls to men who are utterly unable to do what he commands? You can take the harmony of the whole Mormon Tabernacle Choir and you are not going to make music out of that sort of dissonance.
TS00 writes, “How is it that the Calvinist, time after time after time repeats the same verses, even after being told hundreds of times how those verses can be understood differently?”
because no one ever explains the different understanding. How about explaining the different understanding of John 6:37, ““All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…”
Then, “How can one honestly explain God’s repeated command to all men to seek him, turn from wickedness, do what is right, etc….”
If heather or you would cite the verse in question, I can give it a try.
rhutcnin
because no one ever explains
br.d
OH yeah! We all know how that one works! :-]
Shawn
It’s very possible and dangerous that human reasoning takes over logical reasoning this happens in the doctrine of the trinity as it don’t logically make sense to human reason so therefore it can’t be no matter what the totality of scripture teaches so you don’t believe it,so you become a Mormon,JW,or oneness.
br.d
Question – how do you determine TRUE vs FALSE without reasoning or LOGIC?
Libertarian Free will can be defined as the condition upon which multiple options are set before a person – all options existing as real and available – and that person permitted to choose among that range of options – that choice being compatible with that person’s nature. And specifically with the key factor – that person’s choice is not made for them by someone else.
Give that definition – that gives us what is called “Libertarian Functionality”
Libertarian functionality is then the condition upon which TRUTH and FALSE are set before a person – and that person is permitted to RATIONALLY affirm TRUE from FALSE.
In contrast to that – we have Theological Determinism in which a THEOS determines *ALL* things without exception – which obviously includes all human perceptions.
On this model – the human is NOT PERMITTED to determine anything – but *ALL* mental perceptions are determined in advance for him.
Empirical data tells us we have FALSE perceptions. So on this model it LOGICALLY follows the THEOS determines the human to perceive perceptions as TRUE which in fact the THEOS knows are FALSE perceptions. And on this model – since the human cannot determine anything for himself – the person is unable to determine whether or not a perception the THEOS gives him is TRUE or FALSE.
So lets see how that model would look in the real world:
– The THEOS determines the Catholic to perceive his perceptions TRUE and others FALSE
– The THEOS determines the Jehovah’s Witness to perceive his perceptions TRUE and others FALSE
– The THEOS determines the Calvinist to perceive his perceptions TRUE and others FALSE
CONCLUSION:
None of these people have the ability to know what perceptions they have are TRUE or FALSE because their perceptions are determined for them by an external mind.
Calvinist Gregory Koukl puts it this way:
-quote:
The problem with determinism, is that without freedom, rationality would have no room to operate. Arguments would not matter, since no one would be able to base beliefs on adequate reasons. One could never judge between a good idea and a bad one. One would only hold beliefs because he has been predetermined to do so. Although it is theoretically possible that determinism is true…..no one could ever know if it – if it were. Everyone of our thoughts dispositions and opinions would have been decided for us by factors completely out of our control. Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self defeating.”
Shawn
I asked the question again to someone who might be able to answer, where does someone find full assurance in salvation and in what is the assurance if LBFW is believed?
br.d
Shawn – you’ve also asked how an Arminian would have assurance of salvation. And the irony here is that all of your answers about your assurance of salvation are Arminian answers. So without realizing it – you’re actually answering your own questions.
Dr. Ravi Zacharias laments that way to many Christians make statements that are all to obviously IRRATIONAL
Give yourself some time to think these things through – no need to respond to this immediately
Shawn writes: “I asked the question again to someone who might be able to answer, where does someone find full assurance in salvation and in what is the assurance if LBFW is believed?”
GA: I am going to assume that you REALLY are seeking an answer and are open to consider what the Bible teaches if that is the case I am glad to engage.
1. The Bible says we are made in the image of God and even after the fall the image of God is still imprinted on mankind,1 Cor. 11:7, Ac 17:28-29 we are the Offspring of God. Gen. 9:6 shows that the image of God is still imprinted on fallen man.
2. God is a moral being, we his image bearers are moral beings, plants glorify God but are not moral beings because they have no ability to make choices. Man as God’s image bearer has been given many abilities including the ability by God to make moral choices (hence he is a moral being). He is not a plant being.
3. Man has sinned and come short of the glory of God, man is a sinner separated from God unable to work his way back to God. Even in this sinful condition the Bible says man retains abilities:
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
( Things can be known about God and those things are plain to fallen man. WHY? Because God made them plain to him)
This fallen man can clearly see things:
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
( The Bible says His invisible attributes and divine nature are clearly perceived by fallen man and that is why fallen man is without excuse)
Fallen man can progress to an even darker state:
Rom 1:21 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 foolish hearts were darkened.
(-Fallen man – had some perception of God indicated by (they knew God) BUT how did fallen man respond to the light that he had? He did not honor or give thanks to God v21… SO this resulted in a darkened state even worse than before.)
As we can see in v23 They exchange God’s glory (that they saw in v 20 for the images of birds, beasts and men.) So then God gives them up to their own choices…
4. God continues to love All of His image bearers created by Him for Himself even though they are fallen and dirty, and sinful. Let’s see what Scripture says: NOTICE the emphasis scripture gives to ALL and Whole world.
Jn. 3:16 For God so loved the World that He gave His only son…
1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.
1Ti 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires ALL people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the TRUTH.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for ALL, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
1Ti 2:7 For THIS I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the TRUTH, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the WORLD.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us, NOT willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.
Isa 53:6 ALL we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, each one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on Him the iniquity of us ALL.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should taste death for ALL.
Ezek. 18:23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? Says the Lord God. “But instead that he should turn from his ways and live.”
Eze 33:11 As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?
Scripture Clearly Establishes that God LOVES the Whole World NOT just a few. That God has provided for their Salvation.
NOW is what else?
5. The Bible Clearly states how Salvation is experienced: Through belief, faith in the correct OBJECT, Jesus Christ, the one died for the sins of the WORLD.
Act 16:31 And they said, “BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Joh 3:15 that whoever BELIEVES in him may have eternal life.
Rom 4:5-6 And to the one who DOES NOT WORK but BELIEVES in him who justifies the ungodly, his FAITH is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one BELIEVES and is justified,
Conclusion: How does one get saved and know you are saved. By Believing what the Bible says. 1. God loves the World and that includes YOU 2. That Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world (that includes YOU) 3. That God says there is ONE way to be saved and that is to Believe the Good news of what Jesus did for YOU. 4. Recognize that God is NOT playing games, pretending to love some while actually hating them but HIS word is truth and RESTING in that Truth ALONE.
The question for the NON-Calvinist is: What is the Gospel and Are you Trusting in that message ALONE for your Salvation? If you are then you can have absolute certainty and assurance that God is NOT playing games with you or anyone else.
Joh 6:47 TRULY, TRULY, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has ETERNAL LIFE.
NO games, no secret plan, no secret will that contradicts His Revealed will. Just a God of Truth that is 100% Trustworthy in ALL that He says. Just believe Him = Assurance.
Shawn writes:
“I asked the question again to someone who might be able to answer, where does someone find full assurance in salvation and in what is the assurance if LBFW is believed?”
——A fellow Calvinist like Me responds——–
There is no assurance actually because LFW themselves are the ones who maintains their own salvation. In other words, the assurance rests in themselves. If the self is imperfect and cannot be relied upon, then Salvation being claimed is nothing but to them it is lost. For Me there was nothing lost because it was not possessed on the first place. Those people in Matt. 7:21-23 also profess a claimant of Salvation but were all denied by Christ.
An imperfect being has no assurance to be able to keep it because even believers still commit sins.
Whereas in Calvinism, the one who maintain the Salvation is no other than God Himself who promised the elect that NO one can snatch them out from the Father’s hand. Also, the love of Christ in Romans 8:35 is the one used to tie up the union of the believers in Christ that even if the believers would attempt to eject from that union is not possible.
jtleosala
There is no assurance actually because LFW themselves are the ones who maintains their own salvation
br.d
JT don’t you have anything other than straw-man arguments?
Jtleosala, As a Gospel-believing, non-Calvinist, my assurance of salvation is in God Himself, in His trustworthy character and in His clearly-stated Word, in His promise to do what He said He’d do (forgive me and save me) if I do what He says I must do to be saved.
Whereas a Calvinist’s “assurance of salvation” is merely in the hope that they were truly elected by Calvi-god and not given “fake salvation,” evanescent grace. Because Calvi-god is known to deceive people, to say one thing but mean another, to cause people to do the opposite of what he commands them to do, to cause sin but punish people for it, to pretend to love all and to offer salvation to all but then to create most people for hell for his sick sense of justice against sin and love/grace for the “elect,” etc.
If Calvinists want to trust a “god” like that, then that’s their choice.
I, however, would find no comfort or assurance in being “saved” by a lying, deceptive, contradictory, unloving, unjust, untrustworthy “god” like that.
After all, if Calvi-god gets glory by creating most people to be hated and to be sent to hell … and if he gets glory for causing sin … and if he gets glory for causing some people to think they’re elected when they’re really not (deceiving them into thinking they’re saved until the very end) … and if he can’t ever really be trusted because he never really means what he says or says what he means, and he always has a secondary “secret” layer of meaning behind the things he says which contradict his words … then what’s to stop him from “getting glory” by tricking all Calvinists into believing lies just so he can punish them in hell!?!
How can any Calvinist ever be sure that their whole theology isn’t a great big trick by a god who likes to deceive people, to put them in hell, to make them feel saved when they’re not, and to cause sin and unbelief … for his glory!?!
Some assurance that is! Calvinists should not be commended for their fierce devotion to a god like that. They should be pitied!
Heather posted this one:
“Whereas a Calvinist’s “assurance of salvation” is merely in the hope that they were truly elected by Calvi-god and not given “fake salvation,” evanescent grace. Because Calvi-god is known to deceive people, to say one thing but mean another, to cause people to do the opposite of what he commands them to do, to cause sin but punish people for it, to pretend to love all and to offer salvation to all but then to create most people for hell for his sick sense of justice against sin and love/grace for the “elect,” etc.”
——-Here’;s My Response——-
Where in Scripture can you find your post above? If you can’t provide a verse in the bible for that assertion then, it is just an “argumentum ad hominem” hurled at the Calvinists side.
jtleosala
Where in Scripture can you find your post above? If you can’t provide a verse in the bible for that assertion then, it is just an “argumentum ad hominem” hurled at the Calvinists side.
br.d
JT – that is a silly argument – what was posted is from the teachings of John Calvin.
John Calvin
-quote
But because a *SMALL* and contemptible number are *HIDDEN* within a *HUGE MULTITUDE* and a *FEW GRAINS* of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff, we must leave to god alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation is his *SECRET* election.
“John Calvin
-quote
But because a *SMALL* and contemptible number are *HIDDEN* within a *HUGE MULTITUDE* and a *FEW GRAINS* of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff, we must leave to god alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation is his *SECRET* election.’
This verified by Christ in the parable of the tares, ““Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” There is also Matthew 7, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied 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!’”
“John Calvin
-quote
But because a *SMALL* and contemptible number are *HIDDEN* within a *HUGE MULTITUDE* and a *FEW GRAINS* of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff, we must leave to god alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation is his *SECRET* election.’
rhutchin
This verified by Christ in the parable of the tares,….etc
br.d
Calvinism’s exegetical rule #1: All scripture must affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism – and any scripture that doesn’t must be made void. :-]
heather writes, “As a Gospel-believing, non-Calvinist, my assurance of salvation is in God Himself, in His trustworthy character and in His clearly-stated Word, in His promise to do what He said He’d do (forgive me and save me) if I do what He says I must do to be saved.”
This is exactly what the Calvinist says. The Calvinist adds that “if I do what He says I must do to be saved.” is only possible after a person receives a heart transplant and is given faith. So, as a non-Calvinist, can you do what you say without faith? Or with a corrupt heart?
rhutchin
The Calvinist adds that “if I do what He says I must do to be saved.”
br.d
I think this is a typo – can you correct this statement?
heather to JTL, “Jtleosala, As a Gospel-believing, non-Calvinist, my assurance of salvation is in God Himself, in His trustworthy character and in His clearly-stated Word, in His promise to do what He said He’d do (forgive me and save me) if I do what He says I must do to be saved.”
rhutchin: “The Calvinist adds that “if I do what He says I must do to be saved.”
br.d: “I think this is a typo – can you correct this statement?”
I don’t think there is a typo in what heather wrote. I had responded, ” The Calvinist adds that “if I do what He says I must do to be saved.” is only possible after a person receives a heart transplant and is given faith. ” Makes sense to me.
AH! I see – thanks.
Jteosala
Whereas in Calvinism, the one who maintain the Salvation is no other than God Himself who promised the elect that NO one can snatch them out from the Father’s hand.
br.d
So it LOGICALLY follows the Calvinist has assurance that the ELECT are the ELECT.
Sorry JT – that does not speak to the question of the Calvinist’s ELECT status.
Unless you want to claim you know all of Calvin’s god’s SECRETS :-]
Jtleosala says: “Where in Scripture can you find your post above? If you can’t provide a verse in the bible for that assertion then, it is just an “argumentum ad hominem” hurled at the Calvinists side.”
Heather says: My point exactly! It’s not in Scripture. As I and Br.d. pointed out, it’s from John Calvin, from Calvinism. Which is … NOT IN SCRIPTURE!!!
Funny how a Calvinist would know that it’s not scriptural when they think a non-Calvinist is the one stating it. But if they realized it was John Calvin (Calvinism) stating it, then you can be sure they’d totally find ways to make it scriptural.
Without meaning to, before realizing who really espouses that belief, Jtleosala called it what it really is: Unscriptural!
Heather:: “Whereas a Calvinist’s “assurance of salvation” is merely in the hope that they were truly elected by Calvi-god and not given “fake salvation,” evanescent grace. Because Calvi-god is known to deceive people, to say one thing but mean another, to cause people to do the opposite of what he commands them to do, to cause sin but punish people for it, to pretend to love all and to offer salvation to all but then to create most people for hell for his sick sense of justice against sin and love/grace for the “elect,” etc.”
JTL: “Where in Scripture can you find your post above? If you can’t provide a verse in the bible for that assertion then, it is just an “argumentum ad hominem” hurled at the Calvinists side.”
Heather: My point exactly! It’s not in Scripture. As I and Br.d. pointed out, it’s from John Calvin, from Calvinism.
I don’t think this is from Calvin. the citation by br.d does not substantiate this – especially, “…Calvi-god is known to deceive people,” certainly, God deceives the Reprobate as 2 Thessalonians tell us, “for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” I am not aware that Calvin, or Scripture, says that God deceives His elect. If you had 2 Thessalonians in mind, I don’t see an issue.
My point exactly! It’s not in Scripture. As I and Br.d. pointed out, it’s from John Calvin, from Calvinism.
rhutcnin
I don’t think this is from Calvin.
br.d
Institutes – Chapter 1 – Under the heading “Of the true church”
If you have the PDF version its on page 812
Let me correct what I said: They’d totally find ways to make it SEEM scriptural (when it’s really not!).
Rhutchin asked about Calvi-god deceiving people. First, notice that I am talking about CALVI-god deceiving people, not the God of the Bible. So I am not looking for biblical references of God deceiving people because Calvi-god and the God of the Bible are not the same person. And secondly, I did not specify that Calvi-god deceives the “elect.” So that’s not the issue here. I said Calvi-god deceives “people.” And notice that I included “Calvinism,” not just John Calvin, because Calvinism itself teaches us these things about Calvi-god, if not by actual words than by the hidden things they really believe that they cover up with more “acceptable-sounding layers” of nonsense.
But for one example of Calvi-god’s deceptiveness, which I posted earlier, see John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 2, Section 11:
“… 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 IN THEIR MINDS SUCH A SENSE OF HIS GOODNESS as can be felt WITHOUT the Spirit of adoption.”
In this example, according to Calvin himself, Calvi-god himself deceives people into thinking they are elected when they are not, in order to have more reason to damn them to hell.
Maybe, as you say, Calvi-god doesn’t trick his “elected” people, but he does trick non-elected people into thinking they are elected. How then can any Calvinist be assured of their election and salvation, if Calvi-god likes to trick people into thinking they are elected when they are not? Who’s to say Calvi-god hasn’t tricked most Calvinists into thinking they are saved, yet only really “elected” a tiny few of them? Which Calvinists then are elected and which aren’t? Which Calvinist leaders can you trust to give you the “right answers” about Calvinism and Calvi-god, if you can’t know which are truly elected and which aren’t because THEY THEMSELVES can’t even know if they are truly elected or not? And if Calvi-god likes to deceive people and gets glory by putting people in hell, then who’s to say that he hasn’t deceived EVERYONE, that no one is saved and we are all predestined to hell for his glory? A god who deceives cannot be trusted at any time, in any way.
Additionally, if Calvinists insist that Calvi-god is the God of the Bible (HE’S NOT!), then we have other examples of deceptiveness by Calvi-god. Because the Bible tells us over and over again to seek God and to choose whom we will serve and to choose between obedience and disobedience. Any normal, logical person would read these (along with many other commands) as instructions to us to make our choices, to choose the right thing. But if the Bible was written by Calvi-god (IT WASN’T!), a god who knows we cannot make any real choices on our own because he alone has already predetermined everything we will do and he causes us to choose what we do, then he deceives us all throughout the Bible into thinking we have a choice, that we can make decisions. Why instruct people to make the right choice if they never really had a choice to begin with?
Deceptive!
Also, if Calvinists insist Calvi-god is the God of the Bible (HE ISN’T!), then Calvi-god also deceives us by saying things in the Bible like “God loves all men” and “Jesus died for all men/sins” and “God doesn’t want anyone to perish.” The clear, obvious understanding of these verses would be “God loves all men” and “Jesus died for all men/sins” and “God doesn’t want anyone to perish.” Yet Calvi-god would be deceiving us because he has “secret, double-meaning layers” behind all these verses – hidden meanings that apparently were revealed only to super-special, enlightened Calvinists who somehow figured out what God REALLY meant to say when He wrote one thing but supposedly meant another.
According to Calvi-god and to Calvinism, all doesn’t really mean all. It means “only the elect” (or “all kinds of people,” but not “all people”). Calvi-god only really loved the elect and Calvi-Jesus only died for the elect, for the few lucky people who won the “salvation lottery.”
So if Calvi-god wrote the Bible (HE DIDN’T!), plainly saying that he loves all people and that Jesus died for all men and that he wants no one to perish, yet really meaning that he truly loved ONLY the elect and that Jesus ONLY died for the elect and that he really does want people in hell for his glory, then he deceives us all throughout the Bible. (Yet they cover this up by saying Calvi-god loves the non-elect too, but with a different kind of love, a “give them food and water while they’re alive before sending them to eternal hell” kind of love. Wow, that’s some amazing love! If this is how Calvi-god shows his love to people, I’d hate to get on his bad side!)
And yet, the Calvinist might simply counter with the idea that Calvi-god deceives only the non-elect, those destined to perish anyway, but that the Calvinist elect have the truth all figured out!
Bravo, Calvinists! Enjoy eternity with that kind of a god! With a god who tricks people into thinking they’re saved when they’re not, who deceives us into thinking we can make choices when we can’t, who commands us not to sin but then causes us to sin and then punishes us for it (and don’t give me that “remote source vs. proximate source of sin” garbage!), and who “loves” most people by creating them specifically so that he could hate them and send them to hell for the things he caused them to do!
Calvi-god’s hidden double-meanings for words and verses contradict what the Bible clearly and simply says. And if this isn’t deception then nothing is!
(I’m so sick and tired of Calvinism’s nonsense. Seriously! I just don’t have the time or energy for it right now. And so I think I’m going to take a break for awhile. I need time to cool down. But one last thing before I go …
Rhutchin, have you given God permission yet to correct your theology if you’re wrong? And “I ask for wisdom” doesn’t count! That’s an excuse to not pray “God, correct me if I am wrong in how I am understanding You and Your Word.”
But if Calvinists want to refuse to pray for correction and they want to keep convincing themselves that their “wisdom” comes from the God of the Bible, then that’s their choice! No skin off my back. I’m not the one who’ll be standing before God trying to defend how I altered His Word to fit my errant theology and how I destroyed His good, holy, loving character in the process!)
wonderful post Heather!
I think LOGIC and the evidence at hand will confirm that Calvin’s god actually does deceive the ELECT.
1) We know that even the ELECT are not without sin
2) We know that ERROR including FALSE perceptions is a manifestation of sin.
3) We know that in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the THEOS determines all human perceptions including those of the ELECT.
It LOGICALLY follows:
At minimum – Calvin’s god deceives the ELECT every time he determines them to have FALSE perceptions – which he determines them to perceive as TRUE.
Additionally it follows – every sin of any kind – is NOT determined by the ELECT.
But rather by Calvin’s god who determines *ALL* things – leaving zero things left over for the ELECT to determine.
So under Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) it is fair to say Calvin’s god does indeed “deceive” the ELECT.
And the divine DECREE is the LOGICALLY NECESSARY explanation for their sin nature.
br.d writes, ‘But rather by Calvin’s god who determines *ALL* things – leaving zero things left over for the ELECT to determine.”
Following Craig, in determining all things, God makes all things certain but not necessary. All things are determined of necessity through various means – e..g, Joseph’s brothers sell Joseph to the Midianite traders resulting in Joseph being taken to Egypt as God had determined to be done.
rhuthin
Following Craig, in determining all things, God makes all things certain but not necessary. All things are determined of necessity through various means – e..g, Joseph’s brothers sell Joseph to the Midianite traders resulting in Joseph being taken to Egypt as God had determined to be done.
br.d
rhutchin – you need to learn to speak for yourself and not for others.
Dr. Craig would hardly fall into the LOGICAL FALLACY of claiming “things are determined of NECESSITY through various means”.
An omnipotent being is not limited to the NECESSITY of using means to accomplish purposes – because that would falsify the doctrine of divine omnipotence.
And when we start conflating Theological Determinism – (a scheme in which Calvin’s god determines *ALL* things without exemption – leaving ZERO left over for creatures to determine) with events that occurred in scripture – for example Joseph’s brothers.
What we get is Calvin’s god determining every neurological impulse that will ever appear in Joseph and his brothers brains – making them think and do whatever Calvin’s god determines them to think and do – while treating them *AS-IF* he didn’t.
And here is where Calvin gets his instructions for Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking
– quote
“you are to go about *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part [by Calvin’s god]” when your sacred doctrine tells you the opposite.
DOUBLE-THINK eventually turns everything into an IRRATIONAL pretzel.
Heather posted this one:
“But we who disagree with Calvinism are not contradicting the Bible or God as He is. We are fighting against the major distortions Calvinism makes of the Bible and God. We are fighting FOR truth, not against it!”
———Here’s My Response———-
This is a phony statement… Of course you do contradict what the bible says and God as He is. One example of these is the one reflected below:
If Jesus will say: “No one can come to the Father except a person is drawn by the Father to the Son” = The non Calvinists is so quick to respond by saying in unison : “Oh NO, ALL can come to the Son through the use of their own Choice”- despising the? act of Drawing of the Father.
The verse does not say ALL people are drawn by the Father to the Son. if that is really true then why are not ALL people go to heaven?
If ALL people can come to the Son, then why is it that the rest are still thrown to hell? You have espoused a doctrine that is illogical contradicts itself, that you cannot afford to reconcile.
verse 65 Jesus said again : “And He said, Therefore said I unto you, that NO man can come unto Me, except it were given unto Him of My Father”
So… how can one will rely to trust God in His words if it is being distorted and used as a scaffold to a defective doctrine espoused by the opponents?
Jtleosala
If Jesus will say: “No one can come to the Father except a person is drawn by the Father to the Son” = The non Calvinists is so quick to respond by saying in unison : “Oh NO, ALL can come to the Son through the use of their own Choice”- despising the? act of Drawing of the Father.
br.d
A classic straw-man argument
You’ll have to wait a LONG time for anyone here to say a person is drawn to Jesus with nothing but “their own choice”.
But you may find people here acknowledging the Calvinist has no way of knowing whether or not he’s drawn to Christ or is TOTALLY DEPRAVED. :-]
Adict Grace posted this line:
“Conclusion: How does one get saved and know you are saved. By Believing what the Bible says. 1. God loves the World and that includes YOU 2. That Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world”
——Here’s My Response——–
1. God equally loves all people on earth is false. It is just an illusion and an insincere offer to many.
2. Jesus Christ offered His life for the sheep according to John chap. 10:11, 17, not the goats, Tares, swine, False Prophets, Swine, False Prophets, Judas Iscariot, The residents of Canaan that was annihilated by Joshua and his armies except Rahab the harlot at the command of God the Father.
If Jesus had already been punished and paid all of the sins including sin of unbelief to Christ, then why is it that the rest are still thrown to hell as a form of punishment? What happened to the efficacy of the blood of Christ that was used to cleanse them from the sin of unbelief?
Does it mean that the sin of unbelief is the ever great antidote to invalidate the blood of Christ that was already shed for the sin of unbelief?
So… how can one be able to trust God in His words if it is used to scaffold a false and inconsistent; illogical claim?
jtleosala
1. God equally loves all people on earth is false. It is just an illusion and an insincere offer to many.
br.d
JT – you and rhutchin need to discuss whether you will allow him to speak for you. He has been arguing what you mean by this is that Calvin’s god *DOES* love the Non-Elect – he just has a different kind of love for them
jtleosala
Jesus Christ offered His life for the sheep according to John chap. 10:11, 17, not the goats, Tares, swine, False Prophets, Swine, False Prophets, Judas Iscariot, etc
br.d
Yes – that is Calvinist doctrine – which of course is a minority view.
jtleosala
If Jesus had already been punished and paid all of the sins including sin of unbelief to Christ, then why is it that the rest are still thrown to hell as a form of punishment?
br.d
This question is based on the presupposition that the world created is governed by Theological Determinism.
That presupposition is NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY.
So the question fails.
jtleosala
What happened to the efficacy of the blood of Christ that was used to cleanse them from the sin of unbelief?
br.d
See answer above
jtleosala
So… how can one be able to trust God in His words if it is used to scaffold a false and inconsistent; illogical claim?
br.d
I think this statement is a case of self-projection. :-]
For example – if there is NO ESCAPE from what Calvin’s god DECREES – then how is it LOGICAL for you to claim you had an escape from what Calvin’s god DECREED?
br.d writes, “JT – you and rhutchin need to discuss whether you will allow him to speak for you. He has been arguing what you mean by this is that Calvin’s god *DOES* love the Non-Elect – he just has a different kind of love for them’
JTL and I agree on this. The context for my comment were the views of Pink and DA Carson where Carson said God’s attitude toward the Reprobate was “love” but different than that love God expresses toward His elect. My view is in line with Pink and JTL – God does not “love” the Reprobate. The Reprobate would certainly not characterize God’s attitude in prohibiting them entry into heaven as “love.”
JTL: “If Jesus had already been punished and paid all of the sins including sin of unbelief to Christ, then why is it that the rest are still thrown to hell as a form of punishment?
br.d: “This question is based on the presupposition that the world created is governed by Theological Determinism.”
No, the question presumes an inherent value to the death of Christ and God’s intent for the death of Christ.
br.d to , “JT – you and rhutchin need to discuss whether you will allow him to speak for you. He has been arguing what you mean by this is that Calvin’s god *DOES* love the Non-Elect – he just has a different kind of love for them’
rhutchin
JTL and I agree on this.
br.d
As far as I’m concerned you’re still speaking for JT when he is an adult and should be free to speak for himself.
When he affirms Calvin’s god *DOES* love the NON-ELECT in any kind of way – as you say – then I will know the two of you agree.
Otherwise – he is on record multiple times for insisting Calvin’s god *DOES NOT* LOVE the NON-ELECT.
JTL
If Jesus had already been punished and paid all of the sins including sin of unbelief to Christ, then why is it that the rest are still thrown to hell as a form of punishment?
br.d: “This question is based on the presupposition that the world created is governed by Theological Determinism.”
And Theological Determinism is NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY- so this question fails.
rhutchin
No, the question presumes an inherent value to the death of Christ and God’s intent for the death of Christ.
br.d
That is obvious – but it does so under the premise of Theological Determinism.
In an IN-deterministic world any gift can be made available – and it still LOGICALLY follows – anyone who rejects that gift simply doesn’t get that gift.
And LOGIC doesn’t put any distinction on the value of the gift – just the fact that it is a gift and the recipient is permitted to accept or reject it.
Jtleosala says: “The verse [“No one can come to the Father except a person is drawn by the Father to the Son”] does not say ALL people are drawn by the Father to the Son. if that is really true then why are not ALL people go to heaven? If ALL people can come to the Son, then why is it that the rest are still thrown to hell? You have espoused a doctrine that is illogical contradicts itself, that you cannot afford to reconcile.”
Heather: I agree with you that “No one can come to the Father except a person is drawn by the Father to the Son” doesn’t say “all people” are drawn to Jesus.
But this verse does: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)
So how do we reconcile the two?
First off, Calvinists assume that the “No one can come …” verse means that God specifically picks out certain people to “draw” to Jesus. Where does it say this in the verse? All it says is that we can’t come to Jesus unless God draws us, that those who come to Jesus do so because God “drew” them. But where does it say in Scripture that this “drawing” isn’t for everyone? (Calvinists assume it’s not for everyone!) Where does Scripture refute the idea that God draws all people but that we decide to submit to or resist that drawing? (Scripture shows over and over again times when God drew people but they resisted.)
If I send out invitations to people for a party that I am paying for fully, I have invited them. I am drawing them to the party, a party they could not have known about or come to unless I made them aware of it. But they have the responsibility/opportunity to either accept that invitation or reject it. They do not have to earn their place or pay for their entrance into the party. It’s all been done by me, paid for by me, made possible by me. All they have to do is accept the invitation. But none of them could have come – those who accept the invitation could not have come – had I not made it possible by inviting them and by paying the price for all.
This is an example of how I believe salvation is. God made it all possible. He created the whole idea of salvation and eternal life. Jesus paid the price for all. And God invites all people to come to Jesus. But it’s up to us to accept or reject that invitation. If we accept it, we are not “working for salvation.” We are simply acknowledging and accepting all the effort and work that God did to make it all possible. But if we reject it, then it’s on us, and we will end up “paying” for our sins ourselves, in hell.
Just because many don’t come doesn’t mean they weren’t invited. Just because some come doesn’t mean they were the only ones invited.
Also, you are assuming here that “being drawn” necessarily ends in salvation, that only a select few are drawn and that they will inevitably be saved because they were drawn. Therefore, you reason that God can’t draw ALL people because not all people are saved. Where is this in Scripture? Because as I pointed out, John 12:32 says otherwise.
The problem is that you (that Calvinists) are reading into Scripture what you think it HAS TO mean. For you, “drawing people” HAS TO mean “they will be saved.” Whereas I believe that God draws all people, but that many can and do resist, as seen all throughout the Bible. (And what a waste of energy and fake compassion it is for Calvi-god to create people specifically for hell but then “pretend” to love them and to pay for all sins and to make salvation possible for all and to give them a choice when they really have no choice!)
You ask “If ALL people can come to the Son, then why is it that the rest are still thrown to hell?”
There is nothing logically wrong with this sentence, unless you assume that “all can come” necessarily means “all HAVE TO come.” Of course, “all HAVE TO come to Jesus” (“be saved”) would be incompatible with people being thrown into hell. But “all CAN come” is not incompatible with people ending up in hell.
Scripturally, all people CAN come to Jesus, but most don’t … because they don’t want to. They have the opportunity to be saved because Jesus’s death paid for all sins of all men. (Not Calvi-Jesus though, his death only paid for the sins of the elect – a lie from the pit of hell! In my opinion.) Jesus paid the price for all men, and so all CAN come to Him. But this doesn’t mean that all WILL come to Him. And those who reject the sacrifice He made for them will end up in hell.
So … putting it all together … God draws all men, but we have to decide between accepting or rejecting that “draw.” The draw is not irresistible, as Calvinism wrongly assumes. It’s not just for the elect. It’s for everyone, and whoever accepts the call to salvation will become a part of His elect. The invitation is open to all. Everyone’s ticket to heaven has been paid for. But God will not force us to accept it. And if we reject it, then we end up in hell, the place God was trying to save us from.
If you start with presumptions and wrong assumptions – if you force your own ideas of what Scripture HAS TO mean, when Scripture says otherwise, and if you force your own ideas of how God HAS TO be in order to be God, in contrast to how He’s really revealed Himself in Scripture – then you will be building a flimsy, incorrect theology from the very start. And then it takes a lot of “word gymnastics” and secret “double meanings” and contradictory double-think (as Br.d. often points out) to make Scripture fit with your incorrect theology.
But instead of examining and correcting the inaccurate presumptions they start with and then build their theology on, Calvinists just keep trying to make the building on top more secure.
Calvinism: A house of cards built on a foundation of Jell-O!
Great post Heather!
JT
The verse [“No one can come to the Father except a person is drawn by the Father to the Son”] does not say ALL people are drawn by the Father to the Son.
br.d
For the Calvinist – it wouldn’t matter if the word ALL were in that verse or not.
For the Calvinist – the Holy Spirit occasionally makes the mistake of using the word ALL – when he should have used the word SOME
And only John Calvin is DIVINE enough to know – in which verses of the Bible – the Holy Spirit uses a misleading word! :-]
br.d writes, ‘or the Calvinist – the Holy Spirit occasionally makes the mistake of using the word ALL – when he should have used the word SOME”
The Holy Spirit never made, or makes, mistakes. When the Holy Spirit moved men to write, “all,” He made clear through context the meaning of “all,” That meaning is discovered by seeking out the antecedent noun it is used to represent. Anyone can read context and discover the meaning of pronouns.
Of course, Calvinists define “all” to mean “Jew and gentile,” because of Ephesians 3, where Paul wrote, “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,”
Others seem to run to Webster’s dictionary to define terms used in the Scriptures.
br.d
For the Calvinist – the Holy Spirit occasionally makes the mistake of using the word ALL – when he should have used the word SOME”
rhutchin
The Holy Spirit never made, or makes, mistakes…… Anyone can read context and discover the meaning of pronouns.
br.d
“Anyone” or really?
Isn’t it interesting that Calvinin is the only systematic in which ALL really means SOME
That’s why the world needs John Calvin – because “Anyone” wouldn’t know all those verses in which ALL really means SOME.
rhutchin
Others seem to run to Webster’s dictionary to define terms used in the Scriptures.
br.d
If its easy to say others run to Websters dictionary then its just as easy to say the Calvinist runs to John Calvin
Unless you want to argue that Calvinists are the DIVINE ones :-]
Very helpful thoughts, Heather. I hope that jtl will actually read them with an open heart.You can lead them to the water – which you do so well – but you cannot force them to drink. And God, who actually could, has chosen to not use force, but to make salvation a genuine, freely offered gift to all men.
Calvinistic regeneration is like a permanent, never wears off date-rape drug. There is no ‘drawing’, there is only unseen, irresistible, mind-changing force. The formerly resistant victim becomes, with absolutely no choice, a willing, compliant slave. Frankly, I am far more grateful that God forgave my self-chosen rebellion rather than instilled rebelliousness (sin nature) within me from birth but still demanded I do what I had been rendered unable to do.
Which scenario more truly depicts love? Which scenario more truly depicts grace? Which scenario more truly depicts justice and decency? It isn’t even a contest. Seems like a good place to toss in one of my all time favorite anti-Calvinist quotes, from King James I (yes, that King James!):
“This doctrine is so horrible, that I am persuaded, if there were a council of unclean assembled spirits assembled in hell, and their prince the devil were to put the question either to all of them in general, or to each in particular, to learn their opinion about the most likely means of stirring up the hatred of men against God their Maker; nothing could be invented by them that would be more efficacious for this purpose, or that could put a greater affront upon God’s love for mankind, than that detestable formulary, by which the far greater part of the human race are condemned to hell for no other reason, than the mere will of God, without any regard to sin; the necessity of sinning, as well as that of being damned, being fastened on them by that great nail of the decree before-mentioned.”
TS00 writes, “God, who actually could, has chosen to not use force, but to make salvation a genuine, freely offered gift to all men.”
Does not God do this by giving a person an assurance and conviction in Christ that we call faith, and it is this faith that enables, and ensures, that a person will believe in Christ? What does Christ promise with respect to God’s working in a person – “…the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out….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…No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” God does not use force: God gives sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and healing to the broken God then gives them Christ to see, the gospel to hear, and freedom from slavery to sin – “Christ Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”
Then, “Calvinistic regeneration is like a permanent, never wears off date-rape drug.”
Calvinistic regeneration is life to the dead, sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf. You ran with Calvinist, so you know this. However, in order to satisfy your pride (presumably, for why else would you do it), you have to distort this.
rhutchin
Does not God do this by giving a person an assurance and conviction in Christ that we call faith,
br.d
OOOPS!
Now rhutchin – you’ve forgotten so soon?
Calvin’s god gives people FALSE perceptions.
Look at how many FALSE perceptions he’s given you so far.
And ONLY he knows if the perceptions he’s given you are FALSE or TRUE.
Now a FALSE perception – by definition – is a perception one doesn’t KNOW is FALSE.
Since this is the case – the only thing you have a TRUE assurance of – is that he determines your perceptions.
Whether you have been given some special kind of faith or not – is not yours to know – since you have no way of knowing if your perceptions of it are TRUE or FALSE.
Good points, Br.d. and TS00. Particularly …
Br.d.: “For the Calvinist – the Holy Spirit occasionally makes the mistake of using the word ALL – when he should have used the word SOME. And only John Calvin is DIVINE enough to know – in which verses of the Bible – the Holy Spirit uses a misleading word!” (Amazing how often Calvi-god said things in the Bible he didn’t really mean and how often he didn’t say the things he really did mean! Good thing John Calvin – Calvi-god’s right-hand man – came along when he did to clarify all of Calvi-god’s confusing writings!)
TS00: “Which scenario more truly depicts love? Which scenario more truly depicts grace? Which scenario more truly depicts justice and decency? It isn’t even a contest.” (So true! I am shocked at how Calvinists think that god is a god worth trusting and loving!)
Rhutchin: “Calvinistic regeneration is life to the dead, sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf.”
This is a misrepresentation of Calvinism. And as you say, it’s “against the rules.”
To be accurate, Calvinistic regeneration is life to A FEW lucky prechosen dead people, sight for A FEW lucky prechosen blind people, and hearing to A FEW lucky prechosen deaf people. But it is death, blindness, and deafness for everyone else, because Calvi-god deliberately made them that way!
When you say “THE dead” and “THE blind” and “THE deaf,” you deceptively imply that it is for ALL dead, blind, deaf people. And you misrepresent Calvinism.
And you ask … “Does not God do this by giving a person an assurance and conviction in Christ that we call faith, and it is this faith that enables, and ensures, that a person will believe in Christ?”
No … He does not! How do you not realize by now that we non-Calvinists do not think God forces faith on people before they can believe, in order to make them believe!?!
And about your comment to TS00 – “However, in order to satisfy your pride (presumably, for why else would you do it), you have to distort this.” That’s just pathetic. I guess if someone can’t come up with intelligent arguments about the issues, they have to start attacking the person to try to get some sort of a “win.” A low-blow! Pathetic!
Rhutchin: “Calvinistic regeneration is life to the dead, sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf.”
heather: “This is a misrepresentation of Calvinism. And as you say, it’s “against the rules.”
No, it’s not. Ephesians 2 tells us, “you God made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,..God, who is rich in mercy…even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ…” That is regeneration. Isaiah wrote, “Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it: “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, As a light to the Gentiles, To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the prison, Those who sit in darkness from the prison house. I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images. Behold, the former things have come to pass, And new things I declare; Before they spring forth I tell you of them.”
rhutchin
Calvinistic regeneration is life to the dead, sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf.
br.d
We must always remember Calvinist will speak “little” truths in order to HIDE the WHOLE truth.
Calvinistic regeneration is life to the “few”, sight to the “few”, and hearing to the “few”
Calvinistic damnation is death, blindness, deafness, and eternal torment in the lake of fire to the “MANY”.
And that of course includes the MANY of Calvinists who are TOTALLY DEPRAVED and don’t know it :-]
To clarify my comment, since the emphasis didn’t come across in the text:
I am shocked at how Calvinists think THAT god (the god of Calvinism, of course) is a god worth trusting and loving!
Heather
I am shocked at how Calvinists think THAT god (the god of Calvinism, of course) is a god worth trusting and loving!
br.d
Well when it boils down to it – they really don’t have any choice in the matter.
I remember the story of the Japanese robot engineer who programmed his robot to say “I love you” to him.
Ravi Zacharias
-quote
Here me carefully. If you are totally determined, then you are pre-wired, to think the way you do.
Your nature is that you are hard wired to come out to a single conclusion.
What is input into the computer is what ultimately comes out.
This is the bondage of total subjectivity.
br.d writes, “[Calvinists] really don’t have any choice in the matter.”
No, they don’t. They must follow the Scriptures and it is the Scriptures that tell us God is sovereign, that His understanding is infinite, and His power omnipotent. God created the universe and all that is in it and He is sovereign over His creation down to the smallest component. No one here has been able to dispute that.
br.d
“[Calvinists] really don’t have any choice in the matter.”
rhutchin
No, they don’t. They must follow the Scriptures …..
br.d
Well – technically the Calvinist is not “following scripture” because that would require Calvin’s god “Merely” permit the Calvinist to do so.
Technically – the Calvinist is simply functioning robotically – being CAUSED to follow whatever neurological impulses Calvin’s god DECREES fire in the Calvinists brain.
Ravi Zacharias
Here me carefully.
If you are totally determined, then you are pre-wired, to think the way you do.
Your nature is that you are hard wired to come out to a single conclusion.
What is input into the computer is what ultimately comes out.
This is the bondage of total subjectivity.
heather writes, “I am shocked at how Calvinists think THAT god (the god of Calvinism, of course) is a god worth trusting and loving!”
God is trustworthy because God is true and can be trusted and His word is true and can be trusted. God is worthy of our love because He created us and God will always do tight, whether to those who serve Him or refuse to serve Him.”
rhutchin
God is trustworthy……
br.d
What specifically can Calvin’s god be trusted for- specific to the PERSON of each Calvinist?
Rhutchin’s comments with my clarifications [in brackets] of what Calvinism REALLY teaches (in my opinion):
“No, they don’t. They must follow the Scriptures [because Calvi-god forces them to, they don’t have a choice] and it is the Scriptures that tell us God is sovereign [and it is Calvinists who tell God how He HAS TO exercise His sovereignty – by controlling/causing EVERYTHING, even sin and unbelief – or else He can’t be God], that His understanding is infinite [and by “understanding,” Calvinism essentially means “ordains” – rhutchin’s words: “God first understands everything that men can do; God then ordains what men will do” – which means Calvi-god preplanned, controls, and causes everything, even sin and unbelief], and His power omnipotent [and Calvinists have decided that for God to be truly omnipotent, He has to always be using His power all the time to control everything, or else He doesn’t fit their idea of a sovereign God]. God created the universe [and therefore, according to Calvinism, He must control everything in the universe, even sin and unbelief, or else He’s not God] and all that is in it and He is sovereign over His creation down to the smallest component [and once again, Calvinism’s “sovereign” means “controlling all things all the time, or else He’s not God”].”
Rhutchin also says: “God is trustworthy because God is true and can be trusted and His word is true and can be trusted.”
Again, I say (from comments I’ve already made):
“Calvi-god is known to deceive people, to say one thing but mean another, to cause people to do the opposite of what he commands them to do, to cause sin but punish people for it, to pretend to love all and to offer salvation to all but then to create most people for hell for his sick sense of justice against sin and love/grace for the “elect,” etc. For one example of Calvi-god’s deceptiveness, which I posted earlier, see John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 2, Section 11:
“… 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 IN THEIR MINDS SUCH A SENSE OF HIS GOODNESS as can be felt WITHOUT the Spirit of adoption.”
In this example, according to Calvin himself, Calvi-god himself deceives people into thinking they are elected when they are not, in order to have more reason to damn them to hell…. How then can any Calvinist be assured of their election and salvation, if Calvi-god likes to trick people into thinking they are elected when they are not?
A god who deceives cannot be trusted at any time, in any way.
Another example: If Calvi-god wrote the Bible (HE DIDN’T!), plainly saying that he loves all people and that Jesus died for all men and that he wants no one to perish, yet he really meant that he truly loved ONLY the elect and that Jesus ONLY died for the elect and that he really does want people in hell for his glory, then he deceives us all throughout the Bible.
Calvi-god’s hidden double-meanings for words and verses contradict what the Bible clearly and simply says. And if this isn’t deception then nothing is!
If Calvinists want to consider that “trustworthy” and if they want to trust a “god” like that, then that’s their choice.
I, however, would find no comfort or assurance in being “saved” by a lying, deceptive, contradictory, unloving, unjust, untrustworthy “god” like that….
Calvinists should not be commended for their fierce devotion to a god like that. They should be pitied!”
(And if that’s what Calvinists consider “trustworthy,” then the people around them had better beware of the ways the Calvinist seeks to emulate their “god,” of how the Calvinist tries to be “trustworthy” and “loving” and “gracious” like their Calvi-god.)
Heather, to JTL: I agree with you that “No one can come to the Father except a person is drawn by the Father to the Son” doesn’t say “all people” are drawn to Jesus.
But this verse does: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)
So how do we reconcile the two?”
We can note that the one verse has God drawing people to Christ and the other verse has Christ drawing people to Him by His death. So, it appears that context is different in each verse. Then, we know from experience that many people in the world never hear about Christ during their lives, so when Christ said, “all people,” He could not have meant each and every person who ever lives. John 6 tells us that God must draw each person individually to Christ except the Father draw him). John 12 says that Christ draws all people regardless who they are but does not say anything about specific individuals. So, both are true – Christ draws all people, without distinction (He draws the Jew as well as the gentile) to Him and from among those drawn to Christ by the cross, God draws individuals to Christ. IN John 6, Jesus chastised the people whom He had fed saying, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” People can be drawn to Christ to have physical needs met with no desire to serve Him.
Then, “First off, Calvinists assume that the “No one can come …” verse means that God specifically picks out certain people to “draw” to Jesus. ”
That is wrong. Calvinists take the verse to mean exactly what it says.
1. No one can come to Me…
2. …unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and
3. …I will raise him up at the last day.
If God draws each and every individual, then Christ will raise up each and every individual at the last day. If God is more selective and picks out certain people to draw the Christ, then Christ will raise up those people at the last day. Calvinists would be fine with God drawing each and every individual to Christ so that all would be saved. However, other Scriptures suggest that all will not eb saved so God cannot be drawing everyone to Christ.
Then, ‘This is an example of how I believe salvation is.”
Your analogy does not follow John 6. What do you do with the end of the verse, “and I will raise him up at the last day”? Paul reinforces this verse when he wrote, “God who has begun a good work in you [by drawing you to Christ] will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ [Christ will raise him up at the last day].” When you say, “you are assuming here that “being drawn” necessarily ends in salvation,’ that is based on the last part of the verse, so you need to address this.
RH writes: Calvinists take the verse to mean exactly what it says.
1. No one can come to Me…
2. …unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and
3. …I will raise him up at the last day.
If God draws each and every individual, then Christ will raise up each and every individual at the last day.”
Your logic is faulty because the Conclusion does NOT follow from the three truth statements laid out 1,2,and 3.
The verse would have to have a 4th statement to make your logic sound.
The 4th would have to say:
4. ALL that are drawn are irresistibly drawn and cannot resist.
But the verse simply does not say that. So your conclusion does not follow.
We would agree that all who are saved have been drawn but we see scripture clearly stating that people can resist the drawing and so not be saved.
Act 7:51 ..you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.
GraceAdict writes, “The verse would have to have a 4th statement to make your logic sound.
The 4th would have to say:
4. ALL that are drawn are irresistibly drawn and cannot resist.”
How do you understand the third part of the verse, “…3. …I will raise him up at the last day.”
The context is clear as to who experiences the raising up:
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
The one who chooses to believe.
GraceAdict writes, “The context is clear as to who experiences the raising up:
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” The one who chooses to believe.”
LOL!!! Poor GA. He just can’t deal with John 6:44. The rules of hermeneutics require that one deal with the verse in context and then move out. GA cannot do that.
rhutchin
LOL!!! Poor GA. He just can’t deal with John 6:44. The rules of hermeneutics require that one deal with the verse in context and then move out. GA cannot do that.LOL!!! Poor GA. He just can’t deal with John 6:44. The rules of hermeneutics require that one deal with the verse in context and then move out. GA cannot do that.
br.d
rhutchin – by this claim without evidence – you’ve simply shown you don’t have any evidence for your claim.
i could say poor rhutchin he has no response for John 6:44 but that would be playing your silly game of false representation.
Why don’t you provide a LOGICAL argument instead of making a blind claim.
br.d writes, ‘by this claim without evidence – you’ve simply shown you don’t have any evidence for your claim.”
LOL!!! br.d apparently does not know evidence when it is right in front to him.I asked GA very specifically to explain his understanding of 6:44, especially the end of the verse, “I will raise him up at the last day.” GA evaded the question and went on a tangent. If GA, or even you, could actually deal with 6:44, you would do so in a direct, logical manner. That you do not makes it obvious that you do not know what to do. So, maybe you could help GA explain the verse.
rhutchin
LOL!!! br.d apparently does not know evidence when it is right in front to him.I asked GA very specifically to explain his understanding of 6:44, especially the end of the verse, “I will raise him up at the last day.” GA evaded the question and went on a tangent. If GA, or even you, could actually deal with 6:44,
br.d
Well that is simply your opinion that GA evaded the question.
So why can’t you detail how his response LOGICALLY fails?
Just because you don’t like a response or it doesn’t conform to a Calvinist response doesn’t AUTO-MAGICALLY mean it fails
Instead of making false representations of people why now provide CONCLUSIVE evidence?
RH your logic is faulty when you look at this text.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
But Before we get to that:
1. We all agree that God is and has been the aggressor in any relationship where someone gets saved.
God is the one seeking the lost and wooing the lost ones. When anyone gets saved God was the pursuer and man was the responder. Luk 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
HOWEVER WE believe differently than you, in that we see in scripture that God loves the whole lost world and is providing salvation for all if they will respond in belief. Jn. 3:15-17 (we have made this argument many times so it is well documented)
2. We also see that the word teaches that man is NOT a corpse as the Calvinist claims. Since that is the case, God makes His appeal to lost mankind through multiple avenues. This would be irrational if man were corpse like:
God is seeking even through…nature…conscious…the law written on man’s heart…the gospel…the Spirit’s convicting…Ambassadors making an appeal on behalf of God…all of this is “God’s love letter to the world”.
Check these verses ou,t could you say these things about a corpse like being? :
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of THE LAW IS WRITTEN ON THEIR HEARTS, while their CONSCIENCE ALSO BEARS WITNESS, and their conflicting THOUGHTS ACCUSE or even EXCUSE them.
*Notice how uncorpse like these verses are*
Rom 1:19 For what CAN BE KNOWN ABOUT GOD is PLAIN TO THEM, because GOD HAS SHOWN IT TO THEM.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature,HAVE BEEN CLEARLY PERCEIVED, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. SO THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE.
Rom 1:21 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 foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
God is communicating His Greatness to the world through multiple avenues because the lost are NOT Corpse like.
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,And their words to the end of the world.
On Mars Hill Paul addressing pagans who are all lost he says:
Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,
Act 17:27 that THEY SHOULD SEEK GOD , and perhaps FEEL THEIR WAY TOWARD HIM AND FIND HIM. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,
The indication is that those individuals who respond positively to God’s self revelation in nature, God will bring them to a place where the gospel is heard and they can believe. I know of people who experienced this exact thing.
Now the Gospel preached is GOD making His Appeal through a man or woman. Another one of God’s communication to man.
2Co 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, GOD MAKING HIS APPEAL THROUGH US. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
As we have seen in these verses there are many ways that God is drawing men to himself he is using nature…conscious…the law written on man’s heart…the gospel…the Spirit’s convicting…Ambassadors making an appeal on behalf of God…all of this is “God’s love letter to the world”. HOWEVER NOT EVERYONE responds as they should even when God is pursuing them, revealing himself to them, making HIS APPEAL to them, drawing them, in fact many many do not.
NOW come FULL Circle back to:
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
First Lets make explicit what the verse does NOT say…the Calvinist smuggles in an idea that is not here.
The verse Does NOT say:
“ALL that the Father draws WILL COME to me and I will raise them up on the last day.”
(That is what the Calvinist wants you to believe it says BUT it does NOT say that… the Calvinist is using a slight of hand trick)
What we know from the passage and other scriptures above is that: God is pursuing, wooing, revealing, making his appeal and tugging at peoples hearts, and when anyone does respond and “Come to Him” he was first pursued by God, he was first drawn by God. Man is not the aggressor in the Relationship God is the Aggressor (in a good way). Man is the responder to God the Pursuer.
The one who “comes to Him” was not the aggressor in the relationship he simply responded to God the pursuer. Man is the pursued and God is the pursuer. To help see that lets show what I mean.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
(No one can respond and come to Jesus UNLESS the Father has first Pursued him. The one who comes responding to God’s pursuing I will raise up on the last day.)
Joh 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
The verse Does NOT say what the Calvinist wants you to believe it says. The Calvinist imports his determinism onto the text.
Brian used to spend a lot of time going back-&-forth with RH over scripture.
I remember the patience Brian had in those never-ending back-&-forths. And how it eventually occurred to Brian that the on-going strategy was nothing more than a “dancing boxer” routine designed to wear him out.
Agreed…probably a waste of time and energy…
br.d writes, “Brian used to spend a lot of time going back-&-forth with RH over scripture.”
Something no one else ever seems to be able to do. Even Brian never addressed John 6:37 and had to change John 6:44 to mean a plural and not a singular throughout. His view on God’s knowledge of the future negates God’s infinite understanding of all things. However, he does make the attempt – something br.d studious avoids.
br.d
Brian used to spend a lot of time going back-&-forth with RH over scripture.
And how it eventually occurred to Brian that the on-going strategy was nothing more than a “dancing boxer” routine designed to wear him out.
rhutchin
Something no one else ever seems to be able to do.
br.d
No one interested in pocking themselves in the eye with a sharp stick either :-]
It’s very sad Roger that you have completely misrepresented me in your last statement. I have dealt with John 6:37, the “him” of 6:44, and affirmed God’s infinite understanding often. Let me at least remind you of 6:37.
John 6, 37
John 6:37 speaks of the Father’s giving (present tense) to Christ. Therefore it would be calling Jesus a deceiver to suggest all had already been given to Christ, unless, of course, Jesus did not know the determinist doctrine very well.
If determinism was true, Jesus would have known it and He would have said – “All the Father already gave to me will come to me.” The context of John 6 clearly indicates what kind of people the Father was actively giving to the Son… They were those who were looking to the Son and believing in Him (6:40). There is nothing in this chapter about pre-creation decrees or individual election. The determinist forces those ideas into these verses because he wants to see them there.
The response of freewill is a condition that God sovereignly made part of the “giving” requirements to be met before the coming. No-one is given to Christ before creation. Remember the word “gives” in John 6:37 is present tense which clearly contradicts the determinist idea of some being eternally immutably given before creation.
The context points to drawing, looking at, believing in, and other things in that are in the process and responses of whom the Father’s gives. Jesus is explaining these things to unbelievers because He wants them to keep seeking Him, but not just for food that perishes.
If you can’t see that Jesus is being used by the Father in this context to draw people to a decision to trust Jesus for everlasting food, everlasting life… I certainly can’t share the context any more clearly than Jesus has.
Well said Brian
RH posted :br.d writes, “Brian used to spend a lot of time going back-&-forth with RH over scripture.” Something no one else ever seems to be able to do.
I have used scripture extensively to show RH where he is wrong and yet he says “Something no one else ever seems to be able to do.” In fact that is the reason BR.D warned me… NOW I know RH knows his statement is not true – yet he says it about multiple posts made in the last few days – this is simply stating a false hood. If you are willing to do that within 24 hours of people making arguments using scripture. I have NO Confidence that you are honest about the scripture itself. You can make scripture say whatever you want it to say. Even if you have to state a false hood in the process.
That seems to be the very same way you arrive at Calvinism by stating false hoods about what the Bible says. Wow RH – that is very low indeed.
GraceAdict writes, “I have used scripture extensively to show RH where he is wrong…”
There are exceptions and you are one of them.
brianwagner writes, “John 6, 37
John 6:37 speaks of the Father’s giving (present tense) to Christ. Therefore it would be calling Jesus a deceiver to suggest all had already been given to Christ, unless, of course, Jesus did not know the determinist doctrine very well.
If determinism was true, Jesus would have known it and He would have said – “All the Father already gave to me will come to me.””
We agree that God’s giving of a person to Christ precedes a person coming to Christ. Determinism establishes the certainty of events and here we see the certainty expressed by people coming to Christ because God gives him to Christ. Under determinism, there is nothing wrong with God deciding X in the past and executing X in the present.
The real issue is v40. As v40 follows v37, it would be normal, I think, to equate “coming” to Christ with “seeing and believing.” As v44 says “No one can come…,” we have the order, God gives, God draws, a person comes, Christ raises. Would “those who were looking to the Son and believing in Him” really have to be drawn to Christ? What purpose would be served by God “giving” to Christ those who are “seeing and believing” as they already belong to Christ? If not, what does it mean to “believe” in Christ?
I agree where you say, “There is nothing in this chapter about pre-creation decrees or individual election.” That has never been an issue in the understanding of v37 or v44, so I don’t know why you bring it up.
I am confused by your statement, “The context points to drawing, looking at, believing in, and other things in that are in the process and responses of whom the Father’s gives.” It appears to me that you mean the order to be: God draws; the person sees and believes; God gives; the person comes; Christ raises. The issue then is what Christ meant by “coming” to Him: if a person comes after seeing and believing.
Then, “If you can’t see that Jesus is being used by the Father in this context to draw people to a decision to trust Jesus for everlasting food, everlasting life… I certainly can’t share the context any more clearly than Jesus has.”
We agree on this. We seem to disagree on God’s motivation for doing this. I say God does it because He has decided to give the person to Christ and you seem to be saying that God does it in order determine whether to give the person to Christ but no knowing whether the person will respond to His drawing by seeing and believing.
Then, ” I have…affirmed God’s infinite understanding often.”
Actually, by denying God knowledge of some future actions, you deny God’s infinite understanding. Understanding is tied to knowledge. Take away knowledge and you take away understanding. If God does not know how a person will respond to Christ, He cannot understand the person. Thus, God cannot have infinite understanding.
Then, ” I have dealt with…the “him” of 6:44…”
I don’t remember that in much detail. You expressed a position on 6:44 but I don’t remember you explaining how it related to 6:44. That seemed fuzzy to me – if I had understood your position, I might better have remembered it.
Sorry about any misrepresentation of your positions. I find your positions confusing at times and difficult to grasp, so I explain what I understand you to say. Since you are the teacher, the burden is on you to teach.
Brian
If determinism was true, Jesus would have known it and He would have said – “All the Father already gave to me will come to me.””
rhutchin
We agree that God’s giving of a person to Christ precedes a person coming to Christ…etc
br.d
Firstly – this statement could be a deceptive misrepresentation – depending upon how it is interpreted.
So once again we have an example of how Calvinists are instructed to use EQUIVOCAL language.
Brian is highlighting the fact that the LANGUAGE of scripture does not LOGICALLY flow with the underlying assumption of Determinism.
And I would add – the model of EQUIVOCAL language we find inherent within Calvinism – is antithetical to the model of the language of scripture
Thus Calvinism’s EQUIVOCAL language model serves as a RED-FLAG!
rhutchin
Since you are the teacher, the burden is on you to teach.
br.d
Using false representations of others as an ongoing strategy is not something one learns from a divine source.
The false implication being that rh didn’t actually misrepresent Brian, it was simply Brian’s fault for not teaching him well enough. Anyone hear strains of ‘The woman YOU gave me . . .’ As Jesus showed, it is actions that reveal who one’s father is, not the robes in which one is arrayed, or the misappropriated words one espouses.
OH that is a good connection TS00!
You have a sharp mind! :-]
TS00 writes, “The false implication being that rh didn’t actually misrepresent Brian,…”
If Brian says I misrepresented him, then I did. My point is that I did it ignorantly as I did not understand his position – still don’t.
rhutchin
If Brian says I misrepresented him, then I did. My point is that I did it ignorantly as I did not understand his position – still don’t.
br.d
Well – in Theological Determinism – if by “understanding” you mean via RATIONAL thinking – then you wouldn’t have that mental functionality any way – since that would require a mental process that is exclusively LIBERTARIAN.
As William Lane Craig states it – the ability to “weight the evidence pro and con – and make a LIBERTARIAN choice between them” doesn’t exist for you.
What does exist for you is Calvin’s god determining your every perception.
And since we have numerous examples of Calvin’s god giving you all sorts of FALSE perceptions here – if it is the case that you don’t perceive the information Brian has shared with you Calvin’s god determined that would be the extent of your perception.
So in Theological Determinism its more accurate to say Calvin’s god determined you to have an inadequate perception of it.
rhutchin: “Since you are the teacher, the burden is on you to teach.”
br.d: “Using false representations of others…”
I think we should all agree that Brian is a teacher. We should remember what James said, “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.”
I’m guessing I’m not alone in thinking God is not going to lay rh’s stubborn refusal to listen to scripture and reason at the feet of Brian – or anyone else but rh.
I suspect if a Calvinist were that open minded – he probably wouldn’t be here.
rhutchin: “Since you are the teacher, the burden is on you to teach.”
br.d: “Using false representations of others…”
rhutchin
I think we should all agree that Brian is a teacher.
br.d
What Brian pointed out as the false representation in this case was the false representation I was referring to also.
My comment was to meant to highlight a pattern.
rhutchin: “Since you are the teacher, the burden is on you to teach.”
Very consistent with Calvinist thinking…sounds very much like Derek Webb, the Calvinist who rejected God…”it’s totally up to God to make me want Him”
Interesting!
Is that a direct quote from him?
I would like to get my hands on that – and its reference – do you have that?
I went back and listened to the video my quote is a bit off but the way Derek says it, it is even more astounding than how I remembered it.
So I need to correct that…I should not have used “…” marks.
But please listen to him yourself it is even more shocking. Start at the 58:00 minute mark and listen for 3 minutes at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORYcoIpIQSw
It will make you so sad how Calvinism has been so destructive.
I guess I didn’t see anything in that conversation that surprised me.
They both talk like they live in two mutually exclusive worlds.
Derek talks like he has the ability to resolve questions through scientific rational reasoning – when the doctrine he follows tells him an external mind (the THEOS) determines his every perception. He might just as well be in a hypnotic trance controlled by a THEOS – for as much as he could control his own perceptions – according to his own doctrine. And yet he thinks the opposite. This mode of DOUBLE-THINK is totally consistent with all Calvinists.
I fulfilled my burden as a teacher. My conscience is clear when I see most students understand what I’m saying. 😊 Some burden rests on the student.
Thank you Roger for affirming the Father “gives” folks to the Son… which clearly rejects the notion of their having been eternally immutably given to the Son already. So it sounds like you dont believe the Father “gave” anyone to the Son before creation… but only that He decided back then to give some to Him in the future after creation (though no decision is actually made in divine determinism). That must mean you also reject the normal Calvinistic imposed meaning of “gave” found in 17:2, 6, 9, 12, 24. Great! Those verses also only mean those given to Christ after their choice to follow Him (not before creation).
Now if you can just try to see how you are limiting the definition of infinite understanding by thinking God can only know a future locked in and limited to working out only one way. You need to try to see His infinite understanding as perfectly knowing a future with some things already determined but also with almost infinite possibilities for other good things.
My view of what Scripture teaches about infinite understanding is much better than yours. 😉 I have no more to share in this thread between us. Take the last word. Your apology was accepted. Thx.
brianwagner writes, “Thank you Roger for affirming the Father “gives” folks to the Son… which clearly rejects the notion of their having been eternally immutably given to the Son already.”
Oh, Brian!! If you give your children/grandchildren gifts at Christmas, some were likely purchased during the year preceding Christmas (my wife is on the lookout for gifts when we hit the outlets coming home from the beach). So, that God gives His elect to Christ today does not say anything about the timing of God’s decision to present those gifts. As you describe my position, “[God} decided back then to give some to Him in the future after creation (though no decision is actually made in divine determinism).” Rather than “decided” we can say, “God chose us” as Paul does -but you get the picture.
Then, ‘Those verses also only mean those given to Christ after their choice to follow Him (not before creation).”
– [God] has given [Christ] authority over all flesh,
– I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world.
– I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me,
– Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
– I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
Only Brian could tease out “after their choice to follow Him” from these verses.
Then, “Now if you can just try to see how you are limiting the definition of infinite understanding by thinking God can only know a future locked in and limited to working out only one way.”
We seem to agree that God’s infinite understanding extends to all possible events that could happen in the future. That allows God to decree that which will happen in the future. It is God’s decree that then locks in that future so that the future can only happen in one way. It may be that you don’t understand this because you tend to be a little wishy-washy in decisions you make so that your decisions can change on a moment’s notice and people know not to take you seriously. However, once God makes a decision about the future, He will not change that decision because His understanding of the future will not change, so He has no reason to change.
Then, “You need to try to see His infinite understanding as perfectly knowing a future with some things already determined but also with almost infinite possibilities for other good things. ”
Of course, God’s understanding of the future encompasses an infinite possibilities for other good things. Thus, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” When “God works” an infinite set of possibilities is reduced to one reality.
Then, “Your apology was accepted.”
Oh Brian! Do your students fall for this tactic??
brianwagner
It’s very sad Roger that you have completely misrepresented me
br.d
BING!
It becomes obvious after so many occasions and so many examples – that misrepresentation is an inherent characteristic of Calvinist language.
One must wonder how misrepresentation is the DIVINE INTENT – for the forwarding of the “so called” true gospel
GraceAdict writes, “HOWEVER WE believe differently than you, in that we see in scripture that God loves the whole lost world and is providing salvation for all if they will respond in belief. Jn. 3:15-17 (we have made this argument many times so it is well documented)”
This is not a difference. We both agree on the “…if they will believe…” part. Where we seem to disagree is the role of faith in this. Calvinists say that God gives faith to a person and with that assurance and conviction, people then believe. Faith is necessary to belief. What is the role of faith (assurance and conviction) in your system?
Then, “We also see that the word teaches that man is NOT a corpse as the Calvinist claims.”
OK. This means that the Calvinist sees a person who has no faith as analogous to a dead person in their attitude toward god and you don’t. So, can a person without faith react positively to the gospel. We agree about the need for the “…the Spirit’s convicting…” without which no one could be saved.
Then, “Check these verses out could you say these things about a corpse like being?…The indication is that those individuals who respond positively to God’s self revelation in nature, God will bring them to a place where the gospel is heard and they can believe. ”
Again, the issue is faith (plus the convicting of the Holy Spirit). Can a person respond to God’s self revelation in nature without faith or without the convicting of the Holy Spirit?
Then, on John 6:44, “The verse Does NOT say:
“ALL that the Father draws WILL COME to me and I will raise them up on the last day.”
(That is what the Calvinist wants you to believe it says BUT it does NOT say that… the Calvinist is using a slight of hand trick)”
How do you avoid that conclusion? If Christ raises each person drawn by God then doesn’t Christ raise all whom God draws? Earlier Christ said, “I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” How do you see Christ losing a person.
Then, “The verse Does NOT say what the Calvinist wants you to believe it says. The Calvinist imports his determinism onto the text.”
Yet, you cannot explain how Christ loses any person drawn to Him by God. You still are unable to deal directly with that which 6:44 explicitly states. You say, “The one who comes responding to God’s pursuing I will raise up on the last day.” In 6:44, the one God pursues is the one God draws and that is the person Christ raises.
The verse actually does say what the Calvinist wants you to believe it says. Your problem is that you cannot make it say something different. You know this because of the way you see yourself unable to argue against the verse.
rhutchin
Can a person respond to God’s self revelation in nature without faith or without the convicting of the Holy Spirit?
br.d
Calvin’s god DESIGNS the person to have a FLOPPY DRIVE program absent the human functionality called faith.
For the “elect” ones he eventually gives them a new FLOPPY DRIVE which contains that human functionality.
Up that point in time – they have no human functionality called faith.
Absent that functionality called faith – one doesn’t even have the ability to believe he exists. :-]
You have still missed the main point. You think there is only one Qualification stated in this verse ( God drawing). There are TWO.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
1. Prerequisite A. The Father must draw ( we showed how God is drawing through many means)
2. Prerequisite B The person must “come to me” ( a response to the drawing)
AFTER A and B are met then and only then – “And I will raise him up on the last day.”
If Prerequiste B is not met then no raising up, God’s drawing is genuine but it does not forcibly kidnap a person…He woos, extends His love, calls, convicts.
You skip right over the second Prerequisite. That is why you didn’t like the fact I brought in vs. 40 which focuses on the second Prerequisite
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that EVERYONE WHO LOOKS ON THE SON AND BELIEVES in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” or vs 47
Joh 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, WHOEVER BELIEVES has eternal life.
The second Prerequisite is just as important as the first one for “And I will raise him on the last day.” to occur.
It is very instructive that vs 44 is in between these two verses and these two verses clarify what you are missing. The response is required NOT just the drawing.
GraceAdict writes, “You think there is only one Qualification stated in this verse ( God drawing). There are TWO.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
1. Prerequisite A. The Father must draw ( we showed how God is drawing through many means)
2. Prerequisite B The person must “come to me” ( a response to the drawing)
AFTER A and B are met then and only then – “And I will raise him up on the last day.”
It is obvious that your Prerequisite B does not appear in the verse. The link is God draws – Christ raises. Your Prerequisite B is subsumed under Christ’s statement, “I will raise him up,” as Christ would not raise up a person except this were so. The direct linkage between “draw-raise” guarantees that the person will come. You are letting your philosophy rule your analysis of 6:44..
Then, “It is very instructive that vs 44 is in between these two verses and these two verses clarify what you are missing.
v40 is linked by context to v37 and describe those who come to Christ as a result of God giving them to Christ. v47 is linked by context to v45, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father.” The conclusion from this context is that God draws those whom He gives to Christ and God teaches those whom He draws. God drawing subsumes His gift and His teaching of those drawn while Christ’s raising subsumes the person believing. Thus, Christ can say of those drawn by God to Him, “I will raise…” thus losing none of those given to Him by God.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
GA. writes: RH assumes only ONE prerequisite but there are TWO.
1. Prerequisite A. The Father must draw ( we showed how God is drawing through many means)
2. Prerequisite B The person must “come to me” ( a response to the drawing)
AFTER A and B are met then and only then – “And I will raise him up on the last day.”
RH writes: It is obvious that your Prerequisite B does not appear in the verse. The link is God draws – Christ raises. Your Prerequisite B is subsumed under Christ’s statement, “I will raise him up,”
Notice that even the ESV arranges the grammar such that the coming and drawing are linked and not as you say.
An illustration would be the President of the US has a son and the son is talking to some young people on the street.
No one can come to me in the White House Unless my Father invites him. And I will treat him very well.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Notice in both phrases there are TWO prerequisites. The Father must invite/draw and the person Must come before that last sentence can happen.
This allows us to see the order and the prerequisites more clearly because now we are not talking about something that MUST import the Calvinistic Assumptions to make it work, inside of a theological bubble.
GraceAdcit writes, “Notice in both phrases there are TWO prerequisites. The Father must invite/draw and the person Must come before that last sentence can happen.”
You reduce the meaning of “draw” to mean “invite” where the Calvinist takes the word to be the much stringer, “drag.” The Greek is “HELKUO” and is used elsewhere of a person dragging a net to shore. Vines has on v44 that it refers to the inward drawing as by divine impulse. So, in order to reach your conclusion, you have to water down the meaning of “draw.” v44 is immediately followed by the phrase, ““It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me,” in v45. That verse can be taken to explain the “drawing” of v44.
You also water down the promise of Christ as “I will treat him very well” When Christ said, I will raise him up,” He meant, “I will give him eternal life.”
You insist that the verse has two prerequisites, God draws and the person comes. The verse only says God draws. You insert “the man comes,” but then insert “if the person chooses” and this is not implied in the text. IN v37, Jesus did include the concept of “the person coming” when He said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,” Those that God gives to Christ are those that He then draws to Christ. What happens – “They will come.” No if, and, or but.
In order to support your philosophy, you have to ignore v37 and then water down the meaning of v44.
rhutchin
You reduce the meaning of “draw” to mean “invite” where the Calvinist takes the word to be the much stringer, “drag.”
br.d
Yes the Calvinist has a DIVINE IRRESISTIBLE FORCE which does the dragging.
Its interesting that the same Greek root word/derivative are also found in James 1:14
ἐξελκόμενος – Being Drawn Away [Present Participle Middle]
From ἐξέλκω [to entice (Strong’s); to drag out (Mounce)] – from ἐξ – [out of] and ἑλκύω – to drag
So accordingly the Calvinist reading would be:
Each person is tempted when their desires are enticed and made evil – being dragged away by a DIVINE IRRESISTIBLE FORCE (i.e. Calvin’s god)
Now the Calvinist can site the fact that in one case – a human attribute ἐπιθυμίας “desire” is said to be doing the dragging.
While in the other case a human attribute “desire” is absent – and the dragging is being done directly by Calvin’s god.
So the Calvinist can punt to secondary means “desire” in one case – where that secondary means is absent in the other.
But as we know – Calvinist interpretation is governed by his holding Universal Divine Causal Determinism as canon.
So when the Calvinist compares his canon – Universal Divine Causal Determinism – with the canon of scripture (any verse) – the resulting interpretation will be guaranteed – which is why the Calvinist incorporates the concept of an IRRESISTIBLE DIVINE FORCE (i.e. the DECREE).
So in both cases (re: salvation as well as all sin and evil) an IRRESISTIBLE DIVINE FORCE is the CAUSAL FORCE that is at work.
And this lines up with the Calvinist’s interpretation of the ἐνεργοῦντος “work” in Ephesians 1:11
This word ἐνεργοῦντος is where we get our English word “energy”.
So for the Calvinist – the the SOURCE/ORIGIN of everything that comes to pass – (re: salvation as well as all sin and evil) is an IRRESISTIBLE DIVINE ENERGY.
As the Calvinist can say:
Calvin’s god ENFORCES all things to come to pass by using a FORCE that FORCES without FORCING. :-]
But of course – the whole business of DRAGGING would be a mute point – if the word “ALL” in the text is interpreted as “ALL” without exception. And it is interesting to note – that that is the MAJORITY view.
It is only the Calvinist who interprets the word “ALL” to LOGICALLY equate to the word “SOME”.
It would be so much less misleading if the Holy Spirit had just used the more precise word in the first place
But alas – we need John Calvin to inform us where the Holy Spirit uses misleading terms! :-]
br.d writes, “But of course – the whole business of DRAGGING would be a mute point – if the word “ALL” in the text is interpreted as “ALL” without exception. And it is interesting to note – that that is the MAJORITY view.”
It is impossible to understand br.d on this point as he does not tell us the verse that has caught his attention.
v37 says, ““All that the Father gives Me…” where”ALL” is “ALL without exception” but qualified by “that the Father gives.” It is only those that the Father gives who come to Jesus but it is ALL without exception who come. This is basic Calvinism. Where br.d says, “It is only the Calvinist who interprets the word “ALL” to LOGICALLY equate to the word “SOME” we understand that God does not give ALL (meaning each and every individual) to Christ but only a subset of the human population, so that we understand that God gives “SOME” of the entire human population to Christ and not ALL the human population.
This is reinforced in v39, “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.” Here ALL is ALL without exception but still qualified by “that the Father gives” so we don’t read this as the entire human population but only some of the human population – those that the Father gives.
In v45, “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
Here “ALL” is qualified by the phrase, “taught by God.” Here, again, God does not have to teach the entire human population but only those He gives to Christ and this can be a subset of the human population or SOME of the human population.
I did not see the word, “ALL,’ anywhere else in John 6, so I don’t know what br.d was talking about.
And thus the rest of what br.d posted is also at play.
Since in Calvinism – the word “ALL” LOGICALLY equates to the word “SOME” we are indebted to John Calvin – for clearing up the misconception that the MAJORITY VIEW have on the word “ALL”.
Oh if only John Calvin had inspired the text instead of the Holy Spirit – the MAJORITY VIEW would not be the wrong view. :-]
br.d writes, “Now the Calvinist can site the fact that in one case – a human attribute ἐπιθυμίας “desire” is said to be doing the dragging.
While in the other case a human attribute “desire” is absent – and the dragging is being done directly by Calvin’s god.”
Yes, a human attribute, human desires, drags a person into sin by means of temptation.
Regarding salvation, there is no human desire for Christ, so God must drag the person to Christ.
God may arrange the temptation as He did in the garden when He gave Satan the ability to enter the garden to tempt Eve. However, God did not tempt Eve, but had given her the ability to develop desires based on her interactions with Adam and her environment. Thus, God could observe all the action in the garden while doing nothing to stop either Eve eating the fruit or giving the fruit to Adam and he eating also.
br.d
Now the Calvinist can site the fact that in one case – a human attribute ἐπιθυμίας “desire” is said to be doing the dragging.
While in the other case a human attribute “desire” is absent – and the dragging is being done directly by Calvin’s god.”
rhutchin
Yes, a human attribute, human desires, drags a person into sin by means of temptation.
Regarding salvation, there is no human desire for Christ, so God must drag the person to Christ.
br.d
And thus the rest of what br. posted concerning that position is also in play.
That ALL human activities (re salvation and all sin and evil) are CAUSED by a DIVINE IRRESISTIBLE FORCE/ENERGY.
And the LOGICAL consequences are as Dr. Neal Judisch states:
-quote
Whether or not the control Calvinists imagine exerted by Calvin’s god is immediate or mediated through secondary causes, is ultimately an irrelevant red-herring. For the ethical problem remains: The CONTROL IS THERE. And that CONTROL IS INTENTIONAL, SUPER-OPERATIVE, AND UNREMITTING. In the Calvinist scheme it isn’t within one’s power to alter, affect, or to “do otherwise” than what one is being controlled to think, choose, desire, do.
In other words Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT the creature to refrain from salvation or to refrain from sin and evil.
NO ALTERNATE POSSIBILITY is made available to the creature.
br.d writs, ‘In other words Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT the creature to refrain from salvation or to refrain from sin and evil.”
The sin nature knows only to sin.
Faith knows only to desire Christ.
rhutchin
br.d writs, ‘In other words Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT the creature to refrain from salvation or to refrain from sin and evil.”
rhutchin
The sin nature knows only to sin.
Faith knows only to desire Christ.
br.d
And these are simply “means” which Calvin’s god uses to NOT PERMIT the creature to refrain from salvation or to refrain from sin and evil.
But as LOGIC shows concerning any “means” – it is SUFFICIENT but not NECESSARY.
Calvin’s god can use any alternative “means” he wants to – to NOT PERMIT the creature from refraining from salvation or refraining from sin and evil.
Thus in the Calvinist scheme “means” are totally discretionary.
Since Calvin’s god is not obligated to create man with a sin nature – it LOGICALLY follows man is not obligated to have one.
This displays the model of Calvinist ethics:
Calvin’s god creates sin so that he can save a few from from what he created.
Anyone can set all houses on fire in order to save a few.
It doesn’t take a divine being to pull that one off :-]
br.d writes, “Anyone can set all houses on fire in order to save a few.
It doesn’t take a divine being to pull that one off :-]”
As God did when His angel went across Egypt and killed the first-born but spared the Israelites. Kinds hard to do that without being divine.
Or when God saves His Elect and passed over the Reprobate. Kinds hard to do that without being divine.
br.d
Anyone can set all houses on fire in order to save a few.
It doesn’t take a divine being to pull that one off :-]”
rhutchin
As God did when His angel went across Egypt and killed the first-born but spared the Israelites. Kinds hard to do that without being divine.
br.d
NAH!
Anyone could do that with a brain and the right equipment! :-]
rhutchin
Or when God saves His Elect and passed over the Reprobate. Kinds hard to do that without being divine.
br.d
Of course in this case “pass over” is another SEMANTIC sign of Gnostic DUALISM where so many things in Calvinism appear in antithetical pairs: Where so many things appear as: “Good-Evil”, “True-False”, and “Yes-No”
In this case Calvin’s god – as the DIVINE POTTER – DESIGNS the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
So in this case DESIGNING equates to “passing over”.
Additionally – if we were to use Egypt as an analogy for the Calvinist model of salvation – in which Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT the vast majority of his creatures from escaping the bondage of sin which he DESIGNED
Per that model – it would LOGICALLY follow Calvin’s god NOT PERMITTING the vast majority of the Israelites from escaping the bondage of Egypt
br.d writes, “So accordingly the Calvinist reading would be: Each person is tempted when their desires are enticed and made evil – being dragged away by a DIVINE IRRESISTIBLE FORCE (i.e. Calvin’s god)”
Context, Context, Context. “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own [irresistible] desires and enticed.” This is not speaking of God drawing a person by temptation as James says in v13, immediately before v14, “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.” What br.d has done is bad hermeneutics.
br.d
So accordingly the Calvinist reading would be: Each person is tempted when their desires are enticed and made evil – being dragged away by a DIVINE IRRESISTIBLE FORCE (i.e. Calvin’s god)”
rhutchin
Context, Context, Context. “But each one is …..etc
br.d
Already accounted for in my follow up post.
It is nonsensical to declare blithely that ‘the issue is faith’, which falsely portrays the idea that man is personally responsible for whether or not he has faith. Then, out of the other side of your mouth, you promote the lie that God deliberately (and cruelly) makes men incapable of ‘faith’, makes an unreasonable demand that those whom he incapacitated come up with this impossible ‘faith’ anyway, then, in reprehensible partiality hands out a limited number of ‘faith tickets’ to some randomly selected chosen few and destroys the remaining cursed and helpless ‘faithless’ ones. Who have no faith only because Calvi-god ensured they could and would not. This is not only doublespeak, but it is horrific, unthinkable evil.
Under Calvinism it is not ‘a faith issue’. It is a cruel god issue. Substitute faith with any other tangible factor, say hair. Calvi-god curses all men with baldness, then insists that only those who brush their hair can be saved. Of course, bald men cannot brush their hair, so Calvi-god is obviously being malicious and cruel. Then he makes a big show about granting a select few men the gift of hair, so that they can have the ability to brush their hair and be saved.
It would be obtuse to say it was a ‘hair issue’; anyone could see through that silliness. It is a cruel, mocking, controlling god issue, and that is all there is to it. It would also be obtuse to assert that this ugly wickedness of Calvi-god is somehow glorifying and praiseworthy. It is not – it is despicable.
A truly loving, merciful God would not cruelly curse all men with inability – in response to the sin of another, a sin they had absolutely nothing to do with. Wouldn’t that be something a god who claims to be love could surely grasp? Don’t curse the people, make unreasonable demands or get destructively angry at the very things you wreaked upon them. It’s about as simple as it gets.
Well stated TS00 — “Under Calvinism it is not ‘a faith issue’. It is a cruel god issue. ”
They are Full of cover ups, evasions, ignoring implications, word games, tricks in logic and then when it is pointed out their famous claim that you brought attention to “You are using human logic” Any logic that does not end up at TULIPS is called human logic even if it is sound and totally Biblical. Any logic that ends up at TULIPS no matter how distorted and unbiblical it is will be called “true Christianity” They have placed TULIPS above the WORD and they make the WORD conform to their beloved Augustine and Calvin.
TULIPS – The S stands for Sovereign means Meticulous Determinism.
Interesting that for RH reading what comes just before his one verse seems a terrible error to him.
RH: “How do you understand the third part of the verse, “…3. …I will raise him up at the last day.”
GA: “The context is clear as to who experiences the raising up: Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” The one who chooses to believe.”
GA: “Interesting that for RH reading what comes just before his one verse seems a terrible error to him.”
It is obvious that GA knows he has a problem (as do all non-Calvinists) with the last part of John 6:44, “…I will raise him up at the last day.” That’s fine. He doesn’t have a way to get around it and that is just the way it is.
However, GA refers to v40 to establish those whom God draws. As “The context is clear as to who experiences the raising up:” and he concludes that the one God draws is “The one who chooses to believe.” GA can’t quite explain why we should understand it that way. One might also conclude that the one God draws is the one who chooses to believe. Why would this be the case? Because we know from v45, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ.” GA wants us to believe that only those who believe can then be taught by God rather than those taught by God being those who believe.
Let’s look at the context for v40:
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.
40 “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
We see that v39-40 both begin “his is the will of the Father who sent Me,” and both end, “I will raise him up at the last day.” So we know that the same people are the subject of God’s will and Christ’s raising on the last day.
Thus, …”all God has given Christ …” are the same as “everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him…” Because of the order of the narrative, we understand that those whom God gives to Christ are those who then see the son and believe. If we were to read this to mean that a person must first sees the son and believes, then there would be no reason for God to give that person to Christ as the person’s belief means that he already belongs to Christ.
Then, GA seems to want us to understand this to mean that God gives certain people to Christ resulting in these people believing and then God draws them to Christ. If a person already believes, why then draw them to Christ? The natural reading of John 6 is:
1. All that the Father gives Christ will come to Christ;
2. No one can come to Christ
3. God draws the person to Christ
4. The person drawn by God is taught by God
5. The person taught by God believes in Christ.
The problem for the non-Calvinist begins with v37, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,” and continues into v44, “I will raise him up at the last day.” GA seems to understand this and he appears not to like it.
rhuthin
It is obvious that GA knows he has a problem (as do all non-Calvinists) with the last part of John 6:44, “…I will raise him up at the last day.” That’s fine. He doesn’t have a way to get around it and that is just the way it is.
br.d
Again you’re making a claim – with no LOGICAL evidence
What’s wrong with providing that?
rhutchin
Because of the order of the narrative, we understand that those whom God gives to Christ are those who then see the son and believe.
br.d
And how do you know that that supposition is CONFIRMED by all scholarship?
rhutchin
If we were to read this to mean that a person must first sees the son and believes, then there would be no reason for God to give that person to Christ as the person’s belief means that he already belongs to Christ.
br.d
And how do you know that that reasoning is CONFIRMED by all scholarship?
rhutchin
The problem for the non-Calvinist begins with v37, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,” and continues into v44, “I will raise him up at the last day.” GA seems to understand this and he appears not to like it.
br.d
But you haven’t even brought in the doctrine of the DIVINE IRRESISTIBLE FORCE into your equation here.
Where is the DIVINE IRRESISTIBLE FORCE – which is added to the Calvinist’s reading of the text CONFIRMED by all scholarship?
Rhutchin says that “Calvinistic regeneration is life to the dead, sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf” is NOT a misrepresentation of Calvinism.
I stand by my comment that it is, because Calvinist regeneration is not for “THE” dead, blind, and deaf. It’s only for A FEW dead, blind, and deaf.
Let’s pretend that you own a zoo that has 100 of each kind of animal in cages. And I work for you taking care of the animals. And one day, two tigers escape from the cage, but I call you up and say “THE tigers escaped.” Would that be an accurate assessment of what happened? Did “THE tigers” escape, when in reality only 2 out of 100 escaped? Wouldn’t any logical person assume that “the tigers” means “the tigers” and not “a couple tigers”? And they would say that I misrepresented the situation.
If I had 50 kids, and 2 went to bed early, and my husband called and asked where the kids were and I told him “The kids went to bed early,” would it not be misleading, if only 2 out of 50 went to bed early while 48 of them are still up and playing?
If you want to say that you’re not misrepresenting what Calvi-god accomplished then that’s your choice. But I see it differently.
Calvinism, in my opinion, tries to make it sound like Calvi-god did great things out of great love for many people, that he swooped in to save the day for many people, rescuing them from hell-fire, while everyone else, sadly, faces an eternal death that they supposedly deserve.
But I echo what Graceadict said earlier, in response to Calvi-god supposedly simply “passing over” those he didn’t elect:
“The Calvinist tries to paint a picture of their Calvi-god being loving, kind and compassionate when it is not the case from what they actually believe about their Calvi-god. They make it sound like the Calvi-god is just passing through the Universe and just happens to come upon a community of poor miserable creatures who have nothing good about them plus they are all drowning without hope and then their Calvi-god, who is just passing by, decides out of His kindness to pluck some of those miserable souls from the ocean that would certainly destroy all of them. The Calvi-god who was just passing by is sooo good he saved some of them. He didn’t need to save any but He saved some for His Glory. Isn’t He Good? That is the picture that they try and leave the unsuspecting with BUT we know better and Heather you hit the nail on the head saying: “Totally misleading! Calvi-god did not “pass over the rest.” He created them specifically so he could hate them and send them to hell. That’s not “passing over them.””
Calvi-god is less like a gracious savior who seeks, out of love, to save THE dead, blind, and dead … and, as I pointed out earlier, he is more like a psychopathic lunatic who walks up to someone at a park and says “I am claiming you for my own because I love you so much” and then he runs around slaughtering everyone else around them, and then he tells the “chosen” person, “See how much I love you and how merciful I am to you. I spared you when I could have destroyed you too.”
Any logical, rational person would call that a “dangerous psychopathic lunatic.”
But Calvinists call him “God.”
A “loving, merciful, just God.”
And worse yet is that Calvi-god doesn’t just slaughter those people, he makes them specifically so that he can slaughter them. He causes them to be the unbelieving sinners they are just so he can put them in hell, punishing them for the things he causes.”
And let’s face it, Calvi-god hates and condemns far more “dead, blind, and deaf people” than he bothers to save, even though it’s well within his power to save all. But therein lies Calvi-god’s “need” for evil. He needs evil to highlight how good he is. He causes evil for his glory. He sends people to hell for his glory. To him, evil is good and Calvi-god-glorifying! And so, ultimately, evil is only a meaningless construct in our own minds that we apply to some unpleasant situations, because to Calvi-god, all evil is good and glorifying to him, even creating people for hell and “punishing” them for the things he caused them to do!
Which commenter out there said (in another post) that Calvi-god can get away with any sort of evil simply by appealing to his “sovereignty”?
So true! Calvinists try to excuse anything and everything Calvi-god does by simply saying “Oh, well, he’s sovereign and can do whatever he wants for his glory and plans. And it’s a mystery we don’t have to understand. We just have to accept it, like good little Calvinists. Who are you to talk back to God!?!”
Well, when a theology calls evil “good” and makes God the ultimate cause/controller of all evil and presents God as someone who constantly deceives people by saying things He doesn’t really mean and not saying the things He really does mean … then we had better question it! Because Truth is on the line!
Rhutchin: “LOL!!! Poor GA…. LOL!!! br.d apparently … LOL!!! Calvinists identify … LOL!!! When it comes to Calvinism … LOL!!! OK, maybe you are not as bright as I think. … LOL!!! Double-talk by the non-Calvinist. … LOL!!! So, br.d wasn’t referring to history … LOL!!! The only choice that matters …”
Does anyone else think of a brain-washed victim of the Joker laughing uncontrollably all by himself in a corner when he “LOLs” like this?
Just wondering.
(And I’m still not totally convinced that rhutchin isn’t really just a super-fast Calvinist computer program that’s programmed to spit out classic Calvinist arguments in a moment’s notice, unable to really go beyond repeating the same preprogrammed responses over and over again.)
Heather writes:
“(And I’m still not totally convinced that rhutchin isn’t really just a super-fast Calvinist computer program that’s programmed to spit out classic Calvinist arguments in a moment’s notice, unable to really go beyond repeating the same preprogrammed responses over and over again.)”
I’ve learned that’s pretty much what you get with Calvinism. They memorize the script, then regurgitate the official ‘answer’. It’s pretty much like a programmed computer, with no real thought going on. When your system is based on ‘authority’ there is little room for independent thought or place for growth in wisdom.
heather writes, “…spit out classic Calvinist arguments in a moment’s notice, unable to really go beyond repeating the same preprogrammed responses over and over again.”
Keep repeating the same Scriptures until someone can show that the Calvinists got them wrong.
heather
spit out classic Calvinist arguments in a moment’s notice, unable to really go beyond repeating the same preprogrammed responses over and over again.”
rhutchin
Keep repeating the same Scriptures until someone can show that the Calvinists got them wrong.
br.d
Keep repeating the same IRRATIONAL – DOUBLE-SPEAK – and when necessary walking on the edge of dishonesty – until someone can show why everyone shouldn’t be in that ditch with them.
br.d writes, ‘Keep repeating the same IRRATIONAL – DOUBLE-SPEAK – and when necessary walking on the edge of dishonesty – until someone can show why everyone shouldn’t be in that ditch with them.”
Even br.d does not challenge the Calvinist understanding of specific Scriptures. All he can do is spout false claims above as if that means something.
br.d
‘Keep repeating the same IRRATIONAL – DOUBLE-SPEAK – and when necessary walking on the edge of dishonesty – until someone can show why everyone shouldn’t be in that ditch with them.”
rhutchin
Even br.d does not challenge the Calvinist understanding of specific Scriptures.
br.d
An exegetical labyrinth of justifications specifically designed to make texts conform to a UNIVERSAL proposition.
Which if applied consistently results in conclusions the Calvinist deems distasteful.
Who wouldn’t want all that! :-]
rhutchin
All he can do is spout false claims above as if that means something.
br.d
Scrutinize every word of Calvinism’s strategically misleading language – and it all becomes quite visible!
Wait and watch – the Calvinist can’t help but provide the evidence :-]
For all that is secret will eventually be brought into the open, and everything that is concealed will be brought to light and made known to all.
Br.d. says: “Brian used to spend a lot of time going back-&-forth with RH over scripture.
And how it eventually occurred to Brian that the on-going strategy was nothing more than a “dancing boxer” routine designed to wear him out.”
To which rhutchin replies: “Something no one else ever seems to be able to do.”
To which br.d replies: “No one interested in pocking themselves in the eye with a sharp stick either :-]”
Heather says: Br.d, this made me laugh out loud. Thank you 🙂
Heather… and I didn’t want to be an enabler of his bad dancing habit. 😉
Graceadict referred to the “uncorpse-like” verses where God tells people to seek Him.
To which rhutchin basically replies (in essence) that a “dead person” needs God to give them faith first so that they can believe/seek Him.
Amos 5:4: “This is what the LORD says to Israel: “Seek me and live;”
If they have to be brought to life first (given faith) in order to seek Him, then why would God tell them to seek Him in order to live?
God tells Israel “Seek Me … and live.” Seek Me … to find life. If they aren’t “living” yet, then they are “dead.” And so then God Himself is telling “dead people” to seek Him. And He does this because He knows that they CAN seek Him, even in their “dead” state. Because they are simply spiritually dead (cut off from God), not physically dead. But God knows their brains still work, and He expects them to use their living brains to seek Him and to find life.
It’s the Calvinist who presupposes that “spiritually dead” is the same thing as “physically dead” (unable to do ANYTHING except lay there all dead, unless God MAKES you do it). But that’s a totally wrong presupposition and a misleading analogy to start with. But they can’t seem to let it go and see it any differently. (Must be because Calvi-god decreed it so!)
heather writes, “If they have to be brought to life first (given faith) in order to seek Him, then why would God tell them to seek Him in order to live?”
In Romans 10, Paul wrote:
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? …
– So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
By this, we know that the preaching of the word and faith derived from that preaching is necessary to salvation. If God tells people to seek Him, then He must be providing “faith” through the prophesying/preaching of His word.
Without faith, it is not possible for a person to make any move toward God.
That is basic Calvinism 101. If you disagree, then we have a clear point of disagreement where one side says, X and the other, Y.
heather
If they have to be brought to life first (given faith) in order to seek Him, then why would God tell them to seek Him in order to live?
rhutchin
preaching is NECESSARY to salvation.
br.d
Here is another example of a LOGICAL fallacy to add to Calvinism’s list.
Preaching is classified as a “means” – and a “means” by definition is SUFFICIENT but not NECESSARY.
If Calvin’s god is UNABLE to accomplish [X] without preaching – then Calvin’s god is not omnipotent.
rhutchin
Without faith, it is not possible for a person to make any move toward God.
If God tells people to seek Him, then He must be providing “faith” through the prophesying/preaching of His word.
br.d
Heathers question still stands
If Calvin’s god is omnipotent -then he can change a person’s condition with or without that person seeking him.
Seeking is LOGICALLY impossible without Calvin’s god ZAPPING
Why then does Calvin command a person to do something that is LOGICALLY impossible for them to do?
rhutchin
That is basic Calvinism 101. If you disagree, then we have a clear point of disagreement where one side says, X and the other, Y.
br.d
Agreement based on a LOGICAL fallacy would only produce agreement of an IRRATIONAL falsehood
br.d writes, “Preaching is classified as a “means” – and a “means” by definition is SUFFICIENT but not NECESSARY.”
If preaching the gospel resulted in all being saved, then preaching would be sufficient for salvation. However, preaching is the means by which God draws a person to Christ and it is the means by which faith is conveyed to a person – thus preaching is necessary to salvation and without preaching, no one could be saved.
br.d
Preaching is classified as a “means” – and a “means” by definition is SUFFICIENT but not NECESSARY.
rhutchin
If preaching the gospel resulted in all being saved, then preaching would be sufficient for salvation.
…..without preaching no one could be saved
br.d
What you’ve done is added one fallacy (i.e. red-herring) on top of your current LOGICAL fallacy.
On the red-herring fallacy:
No one is claiming that preaching *must* RESULT in anything.
On the first LOGICAL fallacy:
Distributing drinking water in plastic bottles is a SUFFICIENT way of distribution
But drinking water can be distributed in other ways.
Therefore plastic bottles are NOT NECESSARY.
Likewise:
If preaching is NECESSARY for the accomplishing of [X] then Calvin’s god is UNABLE to accomplish [X] without preaching.
It LOGICALLY follows – Calvin’s god is NOT omnipotent.
br.d writes, “If preaching is NECESSARY for the accomplishing of [X] then Calvin’s god is UNABLE to accomplish [X] without preaching.
It LOGICALLY follows – Calvin’s god is NOT omnipotent.”
In God’s plan, He uses preaching (in all its forms) to present the gospel and convey faith to His elect.
br.d
If preaching is NECESSARY for the accomplishing of [X] then Calvin’s god is UNABLE to accomplish [X] without preaching.
It LOGICALLY follows – Calvin’s god is NOT omnipotent.”
rhutchin
In God’s plan, He uses preaching (in all its forms) to present the gospel and convey faith to His elect.
br.d
Currently Mountain Valley Spring water – which is said to be one of the most popular – has as their plan to use plastic bottles for the distribution of their product – to convey its attributes to the consumer.
LOGICALLY it follows – the use of the plastic bottle is SUFFICIENT but not NECESSARY for that end.
Whether or not Calvin’s god wants to ZAP his elect like Frankenstein – or insert an updated floppy drive into their foreheads – is totally Calvin’s god’s discretion. He can use any “means” he chooses.
But if any “means” is NECESSARY for Calvin’s god to accomplish [X] then Calvin’s god is not omnipotent.
That is LOGIC.
heather writes, “It’s the Calvinist who presupposes that “spiritually dead” is the same thing as “physically dead” (unable to do ANYTHING except lay there all dead, unless God MAKES you do it). But that’s a totally wrong presupposition and a misleading analogy to start with.”
It’s a good analogy. Just as a physically dead person cannot, and does not desire to, do anything that a living person does, so a spiritually dead person cannot, and does not desire to, do anything that a spiritually alive person does.
Rhutchin quotes me: “It’s the Calvinist who presupposes that “spiritually dead” is the same thing as “physically dead” (unable to do ANYTHING except lay there all dead, unless God MAKES you do it). But that’s a totally wrong presupposition and a misleading analogy to start with.”
Rhutchin replies: “It’s a good analogy. Just as a physically dead person cannot, and does not desire to, do anything that a living person does, so a spiritually dead person cannot, and does not desire to, do anything that a spiritually alive person does.”
Heather says: Okay, so you say that a spiritually dead person is JUST LIKE a dead body, in that they CANNOT and DO NOT desire to do ANYTHING that a living person does.
Guess what else physically dead people CANNOT do that living people can?
Sin. Rebel against God. Disobey. Or even DESIRE to do any of these things, as you said.
A physically dead person can do NOTHING that a living person can do, as per your statement. Therefore a spiritually dead person who is JUST LIKE a physically dead body, according to Calvinism, can’t do ANYTHING either, such as sin or disobey. Because sinning and disobeying would be doing something. But they can’t do ANYTHING. Because they are as dead as dead bodies.
And, as you said, a dead person CANNOT and DOES NOT do ANYTHING, nor do they DESIRE to do anything. And therefore, those who aren’t saved (you’d call them the non-elect) are not doing ANYTHING, not sinning nor even WANTING to sin. Dead bodies can’t desire to do anything, therefore spiritually dead people cannot even desire to sin. So much for the Calvinists claim that “dead people” can only always want to sin and only always choose to sin. “Desiring” and “choosing” would be doing something, but dead people can’t do ANYTHING, as per your statement.
And therefore, they are ultimately punished not for their sins, but for doing NOTHING!
Yeah, what a just, righteous Calvi-god! Punishing poor, innocent dead-as-dead-bodies people who have done NOTHING wrong because they can’t do ANYTHING at all!
(And if you’re gonna claim that spiritually dead people do sin and do want to sin, then what we have here would be Calvi-god playing with “dead bodies,” causing them to look like they’re sinning and pretending that they desire to sin because … “dead people” can’t do anything but be dead. So Calvi-god plays with dead people, acting out scenarios that he then punishes them for. How is that NOT puppetry!?!)
heather writes, ‘Guess what else physically dead people CANNOT do that living people can?
Sin. Rebel against God. Disobey. Or even DESIRE to do any of these things, as you said. ”
Yes, and spiritually dead people cannot not sin or desire to do anything pleasing to God..
Then, “Therefore a spiritually dead person who is JUST LIKE a physically dead body, according to Calvinism, can’t do ANYTHING either, such as sin or disobey.”
A physically dead person cannot do anything a physically alive person can do. A spiritually dead person cannot do anything a spiritually alive person can do. Without faith a A spiritually dead person cannot please God while a spiritually alive person who has faith can please God. Despite your quibbles, you seem to understand the analogy between physically dead people and spiritually dead people.
A faulty understanding of Dead is what leads to many other wrong doctrines:
1. Dead as in “separation” from a Fellowshiping relationship with God, that they had in the garden.
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely *DIE*.”
We know they ate and what happened immediately was “death” separation from Fellowship with God. YET we see them STILL Communicating with God and understanding God NOT at all like a corpse: Notice carefully the Abilities Retained by “Dead Adam and Dead Eve”
Gen 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”
Gen 3:10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”
Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
Both of them in a state called “dead” but still able to hear, interact, understand and respond to God.
2. Dead as in “physical death” is Separation of soul and spirit from the Body. When we are dead physically we do not cease to exist or even cease to have reasoning powers. Notice how the rich man and Abraham who are “physically dead” yet still reason, still understand, still talk. The idea of death is separation.
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
Luk 16:24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’
Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.
Luk 16:26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’
Luk 16:27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house—
Luk 16:28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’
3. Second death = permanent Separation from God.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Rev 20:15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
If we understand Death as Separation not ceasing to exist then all the problems are very easy solved Biblically and Logically.
Poor translation leads to much wrong thinking. In truth it should read something like ‘dying you shall die’. This suggests a far different understanding. It seems to suggest that it is the fear of death that leads to spiritual deadness, or separation from God.
What Jesus did in his resurrection was remove the curse and fear of death. Men could once again trust that God was good, desired life and blessing, rather than a wrathful, vengeful tyrant. Unless one is a Calvinist.
I recall the many who passed through my former Calvinist church in the decade plus I was there. So many left, shaking their heads, at the negativity, the dark picture of God, the emphasis on sin, wrath and ‘justice’. And so, so little mention of love. But let’s face it, who can, with straight face, mention a God who intentionally creates people for eternal conscious torment and ‘love’ in the same breath?
I think the Calvinist punt to spiritual deadness is a bluff they use to make their system *APPEAR* to line up with scripture.
The truth is – in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the creature is ALWAYS 100% alive to the SECRET will.
Here are the LOGICAL facts about the two wills:
1) The SECRET will is the “determinative” will over all things – and all creatures respond to it 100%.
2) When the two wills are in agreement the ENUNCIATED will functions as a TRUE representation of the SECRET will
3) When the two wills are in opposition the ENUNCIATED will functions as a FALSE representation of the SECRET will.
This DUALISM of wills – is is just another manifestation of the Gnostic element of DUALISM inherent within Calvinism.
Where so many things appear in antithetical pairs.
Since Calvin’s god totally controls every micro aspect of every creature – there is really no such thing as a creature being dead to Calvin’s god. Or they can be declared dead – yet 100% alive at the same time (i.e. DUALISM).
So as to the spiritual deadness spoken of by scripture – Calvinism can only produce a *SIMULATION* of it.
And they produce that *SIMULATION* using SEMANTIC language tricks.
Rhutchin quotes me: “Guess what else physically dead people CANNOT do that living people can?
Sin. Rebel against God. Disobey. Or even DESIRE to do any of these things, as you said.”
He replies: “Yes, and spiritually dead people cannot not sin or desire to do anything pleasing to God.”
Heather says: Did you think no one would notice the double negative you slipped in, reversing what I said?
And then he says: “A physically dead person cannot do anything a physically alive person can do. … Despite your quibbles, you seem to understand the analogy between physically dead people and spiritually dead people.”
Heather says: Yes, I do understand it which is why I can see what’s wrong with it. I understand that rhutchin (and other Calvinists) is saying that being spiritually dead is just like being physically dead, and that since a physically-dead body can do NOTHING, then those who are spiritually dead can also do NOTHING. And so if a physically-dead person can’t do ANYTHING (as he claims) then a spiritually-dead person can’t do ANYTHING either, which would include sinning or even wanting to sin.
This defeats Calvinism’s own assertion that spiritually-dead people are sinners who want to sin all the time. Sinning and even wanting to sin are things that physically-dead people CANNOT do, and therefore (according to rhutchin’s reasoning) they are things that the spiritually-dead person CANNOT do either. And this then turns Calvi-god into a god who plays with dead-people puppets and who punishes the non-elect (spiritually-dead people) for doing NOTHING, the only thing they can do.
Let it be known that rhutchin himself called the “spiritually-dead people are just like physically-dead bodies” comparison a “good analogy.”
And I agree, when looked at from this angle!
test
Mr Kemp,
I am not a Calvinist. I believe that God has sovereignly given man a libertarian free will, that He predetermined events and searches for men through whom He can show Himself strong in.
I recently came across Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1-2. Please help me understand how God prophecies of Cyrus in particular about 100 years beforehand, and yet Cyrus could have theoretically refused to rebuild the temple… is this simply God displaying His omniscience/foreknowledge by this prophecy? How does it work that God knows the future completely but doesn’t control it directly? (I understand that He sometimes uses supernatural persuasive means to accomplish His predetermined plans)
Hello Rebecca and welcome!
Erick and Dr. Flowers – due to a heavy schedule are not typically interactive here in terms of carrying on conversations.
If you’re not familiar with Dr. William Lane Craig – please let me point to you his answering your question.
Here is the first link:
The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXUMhSmeivE
He provides a second presentation of this which is more formal and more lengthily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=882AGGzDJmk
Blessings!
Thank you, br.d, for that link. Dr. William Lane Craig’s explanation was quite understandable.
I’m wondering if this is the explanation of foreknowledge that dr. flowers and others refer to as the typical Arminian view of “God looking through the corridors of time and electing those who He foresaw would choose Him”… this view is usually portrayed as odd or not scholarly bc it is contrasted with a more scholarly position of Corporate Election. If it’s not this same idea, how is Craig’s explanation different from the classical Arminian position?
Very insightful observation Rebecca!
You are correct – it is not the same view as what I believe the Arminians call “simple” Foreknowledge.
And I think you are correct in discerning that view of Foreknowledge as logically problematic.
Although I have seen some who hold to that view who don’t see any problem with it at all logically.
But then again – the Calvinist has the same response to the subset of logical conundrums that come with Theological Determinism.
So I think that response has to do more the psychology of personal investment than with logic.
Ok so to clarify… Arminianism says “God foresaw who would choose Him and therefore He chose them, individually, to be His elect”… and Craig would say “God foresaw who would choose Him but did not choose those individuals to be His elect, rather any who choose Him would be included among His chosen group (and He also happens to already know that from the beginning).”
Am I correct?
I think Dr. Craig would word it differently.
He would rather say that in Arminianism God extends a fully determinative offer of salvation to all persons without distinction – and permits each individual to accept or reject that offer. And he would agree with that position in his own personal understanding.
He differs however on the Foreknowledge question.
He would say that God has complete and perfect knowledge of every choice that every person would ever make – given each person’s nature – and given the set of circumstances each person is in. So there is no logical problem with God being able to know who will accept the offer of salvation and who will not.
The Arminian position – as you say – is typically stated as God looking into the future and thereby knowing who will accept or reject the offer of salvation. And that is where I believe Dr. Craig would disagree because it entails logical problems that his position does not. For example – if God has to look into the future to know something – then it follows he is learning by doing so – which means prior to looking into the future he lacks that knowledge. And I certainly think Dr. Craig would disagree with that.
If we use the people of Israel while under bondage in Egypt as an example – God’s choice was that all of the Hebrew people would be free to leave Egypt. He did not (as it is in Calvinism) determine to elect the “few” for freedom – and determine the “many” to be punished by making them remain as slaves.
His choice was for every Hebrew person to be set free. But if any Hebrew person wanted to stay and remain a slave in Egypt – they were permitted to do so.
I believe Dr. Craig would say – in the same way – God chooses all people without distinction to be free from sin and death through Jesus Christ. But any individual who chooses to reject that offer is permitted to do so.
John Calvin called that form of permission “repulsive” and totally rejected it as a possible form of divine permission.
A kind of permission exemplified in the military when a low ranking officer asks for “permission to speak freely”.
In that conception of permission – the commanding officer “permits” the low ranking officer to determine whatever he will say.
Calvinists call that form of permission “mere” permission or “bare” permission and it is rejected as something god do – on pain of it compromising absolute sovereignty.
Divine permission in Calvinism – if we use the military example again. In this case the commanding officer represents Calvin’s god – and in he determines everything the lower officer can thinks, say or do. So in Calvinism the only thing Calvin’s god permits is what he decrees to infallibly come to pass. Nothing more and nothing less is made available to the creature or permitted.
So in Calvinism – people who are not elected for salvation are not permitted to do anything other than hate and reject god.
Hi BR.D. did you mean to write this: “God chooses all people without *distinction* to be free from sin and death through Jesus Christ.”
The reason I ask is because in Calvinism the slippery, deceptive use of terms that goes on is this:
Without DISTINCTION means = God LOVES just some from every tribe and tongue without DISTINCTION as to ethnicity. BUT He does NOT Love ALL within each tribe and tongue. That would be the term without Exception.
In Order to keep the Calvinist honest one must use the words “Without Exception” that means ALL within Every tribe and tongue and nation without exception.
They will say” I believe God loves All without Distinction” BUT they will NOT say: “God loves All without Exception.”
They try to deceive people with these slight of hand tricks.
GraceAdict
Without DISTINCTION means = God LOVES just some from every tribe and tongue without DISTINCTION as to ethnicity. BUT He does NOT Love ALL within each tribe and tongue. That would be the term without Exception.
br.d
Hmmm – I think you may be right!
Yes – WITHOUT EXCEPTION would be the correct term
Huge thanks GraceAdict for catching that!
BTW: Its totally awesome to have someone scrutinizing language the way you do GraceAdict!
Bravo – well done! :-]
Thanks for your openness to a neophyte… blessings GA
GraceAdict writes, ‘[Calvinists] will say” I believe God loves All without Distinction” BUT they will NOT say: “God loves All without Exception.””
The Calvinist can say that God loves all without exception, but that does not mean that God saves all without exception. Thus, Paul writes, “…is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.” but then ““[God] will render to each one according to his deeds”:eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness–indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law.”
GraceAdict
‘[Calvinists] will say” I believe God loves All without Distinction” BUT they will NOT say: “God loves All without Exception.””
rhutchin
The Calvinist *CAN* say that God loves all without exception – but he does not save all with exception.
br.d
Two points:
Firstly:
Concerning Calvin’s god’s love for the non-elect
Yes a Calvinist *CAN* say Calvin’s god loves the non-elect
And some Calvinists *CAN* say Calvin’s god DOES NOT love the non-elect.
Secondly:
Its more TRUTH-TELLING to say Calvin’s god does not WILL the salvation of all without exception.
Calvin’s god’s WILL is the sole NECESSARY condition for salvation/damnation.
All creaturely conditions are SUFFICIENT conditions which Calvin’s god determines to create for the process.
br.d writes, “Its more TRUTH-TELLING to say Calvin’s god does not WILL the salvation of all without exception.”
Only the Universalist affirms that God WILLs the salvation of all without exception. Non-Universalists affirm that God does not WILL the salvation of all without exception.
Then, “Calvin’s god’s WILL is the sole NECESSARY condition for salvation/damnation.”
Not exactly. The unrighteousness of the person is necessary for damnation.
Then, “All creaturely conditions are SUFFICIENT conditions which Calvin’s god determines to create for the process.”
Don’t know what you mean by this statement. How about an example to explain what you are trying to say.
br.d
Its more TRUTH-TELLING to say Calvin’s god does not WILL the salvation of all without exception.”
rhutchin
Only the Universalist affirms that God WILLs the salvation of all without exception. Non-Universalists affirm that God does not WILL the salvation of all without exception.
br.d
This position is fallacious because it is FALSELY predicated on Universal Divine Causal Determinism. In and IN-deterministic world God does will the salvation of all without exception.
Also – Calvin’s god’s WILL is the sole NECESSARY condition for salvation/damnation.”
rhutchin
Not exactly. The unrighteousness of the person is necessary for damnation.
br.d
This is also fallacious.
The condition of the creature is a SUFFICIENT condition – because Calvin’s god can DESIGN it that way or not.
Unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god’s omnipotence is limited and thus creatures are NECESSARY.
As I said: “All creaturely conditions are SUFFICIENT conditions which Calvin’s god determines to create for the process.”
rhutchin
Don’t know what you mean by this statement. How about an example to explain what you are trying to say.
br.d
That explains the fallacy in your position.
If you took a course in elementary LOGIC you would understand the difference between NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT.
If some aspect of the creature is NECESSARY for Calvin’s god to dam that creature – then it LOGICALLY follows Calvin’s god’s omnipotence is limited. He can’t dam who he wills to dam for no reason at all except he simply wants to. Or as Calvin puts it “simply for his good pleasure”
RH: Only the Universalist affirms that God WILLs the salvation of all without exception. Non-Universalists affirm that God does not WILL the salvation of all without exception.
Only one exception:
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Opps I guess God would be included in that first group.
GraceAdict
not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
br.d
Good catch GraceAdict!
Interesting how Calvinism turns this into DOUBLE-SPEAK
1) [NOT WILLING] that any should perish, but that [ALL] should come to repentance
And at the same time
2) [WILLING] that any should perish, and that [NOT ALL] should come to repentance.
Both statements are TRUTH statements for Calvinism.
And yet one is the LOGICAL opposite of the other.
Another example of DOUBLE-THINK superimposed on scripture.
Calvinism certainly has its own unique reading of scripture.
1) [NOT WILLING] that any should perish, but that [ALL] should come to repentance
And at the same time
2) [WILLING] that any should perish, and that [NOT ALL] should come to repentance.
That’s a pretty fine specimen of pretzel logic. When you can take a statement [of scripture or any other statement], claim to affirm it, then give a little twist and affirm its exact antithesis as well . . . only a politician can do this as well as a Calvinist.
Only a Calvinist can believe that God wills that none perish – as scripture tells us – and that God wills that some should perish – as Calvinism tells them.
The truth is that God wills that none should perish – as scripture tells us – but that God allows men a free choice – as scripture tells us – thus some do choose to perish – as scripture tells us – despite God’s holding his arms out to them all day long – as scripture tells us.
We risk grave error when we add men’s philosophical meanderings to what scripture actually tells us.
TS00 writes –
1) [NOT WILLING] that any should perish, but that [ALL] should come to repentance
And at the same time
2) [WILLING] that any should perish, and that [NOT ALL] should come to repentance.
That’s a pretty fine specimen of pretzel logic.”
Even TS00 has to misrepresent Calvinism to make his points. It should be:
1) [NOT WILLING] that any (of those He has given to Christ) should perish, but that [ALL of hose He has given to Christ)] should come to repentance
And at the same time
2) [WILLING] that some should perish, and that [NOT ALL] should come to repentance.
TS00
1) [NOT WILLING] that any should perish, but that [ALL] should come to repentance
And at the same time
2) [WILLING] that any should perish, and that [NOT ALL] should come to repentance.
That’s a pretty fine specimen of pretzel logic.”
rhutchin
Even TS00 has to misrepresent Calvinism to make his points. It should be:……etc
br.d
No misrepresentation – your representation simply added more information.
Even though that is the case – both statements resolve to the same LOGIC.
And BTW: the words you added to the text ” of those He has given to Christ” are not found in the original statement.
Must be the Holy Spirit fell short of providing a complete statement there! :-]
I continue to be amazed how Calvinists will daringly add words to scripture to change the meaning to suit their needs. Pretty bold.
Without Calvinism we would have never known – the Holy Spirit is incapable of inspiring the the most *CRITICAL* of divine concepts within all of those verses!
Good thing John Calvin came along to fill in the blanks for us! :-]
Without Calvin we dummies would still think that ‘God so loved the world’ actually meant God so loved the world; or that ‘God is not willing that any should perish’ actually means that God is not willing that any should perish. How ignorant we all would be. I actually believe that no one has done more to distort the Word of God and abort the gospel than John Calvin and his deceived minions. He will not only have to answer for Servetus, but the long trail of distortion and abuse from Geneva to this day.
Well for me – its still the case – the biggest RED-FLAG for people to see that something is wrong with the Calvinism – is the fact that Calvinists are constantly focused on HIDING what they don’t want people to see.
And with a highly evolved library of duplicitous language.
This for me is a real INDICATOR that Calvinists themselves intuitively know something is wrong ethically with their system.
If they were fine with all of it – they wouldn’t have to evade speaking the truth – the whole truth – and nothing but the truth.
When a product is undesirable – marketing agencies have to use duplicitous language to sell it.
Otherwise nobody would buy it.
So True BR.D. – Duplicitous language is the hallmark of Calvinism: “Secret meanings” means they know they are doing something unethical.
How silly of us to think God really means: “He is not willing for ANY to perish”
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
How silly of us to think that: “ALL have gone astray”
How silly of us to think that: “the iniquity of us ALL was laid on him”
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
How silly of us to think God really means: “Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world”
1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
How silly of us to think that: “God loves the whole world” (without exception)
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
How silly of us to think that: “God’s genuine real desire is NOT to condemn but instead to save”
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
All You NON-Calvinists the solution to your error is that you must first go to “Calvin School” where you will learn to:
1. Redefine the clear meaning of words in scripture to fit with what the “most holy Calvin and Augustine say about god”. At Calvin School we redefine these words so that you can understand the “secret meaning” hidden in scripture.
2. You will then learn the list of invented pious sounding terms found in the Calvinist dictionary. These terms smuggle in god’s “secret meaning” to the text and they enlighten the simple minded.
3. You will learn how to embrace contradictions, and how to use the words “mystery” “paradox” and “tension” to help sooth the conscious. – A great song to sing is: “Just a spoonful of mystery helps the contradiction go down, the contradiction go down.”
4. You will learn to hide the ugly, ignore the implications and dodge the issues.
5. You will learn to be ok with hiding more than you reveal as this is part of the “secret knowledge” that you will acquire at Calvin School.
6. You must convince yourself and others who have this “secret knowledge” that this is all to the glory of God. God gets the most glory from this and God is glorified by Him being the cause of evil.
7. You will learn to “humbly declare your own humility” in being able to accept such disturbing realities that contradict God’s revealed will.
8. You will learn that at the end of the day all of this was God’s divine appointment and decree, you are simply doing what He has meticulously caused and orchestrated for you to do, even sin itself. Evil is evil but it is GOOD that there is evil. R.C. Sproul…To God be the Glory.
GraceAdict writes, “How silly of us to think God really means: “He is not willing for ANY to perish””
How silly of non-Calvinists to ignore simple rules of grammar to make Scripture say anything they want.
1Ti 2:4 who desires ALL people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom FOR ALL, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
1Ti 2:7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am TELLING the TRUTH, I am NOT LYING), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
In the Calvinist world: “If God really did love ALL people and Jesus Really was a ransom FOR ALL” how would God communicate that message without it being twisted by Calvinist to mean just the opposite of what the clear meaning is?
The Calvinist approaches the text with the false assumption that God hates most people, He never loved them and never will so it follows Jesus on purpose excluded them from His Grace and Mercy. There is NO possible way that God’s genuine love for the World could possibly be communicated through that Calvinist Assumption…it will ALWAYS be twisted to mean just the opposite of what it says.
The Calvinist simply pretends that there is no option to determinism. Either God loves and determines all to life, or he loves some and determines them to life while hating the rest and determining them to destruction.
How intellectually difficult is it to comprehend free will? God creating, but allowing men to determine their own fate? This is the very freedom to think and choose, that nearly all men value above almost all else, for which many have laid down their lives to gain for their children. And yet, Calvinists cannot comprehend it.
It does not demand a denial of omniscience. No one is questioning God’s knowledge. It does not demand a denial of omnipotence. No one is questioning God’s power. What it does demand is God’s genuine goodness, his genuine justice and his honesty in scriptural claims that he desire that none perish and that all turn from wickedness and be saved. God did not determine anyone for good or evil, but gave them the freedom to choose.
There really is nothing too difficult in this concept. It is simply a wilful denial on the part of Calvinists to acknowledge that there is a perfectly reasonable, logical, moral alternative to their cruel, unloving, unjust determinism. They don’t want to acknowledge what so many have long and rationally believed to be the truth, before, during and since the wicked distortions of scripture made by John Calvin.
TS00 writes, “This is the very freedom to think and choose, that nearly all men value above almost all else, for which many have laid down their lives to gain for their children. And yet, Calvinists cannot comprehend it.”
We know that God has true free will because He has a perfect understanding of all things and cn make decisions based on that understanding. people have limited understanding of anything, so the freedom people exercise must be much less that the freedom God exercises.
We know that faith is necessary to salvation, so anyone who has no faith cannot freely choose salvation. That is how Paul describes those in the flesh, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God (they have no faith per Hebrews 11).” In addition, Paul says, “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.”
In Proverbs, we read, “lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge God, And He shall direct your paths.” How do people freely choose not to lean on their own understanding? given that Paul says, “we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness.”
So, what freedom are you talking about? Can you explain it so I can comprehend it?
rhutchin
We know that God has true free will because He has a perfect understanding of all things
br.d
Is that Libertarian Free Will – or is Calvin’s god’s will determined by factors outside of his control?
rhutchin: “We know that God has true free will because He has a perfect understanding of all things”
br.d: “Is that Libertarian Free Will – or is Calvin’s god’s will determined by factors outside of his control?”
God’s understanding is not determined by anything outside Himself, as God had this understanding when all that was, was only Him. By this understanding, God willed to create anything that was not Him – e.g., the universe.
God’s understanding gives Him a freedom of will that people cannot have because they cannot have God’s understanding, so if the term, “LFW,” is applied to God, it would be different than that “LFW” applied to people.
rhutchin
We know that God has true free will because He has a perfect understanding of all things”
br.d
Is that Libertarian Free Will – or is Calvin’s god’s will determined by factors outside of his control?
rhutchin
God’s understanding is not determined by anything outside Himself, as God had this understanding when all that was, was only Him. By this understanding, God willed to create anything that was not Him – e.g., the universe.
br.d
This is LOGICALLY fallacious.
Understanding is a SUFFICIENT resource for the WILL but it does not DETERMINE the will.
The question does not ask what determines Calvin’s god’s understanding – it asks what determines Calvin’s god’s *WILL*.
You have two choices:
1) Calvin’s god’s *WILL* is determined by factors outside of his control
Or
2) Calvin’s god has multiple options – all of which are available to him – and he is permitted to choose among that range of options – that choice being compatible with his nature – (which is the definition of Libertarian Free Will)
Its a simple question – and one should not have to anticipate a goble-de-goop answer.
br.d writes, “You have two choices:
1) Calvin’s god’s *WILL* is determined by factors outside of his control”
We know it’s not that.
Then, “Or
2) Calvin’s god has multiple options – all of which are available to him – and he is permitted to choose among that range of options – that choice being compatible with his nature – (which is the definition of Libertarian Free Will)”
God creates His own options – He knows what could be – and He determines what will be based on His nature, attributes and understanding.. As no one is God, no one else can have LFW because all decisions by people are determined by factors that precede the decision.
br.d
You have two choices:
1) Calvin’s god’s *WILL* is determined by factors outside of his control”
rhutchin
We know it’s not that.
br.d
Ok – then you have one choice left – Libertarian Free Will
Calvin’s god has multiple options – all of which are available to him – and he is permitted to choose among that range of options – that choice being compatible with his nature – (which is the definition of Libertarian Free Will)”
rhutchin
God creates His own options – He knows what could be – and He determines what will be based on His nature, attributes and understanding..
br.d
Does Calvin’s god have multiple options all of which are available to him? Yea or Nay?
Is Calvin’s god able to choose among that range of options – that choice being compatible with his nature? Yea or Nay?
Based on your answer – you are saying that Calvin’s god has Libertarian Free Will.
rhutchin
As no one is God, no one else can have LFW because all decisions by people are determined by factors that precede the decision.
br.d
AH! those preceding factors all have a SOURCE and ORIGIN now don’t they.
And in Theological Determinism – when you follow that CAUSAL CHAIN of determining factors back to the SOURCE ORIGIN – guess where you end up?
Also on this answer – it LOGICALLY follows – you don’t have Libertarian Free Will
Therefore you don’t have multiple options available to you each exiting as real.
And you are not permitted to choose from a range of options.
But rather your permitted to have one single choice – determined by preceding factors.
As Pete Van Inwagen states:
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future. – (Oxford Handbook on Free Will)
So on Theological Determinism – the “preceding factor” of the sin nature is Calvin’s god – who is the SOURCE and ORIGIN of it.
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god has multiple options – all of which are available to him – and he is permitted to choose among that range of options – that choice being compatible with his nature – (which is the definition of Libertarian Free Will)””
Before the beginning of the universe when there was only God, God had perfect understanding all that He could do. There were an infinite number of options available to God because od is infinite in His attributes. As we both seem to agree – God has true LFW. So, Yes to your questions, “Does Calvin’s god have multiple options all of which are available to him? and Is Calvin’s god able to choose among that range of options – that choice being compatible with his nature?
Then, “Therefore you don’t have multiple options available to you each exiting as real.
And you are not permitted to choose from a range of options.
But rather your permitted to have one single choice – determined by preceding factors.”
This was Edwrds’ point in arguing that people’s choices are determined by their desires. Because people make choices based on their desires and God understands those desires, it is nothing for God to know what a perosn will think or choose prior to his thinking or choosing.
Then, “So on Theological Determinism – the “preceding factor” of the sin nature is Calvin’s god – who is the SOURCE and ORIGIN of it.”
Yes, because God creates a person giving the person a set of attributes that enable him to react to his environment and make choices. God can then manipulate the environment in which He places a person to get the outcomes He wants. Thus, God makes Adam with certain attributes (knowledge, understanding, etc) makes a perfect companion for him in Eve, places them into a garden, and then gives Satan freedom to enter the garden and entice Eve leading to Eve standing in front of Adam offering him the fruit. At this point, the only real option available to Adam is to eat the fruit without God acting to obtain a different outcome. Of course, God understood all this in eternity past deciding at that point what attributes to give to Adam, how to make Eve perfect, and to have Satan enter the garden leading to all that happened.
So now I get the new tactic of appealing to ‘understanding’. Calvi-god, being the original and ultimate narcissist, understands exactly how to manipulate all things to make them appear non-coerced, yet produce only and always the exact results Calvi-god always intended to come to pass – without fail. In other words, Calvi-gods ‘understanding’ is simply the clever ability to manipulate people without them knowing it. Just like the typical narcissist, which abound in Calvi-land. Like father, like son.
Btw, this is far different from the scriptural and reassuring promise that ‘in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose’. There is an enormous difference between God being able to bring good out of even disobedience, rebellion and evil [working all things together according to the counsel of his will] and Calvi-god deliberately ordaining disobedience, rebellion and evil, manipulating men to perform it, punishing them for what they cannot resist and calling it ‘good’ because the end justifies the means.
TS00 writes, “In other words, Calvi-gods ‘understanding’ is simply the clever ability to manipulate people without them knowing it. ”
So, God created TS00 giving him a set of attributes and then God placed TS00 in the environment in which he finds himself. Are we to understand that TS00 could overcome the limitations of his attributes or the pressures of his environment to do something that God did not understand he could do? When we read, “in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose,” we know that TS00 cannot overcome his limitations of the pressures on him without God. It is only God who can bring good out of the mess TS00 finds himself in.
Billy-bob walked into the house of his older brother who lived there with his wife.
Billy-bob walked in just in time to his see his older brother murder his wife
Investigator:
Billy-bob – did you see your brother kill his wife?
Billy-bob
What I saw was……..my brother had “understanding” that his wife was dead.
I think we all recognize how this language trick works! :-]
Billy-bob walked into the house of his older brother who lived there with his wife.
Billy-bob walked in just in time to his see his older brother murder his wife
Investigator:
Billy-bob – did you see your brother kill his wife?
Billy-bob
What I saw was……..my brother had “understanding” that his wife was dead.
I would refine it slightly, if I may.
“Billy-bob walked into the house of his older brother who lived there with his wife.
Billy-bob walked in just in time to his see his older brother murder his wife
Investigator:
Billy-bob – did your brother kill his wife?
Billy-bob
My brother had “understanding” that pulling the trigger of the gun in his hand which was pointed at his wife would result in a dead wife.
Good one!
I drills a little deeper into the fallacious appeal to secondary means :-]
rhutchin
God has true LFW. so yes to your questions, “Does Calvin’s god have multiple options all of which are available to him? and Is Calvin’s god able to choose among that range of options – that choice being compatible with his nature?
br.d
Ok – we’ve established that Libertarian Free Will does exist.
Now we can address why Calvin’s god cannot give multiple options which exist as real to his creatures – and “merely” permit them to choose from that range of options – that choice being compatible with the creatures nature.
Now on Theological Determinism:
You don’t have multiple options available to you each exiting as real.
And you are not permitted to choose from a range of options.
But rather your permitted to have one single choice – determined by preceding factors.
rhutchin
This was Edwrds’ point in arguing that people’s choices are determined by their desires.
br.d
Here we go with the infinite regress merry-go-round thinking again. :-]
On Theological Determinism – the “preceding factor” of the sin nature is Calvin’s god – who is the SOURCE and ORIGIN of it
rhutchin
Yes,…..etc
br.d
Well! I’ll have to record this day on my calendar – this is a FIRST!
Now given that acknowledgement – would a RATIONAL thinker do the infinite regress merry-go-round tap-dance?
br.d writes, ‘Now we can address why Calvin’s god cannot give multiple options which exist as real to his creatures – and “merely” permit them to choose from that range of options – that choice being compatible with the creatures nature.”
In order to give people LFW, God would have to make them God. Absent that, both attributes and environment narrow choices down to one option. God can provide a different option by changing attributes (e.g., giving a person faith) or changing the environment (e.g., sending someone to preach the gospel).
You should understand how logically attribute set A and environment set B produce only one option. C. Then attribute set A1 and environment set B will produce option CA1or attribute set A and environment set B1 will produce option CB1. As God gives a person his attributes and puts him in a particular environment, then God is the determiner of all a person does and only God can effect changes to what a person would otherwise do. If you don’t think this is true, you can provide the exception that proves this false – something you have been unable to do up to this point.
rh writes:
“In order to give people LFW, God would have to make them God.”
False. All God had to do was make man in the image of God, which is exactly what he did. Unlike every other creature, which functions as you below describe, man alone was given the attribute of reason, which allows him to think, to make choices, and to be held responsible for those choices.
Cats cannot be held responsible for killing birds. It is merely the result of the attributes and instincts placed within them, and the environment in which they exist. Does the individual cat desire to kill birds? Obviously it does, if one believes that a desire is required to induce an action. Is the cat responsible for that desire to kill birds? No, as it has no option to desire otherwise. Each cat may vary in size, ability, health and energy, but all in all, a normal cat will seek to kill any bird within its reach. It has been created to function in one particular manner, and, apart from malfunction (usually caused by man-made toxins in the environment), will function as programmed by its designer.
This is the sort of instinctual behavior that takes place with all creatures who do not have the power of reason, who are not made in the image of God. This, of course, is why there is no sin, judgment or punishment for the lower creatures, no scriptures to lead them to God and salvation. And yet Calvinists assert that the one creature who was given the God-like power of reason was not genuinely given the freedom to exercise it. Calvinism asserts that this power of reason is simply a sham, a deception meant to hide the fact that man is no more free to choose than reasonless, instinctual animals.
God’s providing prophets, scripture and even incarnating his own Son into flesh appear to be all part of Calvi-god’s deception, to make it appear as if men are genuinely rational beings whose reason can be appealed to and who can make good and bad choices.
Under Calvinism, this is simply the magician’s trick; it distracts people away from what is really happening, and persuades them to set aside logic and believe the impossible. Every neurologically sound person knows that a woman can not be sawn in two and survive – even be put back together. Yet, if one is seduced into setting aside that logic one can, as long as one keeps it in suspension, believe the unbelievable. This is what Calvinism does to its adherents, many of whom eventually snap out of the spell and start applying logic to the things they had simply believed, due to their trust in the magician, er, teacher.
rh writes:
“Absent that, both attributes and environment narrow choices down to one option. God can provide a different option by changing attributes (e.g., giving a person faith) or changing the environment (e.g., sending someone to preach the gospel).”
False. See above explanation. In granting man the God-like power of reason, man was granted the ability and freedom to choose from a vast number of choices. Whereas all cats (if allowed outdoors) will prey upon the same set of small birds, rabbits and rodents, man can choose from a wide array of dining options. Take a look at the size of most grocery stores, the cookbook section in any bookstore, or the wide number of restaurants in any city and you will see a small sample of the almost endless choices man has for dining. Four different people choosing from the exact same menu can and often will choose widely differing options.
This is the result of man’s God-like power of reason. Man does not have to eat the same old raw mice day after day, but can creatively fashion endless recipes using the same limited set of attributes, i.e., ingredients. Yes, this power may be used unwisely. Men can, and have, created unnatural ‘fake’ genetically engineered substances that are foreign to the body’s digestive system, as well as fashion, refine and process foods until they are more toxic than nutritive. (Again, much of this initially happened under watch of demonically inspired ‘fake’ science, which assured naïve, trusting people that modern, processed food was perfectly healthy.) Unsurprisingly, most health advocates now recognize that traditional, unprocessed, not chemically treated naturally occurring foods are the most nutritive and beneficial to human health. People were deceived until the evidence of their own eyes became too strong to hide. Yet some remain deceived even today, often because they ‘love their sin’, be it sugar, processed grains or artificially flavored unnatural substances.
Men can, and many do, feast upon unhealthy fast food and packaged junk, but in this day of information, this is not due to ignorance so much as cultivated (I would suggest by the same demonic powers that promote all unwise choices) unhealthy tastes and desires. This is satan, appealing to the flesh, deceiving and bringing harm to those who fall prey to his deceptions and seductions. And many of us, even when we know it is bad for us, will continue to feast upon things that are genuinely unhealthy for us, because our flesh is weak.
rh writes:
“You should understand how logically attribute set A and environment set B produce only one option. C. Then attribute set A1 and environment set B will produce option CA1or attribute set A and environment set B1 will produce option CB1. As God gives a person his attributes and puts him in a particular environment, then God is the determiner of all a person does and only God can effect changes to what a person would otherwise do. If you don’t think this is true, you can provide the exception that proves this false – something you have been unable to do up to this point.”
False. Even a cursory review of human procreation, and how DNA works, teaches us that a vast, infinite number of unique beings came forth from the first two humans fashioned by God. Were rh’s premise true, every child born to the same two parents should be exactly alike, having come from the same attribute set and environment. This is obviously false, and all men are without excuse for pretending otherwise, as God has made it abundantly clear through his creation.
(As an aside, Looking at how creation works – and you have to be wary of distorted science – is often a very good measuring stick to check one’s beliefs upon. God has revealed who he is, how he works and how logic works through the undistorted facts of the physical world. Again, I would add that demonic powers have long worked to distort our understanding of physical realities, so we have to be cautious about what in large part is, as per Paul, ‘science, falsely so-called’.)
Rh frequently asks why, if men have free choice, all do not make the same choices, i.e., supposedly the ‘right’ choice. I would suggest, first of all, that God deliberately designed each individual to be unique, so it does not appear that universal uniformity was his goal. Thus, through circumstances and his own Spirit, God tailors his appeals to the individual, knowing exactly what they need to fully understand before they can make a responsible choice.
Given the same presentation in a mega church of 10,000 people, one would find – if such could be measured – 10,000 unique understandings and responses to what they heard. Some will be distracted by noisy children, others perhaps by thinking of all they have to do in the coming week. Some will be hard of hearing, or burdened with other physical ailments that affect how well they hear. The understanding of each word will vary, based on each person’s native tongue, education, intelligence, ability to learn audibly, neurological disorders such as Asperger’s or other learning disabilities, and on and on.
It is a grave error to believe or assert that all men are exactly alike, think and respond alike or would make the same decisions even if all variables could somehow be made uniform. That simply is not how free, rational beings function. In fact, such would negate the very point of making rationale, reasonable human beings – to enable free and independent choice. Recognizing this glaring flaw, Calvinists have tried to weave a story of men who both can and cannot choose freely, the deceptive strategy known as compatibilism. Compatibilism, like the woman sawn in two yet still alive, is not logically possible. Man cannot be both under sovereign, meticulous, determinitive control and truly free to make his own choices. We can believe the seductive sleights of hand of the magicians, or we can trust our logic and believe what is true.
br.d
Now we can address why Calvin’s god cannot give multiple options which exist as real to his creatures – and “merely” permit them to choose from that range of options – that choice being compatible with the creatures nature.
rhutchin
In order to give people LFW, God would have to make them God. ……God can provide *A* different option by changing attributes (e.g., giving a person faith) or changing the environment (e.g., sending someone to preach the gospel).
br.d
Well of course this is what the Theological Determinist is going to claim and believe
So it LOGICALLY follows – since only one single option (of a perceptions) is made available to you – where Calvin’s god determines that perception to be TRUE when Calvin’s god knows it is FALSE – ( or vice versa)
Then it LOGICALLY follows that you have no way of knowing whether the perception Calvin’s god has given you is TRUE or FALSE.
Thus you don’t have the ability to know or to RATIONALLY affirm whether Libertarian Free Will can exist for the creature or not.
Calvin’s god will determine that perception in your brain for you.
If he determines you to perceive it as TRUE – then you will.
If he determines you to perceive it as FALSE – then you will.
As Calvinist Gregory Koukl and Dr. William Lane Craig both agree:
“In practice arguments for determinism are self defeating.”
Good luck trying to convince an IN-determinist about anything using RATIONAL reasoning! :-]
GraceAdict writes, “The Calvinist approaches the text with the false assumption that God hates most people,”
No, the Calvinist approaches the text and let’s it establish context. Thus, we read, “I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority,…” By “all me,” Paul means that he exhorts people to pray for kings and those in authority. Then, when we read, “God desires all men to be saved,” we understand “all men” to include “kings and all who are in authority.” The term, “all men,” has the purpose of including “kings and all in authority,” so that Paul is exhorting people to pray for those they might not otherwise pray for. That explains Paul’s declaration, “I was appointed a preacher and an apostle….a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” Paul’s point here is that God wants gentiles to be saved.
GA makes unfounded misrepresentations of Calvinists in to argue his point. Why does he need to do that??
GraceAdict
The Calvinist approaches the text with the false assumption that God hates most people,”
rhutchin
No, the Calvinist approaches the text and let’s it establish context.
br.d
To auto-magically assume Calvinists are so divine they can’t do eisegesis equates to asserting Calvinists are without sin.
And it is true that the Calvinist holds – Calvin’s god hates most people.
This is found in their interpretation of “Jacob I loved – Esau I hated”
So a Calvinist approaching any text with that assumption is simply a statistical probability.
rhutchin
How silly of non-Calvinists to ignore simple rules of grammar to make Scripture say anything they want.
br.d
You’re going to have to dance a REAL jig of SPIN LANGUAGE to make that one work! :-]
I’m trying to remember – wasn’t it you’re saying that with Calvinism “What the large print giveth the fine print taketh away”?
I was thinking about that this morning in terms of the Calvinist reading of scripture.
What the large print of scripture says – the fine print of Calvinism taketh away
It was actually a lawyer told me that in contracts “what the large print giveth the small print taketh away” I simply applied it to Calvinism. It was not original to me. However I did apply it to Calvinism.
It does fit perfectly doesn’t it! :-]
I thank the Lord he put it into your remembrance.
I cannot watch much of this video. I disagree 100% with everything I heard in the few minutes I could tolerate. That evil is evil, but it must be good for it to exist or God would not have decreed it. Well, folks, how about we introduce the elephant in the room – that God would not, could not, DID NOT decree evil ever, which frees him from the charge these men are making that he is the author of evil.
Then there’s Mohler’s futile attempt to say that ‘If God does it, then it’s good.’ Once again, this is simply using a truth statement to prop up a fallacy. Yes, it is true that everything God does is good. However, it is FALSE that God ordained or decreed evil. He allowed evil, and it is the allowance of human choice that is good – not the choices which men abuse this freedom to make. Evil choices which God never, ever desired or desires.
EVIL IS NEVER GOOD! Is that loud enough? I mostly try to refrain from shouting, but no one should stand by and allow God to be accused of decreeing evil. Mohler likes to throw around big words, ever seeking to show how smart he is, but the problem of theodicy exists only for the determinist. There is no contradiction in God hating evil and loving – allowing – freedom of choice. God can choose the good of freedom without negating the fact that he hates, warns against, threatens punishment for and in every way possible seeks to deter men from choosing evil. He deters evil in every moral, reasonable way, but stops at the boundaries of human moral responsibility which he himself set in place.
As I said earlier, I do not believe these things are difficult to understand. It is not too high or complex for the Calvinist mind – it simply requires them to surrender their loyalty to a man-made system, which they refuse to do. Their system, pride and self importance is more precious to them than upholding the integrity, character and trustworthiness of God. I consider this a prime example of the very evil of which these men speak.
It is truly evil to put on fancy suits, haughty airs and speak monstrous, horrific untruths about the holy, gracious, just and good God, who has given us not only the freedom to be purposeful, volitional beings, but also gives us an unthinkable pardon and second chance when we make a really bad choice. Yet these men can sit there and smoothly speak of why it is okay for God to ordain, decree and choose evil, as if sin arose from his mind, rather than the self-chosen wickedness of free creatures.
Do they know what that means to the child who has been sexually abused by his parent, the wife who has been viciously beaten by her husband or the man who lost his mother to cancer? They are telling these individuals that God not only allows evil – which is difficult enough to understand – but that he himself decreed it, ordained it, brought it to pass just as it happened, because he thought it was good to do so. This wicked lie, my friends, has destroyed the faith of men, women and children for centuries.
Who could hear such a monstrous thing and ever trust that so-called god again? Who would even want to spend eternity with a being who thought up and brought to pass child abuse, rape and genocide? Not I, and not the many former Calvinists who became atheists when they saw the logical conclusion of what they had been persuaded was inescapably true.
I am thankful for this blog, and so many others which have arisen in the last few years which offer answers and hope to those who have been seduced by the distortions, word jugglery and half truths of Calvinism. Some simply grow ever more arrogant and hard-hearted. Others sink into despair when they become convinced that a cruel and evil deity rules this world, and their is no hope of escape from him and his monstrous ways.
TS00 writes, “God would not, could not, DID NOT decree evil ever, which frees him from the charge these men are making that he is the author of evil.”
You could always explain Genesis 3 to us. God made Adam and Eve and put them in the garden. God then gave Satan freedom to enter the garden to wreck havoc as God knew he would. God was present and observed Satan interact with Eve, convincing her to eat the fruit, and then hand the fruit to Adam for him to eat. In all this, God did nothing to help Eve and then Adam think about what they were doing. God knew all this would happen before He created the universe. You ask, “Who could hear such a monstrous thing and ever trust that so-called god again?” Guess you reject God because of what He did in the garden.
rhutchin
You could always explain Genesis 3 to us
br.d
I can easily provide Theological Determinism’s (aka Calvinisms) version.
1) At the foundation of the world Calvin’s god decides to DESIGN man so that he can make man sin.
2) Calvin’s god DECREES his SECRET will – will be the opposite of his ENUNCIATED will in regard to what Adam will eat
3) Calvin’s god HIDES his SECRET will from Adam – leading Adam to believe his ENUNCIATED will represents Calvin’s god’s CERTAIN will – and by this means Calvin’s god effectively deceives Adam into believing a FALSEHOOD.
4) Calvin’s god does not inform Adam that he DOES NOT PERMIT any event to falsify or negate his SECRET will – and that he did not make any option available to Adam other than Adam obeying the SECRET and thus disobeying his ENUNCIATED will.
CONCLUSION:
Calvin’s god setup (by DESIGN and DECREE) Adam to fail – so that he could blame what he DESIGNED and DECREED on Adam.
The In-Deterministic version:
1) The THEOS set multiple options before Adam “merely” permitting Adam to choose one of those options
2) The THEOS warned Adam that one option he was Libertarian Free to choose – would equate to disobedience.
3 Adam being “merely” permitted to do so – chose the disobedience option – and the rest is history.
br.d writes, “The In-Deterministic version:
1) The THEOS set multiple options…”
And God knew from the beginning the choice Adam would make. Even br.d who is not God could, at least, have predicted Adam’s choice to eat the fruit.
So, how does the In-Deterministic version really differ from Theological Determinism’s (aka Calvinisms) version. In each case, God understands perfectly what will happen and it happens.
br.d writes, “The In-Deterministic version:
1) The THEOS set multiple options before Adam.
And Adam is “merely” permitted to choose from a range of options – that choice compatible with Adam’s nature
rhutchin
And God knew from the beginning the choice Adam would make.
br.d
I don’t know how you consider it something remarkable that Calvin’s god would know that one single option he DETERMINED to make available to Adam – and DECREED Adam infallibly choose?
Its obvious your position is that Adam DID NOT HAVE multiple options available to him – where Calvin’s god “merely” permitted Adam to choose from a range of options – that choice being compatible with Adam’s nature.
But rather one and only one choice was made available to Adam – that choice DETERMINED before Adam existed by Calvin’s god.
rhutchin
Even br.d who is not God could, at least, have predicted Adam’s choice to eat the fruit.
br.d
Fallacious thinking!
The only way br.d could predict Adam’s choice would be to have full and comprehensive knowledge of what Adam would do in that given circumstance – which is LOGICALLY impossible – or be able to see inside Adam’s head – which is also LOGICALLY Impossible.
rhutchin
So, how does the In-Deterministic version really differ from Theological Determinism’s (aka Calvinisms) version. In each case, God understands perfectly what will happen and it happens.
br.d
On the issue of knowledge – it should be clear by now that Theological Determinism is not necessary when full and comprehensive knowledge of what every creature would do in any give set of circumstances is present.
Note rhutchin’s most recent ploy of appealing to God’s ‘understanding’, which is simply a euphemism for foreknowledge. However, Calvinism does not grant that God’s acts are based on mere foreknowledge of another sources choices; rather, all things are meticulously determined and controlled by God alone. Calvi-god does not ‘understand’ what creatures will do, Calvi-god ordains what people must do.
This appeal to ‘understanding’ is a deceptive tactic. There is nothing outside of Calvi-god, under Calvinism, for Calvi-god to understand. Whatsoever was determined was brought to pass by Calvi-god. Thus, to say he ‘understood’ what would man would do is a deception, and utterly misleading. There is nothing, apart from his own determinitive decrees, for Calvi-god to understand. It is mere subterfuge and nonsense to state that Calvi-god works based on his ‘understanding’ of what he will bring to pass. Calvi-god does not ‘understand’ what men will do, he determines their every thought, word and action.
TS00 writes, “Note rhutchin’s most recent ploy of appealing to God’s ‘understanding’, which is simply a euphemism for foreknowledge.”
I am doing this to emphasize the distinction between God’s understanding and God’s knowledge. In Ephesians 1, we read, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” God’s counsel incorporates His understanding. By this counsel, God works (or decrees or ordains) and then by His decrees, God knows what will happen. Thus, God’s understanding of all things enables God’s [fore]knowledge of all things.
Then, “Calvi-god does not ‘understand’ what creatures will do, Calvi-god ordains what people must do.”
God is able to ordain what will happen because He understands all that could happen. It is God’s understanding of all things that could happen that enables Him to ordain what will happen.
Then, ‘There is nothing outside of Calvi-god, under Calvinism, for Calvi-god to understand..”
of course, God understands all things outside Himself because God ordains all things outside Himself. However, prior to ordaining anything outside Himself, God understood everything that He could ordain. You are correct to say, “There is nothing [more], apart from his own determinitive decrees, for Calvi-god to understand. ”
Then, ‘Calvi-god does not ‘understand’ what men will do, he determines their every thought, word and action.”
God first understands everything that men can do; God then ordains what men will do.
rhutchin
God first understands everything that men can do; God then ordains what men will do.
br.d
A puppeteer first understands everything each puppet can do – by understanding the attributes he created for each one.
He then ordains what each puppet will do given the attributes he created for each one.
Same model! :-]
br.d writes, “A puppeteer first understands everything each puppet can do – by understanding the attributes he created for each one.
He then ordains what each puppet will do given the attributes he created for each one.”
Except, God created people with no strings attached (unless you want the attributes that God gave people to be strings). People are self-propelled without God having to force them in one direction of another. As Paul said, “in God we live and move and have our being ” This does not mean that God is ignorant of the thoughts of their minds or the desires of their heart and somehow misunderstands what they will do. God knew exactly what Eve and then Adam would think and how they would reason with Satan when He made them and gave them the attributes they had and then placed them in the garden environment to be confronted by Satan. God accomplished everything He wanted without pulling strings (unless you see Satan as a string).
br.d
A puppeteer first understands everything each puppet can do – by understanding the attributes he created for each one.
He then ordains what each puppet will do given the attributes he created for each one.
SAME MODEL! :-]
rhutchin
Except, God created people with no strings attached…..etc
br.d
IRRATIONAL thinking
Just because its the SAME MODEL doesn’t mean every aspect of it is exactly the same.
And BTW: When did Calvin’s god tell you he doesn’t use some kind of string to control people?
rhutchin:
“God first understands everything that men can do; God then ordains what men will do.”
Again, this renders the understanding a moot point, as far as determinism goes. At best it suggests that Calvi-god knows exactly how to manipulate to get what he wants. It does not in any way lessen the outrageous tyranny of a deity who meticulously controls and manipulates all things, while disingenuously pretending that those manipulated actually make choices for which they can be held accountable.
Are we supposed to admire Calvi-god for concocting the ultimate date rape drug, which lends the appearance of no force or manipulation, when in reality, the person has been rendered unable to make genuine, clear choices such as a non-drugged person could. The more Calvinists are forced to explore the inner workings of their system, and defend them, the uglier the picture they create trying to justify the indefensible.
TS00 writes, “this renders the understanding a moot point, as far as determinism goes.”
It is understanding that makes determinism possible. If God does not understand the future, how could He determine the future.
then, ‘it suggests that Calvi-god knows exactly how to manipulate to get what he wants.”
Isn’t that what happened in the garden with Adam and Eve. Didn’t God make Adam and Eve with limitations in terms of knowledge, understanding, experience, etc and then send Satan into the garden to exploit those limitations? How could Adam or Eve escape their situation without God’s help – they could not, could they.
What I find intriguing in this example – is that he actually thinks no one can see through the ruse! :-]
Absolutely true TS00!
Its just a tactic to SMUGGLE IN “mere” permission – in camouflaged form.
br.d writes, “Its just a tactic to SMUGGLE IN “mere” permission – in camouflaged form.”
Unfortunately, br.d cannot support his claim through logic, making this a misrepresentation and against the rules. Of course, br.d can change this by explaining how he came to his conclusion.
br.d
Exactly right TS00! – Its just a tactic to SMUGGLE IN “mere” permission – in camouflaged form.
rhutchin
Unfortunately, br.d cannot support his claim through logic, making this a misrepresentation and against the rules. Of course, br.d can change this by explaining how he came to his conclusion.
br.d
Its obvious – you’re speaking for yourself here of course!
On the phenomenon of a DOUBLE-SPEAK language – Calvinism has a well earned reputation! :-]
rhutchin: “Of course, br.d can change this by explaining how he came to his conclusion.”
br.d: “Its obvious – you’re speaking for yourself here of course!” On the phenomenon of a DOUBLE-SPEAK language – Calvinism has a well earned reputation! :-]’
No explanation there. br.d can still change this by explaining how he came to his conclusion (i.e., Its just a tactic to SMUGGLE IN “mere” permission – in camouflaged form.) I don;t see br.d offering an explanation anytime soon.
And now we’re back to the “XYZ can’t explain it routine” and we know what that strategy is designed for.
Getting you to acknowledge what you don’t want to acknowledge is the equivalent of pocking myself in the eye with a stick.
But analyzing the examples the Calvinist provides – now that is effective! :-]
br.d writes, ‘And now we’re back to the “XYZ can’t explain it routine” and we know what that strategy is designed for.”
I am nor saying that you cannot explain it; only that you refuse to explain (so, maybe, you really cannot explain it).
br.d writes, “I don’t know how you consider it something remarkable that Calvin’s god would know that one single option he DETERMINED to make available to Adam – and DECREED Adam infallibly choose?”
Nothing remarkable her; Just God being God.
Then, “Its obvious your position is that Adam DID NOT HAVE multiple options available to him – where Calvin’s god “merely” permitted Adam to choose from a range of options – that choice being compatible with Adam’s nature.”
Adam’s options are limited by his knowledge, experience, understanding, etc. – his attributes. God, having perfect understanding of Adam, easily determines what Adam will do when He introduces Satan into the picture and Satan entices Eve to eat the fruit and then offer ti to Adam. Even br.d, who is not know, could know what Adam would do before Adam even thought it..
Then, “But rather one and only one choice was made available to Adam – that choice DETERMINED before Adam existed by Calvin’s god.”
Only one choice was possible given Adam’s attributes. Adam chose to eat the fruit for specific reasons even if he did not understand those reasons; God had perfect understanding of those reasons. Adam’s decision to eat the fruit was determined by specific reasons (as all decisions by people are determined) and these reasons are intertwined with his attributes.
Then, “The only way br.d could predict Adam’s choice would be to have full and comprehensive knowledge of what Adam would do in that given circumstance – which is LOGICALLY impossible – or be able to see inside Adam’s head – which is also LOGICALLY Impossible.”
LOL!!! OK, maybe you are not as bright as I think.
Then, ‘On the issue of knowledge – it should be clear by now that Theological Determinism is not necessary when full and comprehensive knowledge of what every creature would do in any give set of circumstances is present.”
LOL!!! Double-talk by the non-Calvinist. Don’t forget your infinite regress argument.
br.d
I don’t know how you consider it something remarkable that Calvin’s god would know that one single option he DETERMINED to make available to Adam – and DECREED Adam infallibly choose?”
rhutchin
Nothing remarkable her; Just God being God.
br.d
Sorry but most adults are smart enough to know if they give a person one single option to choose – that person will choose that one single option. You are right – nothing remarkable there!
Its obvious your position is that Adam DID NOT HAVE multiple options available to him – where Calvin’s god “merely” permitted Adam to choose from a range of options – that choice being compatible with Adam’s nature.”
rhutchin
Adam’s options are limited by his knowledge, experience, understanding, etc. – his attributes. God,,,,,etc
br.d
Here we go with the infinite regress again
An attribute of the creature caused an attribute of the creature – caused an attribute of the creature – and on into infinite regress.
And that is supposed to be an example of Calvinist RATIONAL thinking! :-]
One and only one choice was made available to Adam – that choice DETERMINED before Adam existed by Calvin’s god.”
rhutchin
Only one choice was possible given Adam’s attributes. …etc
br.d
Here we go with the infinite regress again (see answer above)
More Calvinist RATIONAL thinking! :-]
On the issue of knowledge – it should be clear by now that Theological Determinism is not necessary when full and comprehensive knowledge of what every creature would do in any give set of circumstances is present.
rhutchin
LOL!!! Double-talk by the non-Calvinist. Don’t forget your infinite regress argument.
br.d
You’ll have to explain that LOGICALLY
Good luck with that one :-]
br.d writes, “One and only one choice was made available to Adam – that choice DETERMINED before Adam existed by Calvin’s god.”
That choice determined by the attributes God gave to Adam and the environment into which God placed Adam. Given those attributes and that environment, Adam could only choose one option. For Adam to have chosen differently, his attributes would had had to be different or his environment different.
Then, ‘On the issue of knowledge – it should be clear by now that Theological Determinism is not necessary when full and comprehensive knowledge of what every creature would do in any give set of circumstances is present.”
A “comprehensive” knowledge of what every creature would do in any give set of circumstances is present incorporates all the factors that determine what the creature does. Since God creates both the creature and his environment, we have Theological Determinism to explain how this happens.
br.d is not denying that God creates people or that God determines the environment into which a person is born, so br.d is not denying Theological Determinism. He just uses double-talk to make it seem that such things could be denied.
br.d
One and only one choice was made available to Adam – that choice DETERMINED before Adam existed by Calvin’s god.”
rhutchin
That choice determined by the attributes God gave to Adam and the environment into which God placed Adam. …etc
br.d
You’re simply tail-chasing at this point – with the infinite regrees merry-go-round.
I’ll stand back and watch
Everyone gets a kick out of seeing a puppy chase its own tails :-]
rhutchin
br.d is not denying that God creates people or that God determines the environment into which a person is born, so br.d is not denying Theological Determinism…….etc
br.d
AH! Calvin’s god has given you FALSE perception #11.
I’m learning to anticipate these.
And Mr. Spock is still keeping the count :-]
I could save Mr. Spock a lot of time and trouble. 😉 Every misperception boils down to the same thing:
God determines everything. Calvinism’s error in a nutshell.
TS00 writes: “I could save Mr. Spock a lot of time and trouble. 😉 Every misperception boils down to the same thing: God determines everything. Calvinism’s error in a nutshell.”
I totally agree…
Then they are forced to call evil good while saying they are not calling evil good: RC Sproul
“Evil is evil but it is good that it exists…When God decrees that evil should occur it is good that it occurs..it is good that evil exists…because God ordains it…He only ordains that which is good.” RC Sproul
“Evil is evil but it is good that it exists…When God decrees that evil should occur it is good that it occurs..it is good that evil exists…because God ordains it…He only ordains that which is good.”
– R.C. Sproul
What a mouthful of nonsense. And you could tell by his face when he was saying it that he knew it. Mohler tried to quickly jump in and smooth it over with more ‘high-sounding’ nonsense, but it is all the same. ‘If God ordains evil, then it is good’ is pure evil. This is the rationale of every murderous despot who has ever worked tremendous evil on this earth. Nearly all evildoers rationalize their evil with this Calvinistic ‘The end justifies the means.’
When I began to see that this was what my former Calvinist was really saying, the mind-controlling chains began to loosen. No one, no matter how much I love or trust them, is going to get away with saying that God causes evil as long as I have breath to denounce them! It is a lie straight from the pit of hell, the very lie that Adam believed. Only believing that God was capable of evil intentions could have led Adam to distrust him and rebel against his good and loving authority. How sad that this very same lie is openly being pushed by Calvinism, and yet it has the nerve to call itself ‘Christian’.
If that is what ‘Christianity’ is, count me out. So I up your ante, Heather – they can not only kick me off the blog, they can kick me out of the whole darned religion. And, yes, I do realize and affirm that the majority of so-called Calvinists do not actually believe this, and have been falsely assured that Calvinism does not teach this. So my condemnation is not of ‘Calvinists, falsely so-called’, but of the theology of Calvinism, as it truly is.
You may all find this an interesting connection.
But it’s pretty clear to me this doctrine is the basis for the doctrine of “Monarchical Absolutism” – or what was known as the “Divine Right of Kings”.
The king is ordained by the THEOS – and as such the king is above the laws and standards of ethics of that country. The king is a “God-Man” ruler. As such is semi-divine and cannot be held accountable by his subjects.
Wikipedia
Before the Reformation the anointed king was, within his realm, the accredited vicar of God for secular purposes. After the Reformation he (or she if queen regnant) became this in Protestant states for religious purposes also.
Martin Luther appealed to the Divine Right of Kings doctrine when urging the secular authorities to crush the Peasant Rebellion of 1525 in Germany.
The concept of the Divine Right incorporates, but exaggerates, the ancient Christian concept of “royal God-given rights”, which teach that “the right to rule is anointed by God”.
Although this idea is found in many other cultures, including Aryan and Egyptian traditions and in pagan religions.
TS00
I could save Mr. Spock a lot of time and trouble. 😉 Every misperception boils down to the same thing:
God determines everything. Calvinism’s error in a nutshell.
br.d
Yes – and its so much fun watching it!
I think eventually the count of FALSE perceptions will provide data for a trend analysis
Which will show how much of it is FALSE :-]
The fact that Calvinists are experts as using IMPLICIT language designed to SMUGGLE “mere” permission in camouflaged form into their statements becomes a RED-FLAG they have a problem with it also. What they accuse you of – their language betrays in them.
For example:
rhutchin
Jan 3, 2015
Jeffrey Dahmer …wanted to molest people and God *ALLOWED* him to freely pursue his interests.
But then:
Mankind is doing what they want and what they can do is limited by what God wants
What is subtly HIDDEN here is – Calvin’s god CAUSES every micro-part of Jeffrey Dahmer’s interests to be exactly what they are.
DUH! – Of course he’s going to ALLOW him to freely be/do what he DECREED Jeffrey Dahmer be/do
He’s just NOT going to ALLOW him to be/do otherwise.
But notice how the statement is crafted so that it can be interpreted as “mere” permission.
This is not by accident!
“What the large print giveth the small print taketh away” When applied to Calvinism it shows up in so many places.
1. They quote scripture that is GOOD but then the teaching takes away what the scripture actually says.
2. The Headlines that they wave around sound good BUT when you get into the teaching it contradicts the Headline
3. The Marketing Lingo is wonderful BUT the ugly truth of their position is nothing like the marketing lingo.
4. The Extra Biblical terms like “Doctrines of Grace” or “Sovereign Grace” Sound wonderful BUT when you hear the teaching it denies the Banners that were waved at you.
The tactic of LARGE PRINT saying one thing and the small print denying what was Advertised is a standard MO of Calvinism.
TS00: I agree with your sentiment. Especially those who have been offered the straight forward interpretation of scripture that shows God actually loving and providing for His creation. Who then have turned away from that to embrace a “Hitler like god” instead. Those who have been given the light but then turn to Calvinism are the most at fault. They purposefully embrace the “Hitler like god” in the face of a better understanding. Those are the most culpable in this day and age. They make bad be good and darkness be light.
Calvinist doctrine reflects what Isaiah says:
Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Isa 5:21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
In Isaiah’s day the Jews who had the word of God were capable of this so it is now those who have the word of God are capable of the same thing. Scripture says God loves the Whole World and Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. BUT if you are ok with calling evil good and putting darkness for light you can twist that to mean:
God first hated the vast majority of mankind that is why He purposefully made them FOR damnation, that is why He purposefully excluded them from Jesus death on the Cross and with Pink they rejoice at the statement: “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.” A.Pink
When you put darkness for light you can make statements like RC Sproul :
“Evil is evil but it is good that there is evil.” when it is ambiguous it may sound intelligent but lets take the spin off:
“Raping children is evil but it is good that people rape children.” That is what this horrid doctrine teaches.
This dishonors the character of God.
Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Isa 5:21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
GraceAdict writes, “God first hated the vast majority of mankind that is why He purposefully made them FOR damnation,…”
GA must be denying that God is omniscient and knew the future of each person perfectly when He created the universe. Otherwise, an omniscient God (regardless how He came to be omniscient) would know that the majority of mankind that was to be born were being born for damnation.
To know something in advance (foreknowledge) is not the same as God:
1. creating people FOR damnation
2. Never loving them
3. Excluding them from His Grace and Mercy
4. Refusing to have Jesus die on the Cross for their sins
5. Above All else Deeply Wanting them in Hell
6. Irresistibly creating them FOR Hell and making it Absolutely Impossible for them to be loved, atoned for and forgiven.
This is Calvinism but not the God of the Bible
GraceAdict writes, “To know something in advance (foreknowledge) is not the same as God:
1. creating people FOR damnation
2. Never loving them
3. Excluding them from His Grace and Mercy
4. Refusing to have Jesus die on the Cross for their sins
5. Above All else Deeply Wanting them in Hell
6. Irresistibly creating them FOR Hell and making it Absolutely Impossible for them to be loved, atoned for and forgiven.
This is Calvinism but not the God of the Bible.
Under Calvinism:
To know something in advance (foreknowledge) is the same as God:
1. creating people whom He knew would be damned
2. Never loving them in the sense of saving them
3. Knowing that they would be excluded from His Grace and Mercy – He would not save them
4. Knowing that it was not necessary to have Jesus die on the Cross for their sins
5. Irresistibly creating them knowing they would be in Hell and making it Absolutely Impossible for them to be loved, atoned for and forgiven because they would be excluded from His Grace and Mercy – He would not save them.
This is Calvinism and the God of the Bible
rhutchin
Under Calvinism – know[ing] something in advance (foreknowledge) is the same as ….creating…..damn[ing]….Never loving….etc
This is Calvinism and the God of the Bible
br.d
That certainly is Calvinism – as it falls into the FALLACY of not discerning the difference between Epistemology (knowing) and Etiology ( CAUSING)
Unfortunately – to call a HUMAN FALLACY “the god of the bible” is to create a graven image.
Once again RH – is not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth on those points. RH is hiding more than he is revealing.
When one understands what Calvinism REALLY teaches about Reprobation, Election, Limited Atonement, Meticulous Divine Determinism the source of evil.
Who God Designed on Purpose to NEVER be loved. We are left again with what Calvinism really teaches:
God is the Sole Author of Every man’s Destiny:
1. He alone creates people FOR damnation…leaving absolutely no option but that for the vast majority of His creation.
2. Never loving them, and Never intending to love them, a God who is desperately in need of many more people to hate for His glory.
3. Before evil even existed the Calvi-god Excluded them from His Love, Grace and Mercy.
4. Purposefully Refusing to have Jesus die on the Cross for their sins because HE always desired with a “surpassing intensity” that a greater number MUST burn in hell. (His Secret Will)
5. Above All else He Deeply and irresistibly Wants them in Hell for His glory.
6. Irresistibly creating them FOR Hell and making it Absolutely Impossible for them to be loved, atoned for and forgiven.
Calvinism’s Advertising Lingo hides more than it reveals. This is especially true in a debate forum, pretending to be something other than what it really believes. Hiding the Ugly.
My question is: Why hide what Calvinism really teaches if it brings Glory to God. By Calvinists hiding what it REALLY teaches are they not hiding the Calvi-god’s Glory? According to them they would be BUT the reason they do this is because deep down in their own soul they are uncomfortable with the Calvi-monster their own hands have fashioned. Deep down inside they know it spits in the face of Goodness. So they have to say things like ” Evil is evil but it is good that there is evil” “When God decrees that evil should occur it is good that it occurs..it is good that evil exists…because God ordains it…He only ordains that which is good.” RC Sproul
I disagree with JTL but I like JTL because he is up front with what Calvinism teaches…he does not use “Advertising Lingo” or try and put lipstick on a pig, to soften his points and hide the ugly, he bravely embraces the Ugly.
I disagree with him but I do respect him for his forthright stance. At least he is honest.
GraceAdict writes, ‘We are left again with what Calvinism really teaches: God is the Sole Author of Every man’s Destiny:
1. He alone creates people FOR damnation…leaving absolutely no option but that for the vast majority of His creation.
2. Never loving them, and Never intending to love them, a God who is desperately in need of many more people to hate for His glory.
3. Before evil even existed the Calvi-god Excluded them from His Love, Grace and Mercy.
4. Purposefully Refusing to have Jesus die on the Cross for their sins because HE always desired with a “surpassing intensity” that a greater number MUST burn in hell. (His Secret Will)
5. Above All else He Deeply and irresistibly Wants them in Hell for His glory.
6. Irresistibly creating them FOR Hell and making it Absolutely Impossible for them to be loved, atoned for and forgiven.
Let’s straighten out GA on this and put in the stuff he leaves out and dropthe fanciful stuff that is not Calvinism.
1. God alone creates people.
1a. God knows from the beginning whom He will save and whom He will damn (not save) ,
1b, Some God creates knowing that he will save them.
1c. Some God creates knowing they are FOR damnation…leaving absolutely no option but that for the vast majority of His creation.
2. God knows whom He will save. For those that He knows He will not save, one might say that God Never loved them to save them (Christ would say, “I never knew you.”), and Never intended to love them to save them.
3 Before the Reprobate even existed God excluded them from His saving Love, Grace and Mercy.
4. God purposefully refused to have Jesus die on the Cross for their sins because HE always desired with a “surpassing intensity” that an unknown number MUST burn in hell. (His Secret Will)
5. God created the Reprobate knowing they were destined for Hell and made it absolutely Impossible for them to be saved, atoned for and forgiven.
Then, “Why hide what Calvinism really teaches if it brings Glory to God.”
Who is hiding anything about Calvinism?
I tell you, if I believed anything that wretched I would sure try to hide it. Yuck. Actually, I simply could not believe such things of the God I know and love, and whose love, grace, mercy and justice have been displayed throughout scripture. I don’t care who posits them or with what supposed prooftexts. Just as science, falsely so-called can seek to distort the truth so can scriptural prooftexts, falsely so-called.
Thank-you RH that is much clearer and much closer to what we know Calvinism adheres to.
I do appreciate your clarity…I will continue to disagree with you but this last post had much less smoke and mirrors.
Thank-you
GraceAdict writes, ‘I do appreciate your clarity…I will continue to disagree with you …”
Now, let’s see if you can take each of the statements I made and revise them to tell us what you believe to be the truth.
rh writes:
“Under Calvinism:
To know something in advance (foreknowledge) is the same as God:
1. creating people whom He knew would be damned
2. Never loving them in the sense of saving them
3. Knowing that they would be excluded from His Grace and Mercy – He would not save them
4. Knowing that it was not necessary to have Jesus die on the Cross for their sins
5. Irresistibly creating them knowing they would be in Hell and making it Absolutely Impossible for them to be loved, atoned for and forgiven because they would be excluded from His Grace and Mercy – He would not save them.
This is Calvinism and the God of the Bible”
I find this astounding. How could anyone even think such things, let alone claim to have read the bible or to have a single ounce of goodness, love or justice in their being? As always, rh is half right. This despicable, horrific, monstrous thinking is indeed Calvinism. It is NOT, and I repeat NOT the God of the bible.
Good post TS00
It is astounding what they will eventually admit even though they still hide much of what they believe.
They hide so much more than they admit but when it surfaces it is truly ugly.
I too am astounded.
GraceAdict writes, [In Calvinism] “God first hated the vast majority of mankind that is why He purposefully made them FOR damnation,…”
rhutchin
GA must be denying that God is omniscient and knew the future of each person perfectly when He created the universe.
br.d
Only if one EQUIVOCATES on the word “hate” – which is fallacious thinking.
John Calvin
-quote
All are not *CREATE* equal….accordingly as each has been CREATED for one of these ends….we say he has been predestined to life or death.
Now take the Calvinist interpretation of “Jacob I loved – Esau I hated”
CONCLUSION
Calvin’s god CREATED Esau to be hated – and those predestined to death.
GraceAdict – where can I get that quote from R.C. Sproul where he states evil is good?
It makes perfect sense to me that he would say that.
He has said it in different places, here is one place it is a video watch the first 2-3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHTZrxHB-so
Also Al Molher says that we shouldn’t judge God by our definition of good. However that is not the problem…we are using the Biblical understanding of good not our own understanding of good.
Thanks – but what video?
Is it on youtube?
Can you give me the name of it so I can google it?
Wait – I see the link you provided – it didn’t show up in my email
RC Sproul as a Calvinist assumes “Meticulous Divine Determinism” therefore everything that happened had to come from God including Evil and then if it comes from God we MUST call it Good.
AL tries to deal with the issue that arises which is “Hitler does not look good neither does the rape of a child seem GOOD.” So what AL says: we can’t judge God according to our standards of Good and Evil.- Well it actually is not our standards of Good and Evil it is the Biblical standard. And by their reasoning there is NOTHING that could be judged as Evil because in Meticulous Divine Determinism there is Nothing that didn’t come from God. Oh what a pretzel we twist when we try and make scripture fit into Calvinism. Calvinism is NOT Biblical theology.
One might even be so bold as to say something as evil as Calvinism could not come from God.
I like that echo – “Oh what a pretzel we twist” echoes “Oh what a web we weave”. :-]
br.d
In one place RH says Calvin’s god ENFORCES his decree – and in another place says “yes” Calvin’s god’s decree is FORCE-LESS.
I think this can be stated as:
Calvin’s god uses a force that forces without forcing – by enforcing a decree which is force-less :-]
rhutchin
The Calvinist position is illustrated by the Assyrians in Isaiah 10…etc
br.d
On that interpretation – it LOGICALLY follows – the scripture affirms a force that forces without forcing – by enforcing a decree which is force-less!
Right! :-]
TS00 writes, “that ‘God is not willing that any should perish’ actually means that God is not willing that any should perish. ”
Even you should know that their are two positions on this verse>
!. Universalist position: the term, “any,” is unrestricted and refers to any person in the world.
2. Non-Universalist position: the term, “any,” is restricted by context to those to whom Peter is writing (i.e., believers)
Does the universalist position LOGICALLY resolve this statement as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time – the way the Calvinist position does?
br.d writes, ‘If we use the people of Israel while under bondage in Egypt as an example – God’s choice was that all of the Hebrew people would be free to leave Egypt. He did not (as it is in Calvinism) determine to elect the “few” for freedom – and determine the “many” to be punished by making them remain as slaves. ”
In Calvinism, God’s choice (His decree) was that all of the Hebrew people would be free to leave Egypt. So again, we find you misrepresenting Calvinism.
Then, “I believe Dr. Craig would say – in the same way – God chooses all people without distinction to be free from sin and death through Jesus Christ. But any individual who chooses to reject that offer is permitted to do so.”
The Calvinist would add that God does not enable all people to accept that offer. God enables His elect to accept that offer and leaves the Reprobate to answer for their sins.
Then, “So in Calvinism – people who are not elected for salvation are not permitted to do anything other than hate and reject god.”
Basically what Paul said in Romans, “…the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.’
rhutchin
In Calvinism, God’s choice (His decree) was that all of the Hebrew people would be free to leave Egypt. So again, we find you misrepresenting Calvinism.
br.d
It is correct if we are using Egypt as an analogy of salvation with the Calvinist model.
Calvin’s god is the divine potter who DESIGNS the “few” to be saved.
He DESIGNS the “many” to be damned
He creates the “many” as “vessels of wrath”
He has DESIGNED them for that end – to remain as slaves to the bondage of sin and death.
John Calvin
-quote
“All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been CREATED FOR ONE OR OTHER OF THESE ENDS, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death”
So to parallel that in the Egypt analogy – it follows – he DESIGNS and DETERMINES the “few” to escape the bondage of Egypt
And he DESIGNS and DETERMINES the “many” to remain as slaves under the bondage of Egypt
That makes the analogy correct.
rhutchin
The Calvinist would add that God does not enable all people to accept that offer. God enables His elect to accept that offer and leaves the Reprobate to answer for their sins.
br.d
Sure – it makes sense – what Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT he does not enable.
And all of the sins and evils which come to pass Calvin’s god DECREES which means he obviously PERMITS
And for one who equates “permit” with “enable” – it makes sense that equation makes him the enabler of all sins and evils.
So in Calvinism – people who are not elected for salvation are not permitted to do anything other than hate and reject god.”
rhutchin
Basically what Paul said in Romans, “…the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.’
br.d
I certainly won’t lower scripture to draw that inference – but I can understand why the Calvinist needs to do so.
Under Calvinism,
Why do people sin? Because of the sin nature.
Why do people have a sin nature? Because God gave it to them.
Why did God give people a sin nature? Because Adam sinned.
Why did Adam sin? Because God ordained it in eternity past (along with everything else).
So, why don’t Calvinists skip all the gobbledy gook, and just admit that people sin because God ordained it in eternity past?
Because, although their theology demands it, they refuse to acknowledge that God, and God alone, is the author, source, cause, determiner and bringer to pass of all evil. Neither Adam, or any other created being can sin apart from the divine decree in a world in which all things come to pass by divine decree. The games are getting so tiresome.
TS00 writes, “Why did Adam sin? Because God ordained it in eternity past (along with everything else).”
What did God ordain? Let’s read this from Genesis, “when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” God had ordained that Adam accept the fruit offered to him by his wife and eat it.
Then, “So, why don’t Calvinists skip all the gobbledy gook, and just admit that people sin because God ordained it in eternity past?”
Calvinists do admit this – just as Genesis explains it.
Then, “Neither Adam, or any other created being can sin apart from the divine decree in a world in which all things come to pass by divine decree.”
Yet, in all that, God does not coerce, compel, or force, either Adam or Eve to eat the fruit. They are able to act in line with their desires – desires unique to each one and not coerced, compelled, or forced on them by God.
rhutchin
What did God ordain? Let’s read this from Genesis…..etc
br,d
Now lets read if from John Calvin
-quote
Man has been *CREATED* to undergo that calamity to which he is subject…
The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should…..
The first man fell because the Lord had judged it to be expedient…
WHY he so judged is *HIDDEN FROM US*.”
(Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 23)
rhutchin: “In Calvinism, God’s choice (His decree) was that all of the Hebrew people would be free to leave Egypt. So again, we find you misrepresenting Calvinism.”
br.d: “It is correct if we are using Egypt as an analogy of salvation with the Calvinist model….That makes the analogy correct.”
LOL!!! So, br.d wasn’t referring to history but using history as analogy. Why couldn’t he just say so in the beginning? So, Yes, if we view “Egypt” and the sinful world, then Romans 8 is true, “For whom God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
rhutchin: “Basically what Paul said in Romans, “…the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.’”
br.d: ” certainly won’t lower scripture to draw that inference – but I can understand why the Calvinist needs to do so.”
br.d understands that he really cannot draw anything from this verse different than the Calvinists. When he figures out what inference he would draw from this verse, maybe he will share it with readers. I suspect we won’t be seeing anything from br.d anytime soon.
rhutchin
LOL!!! So, br.d wasn’t referring to history but using history as analogy. Why couldn’t he just say so in the beginning?
br.d
Having failed – now we are quibbling over the word “analogy”.
Who in the world is not going to understand paralleling OT Egypt with NT Salvation as an analogy?
rhutchin
br.d understands that he really cannot draw anything from this verse different than the Calvinists.
br.d
AH! This will be Calvin’s god giving you FALSE perception #10 rhutchin
Mr. Spock is still keeping track of the count :-]
rh writes:
“Basically what Paul said in Romans, “…the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.’”
What Paul did not write in Romans, but is falsely read into scripture by Calvinists:
‘God cursed man with an inescapable carnal mind (a.k.a. Total Depravity or sin nature), whereby he can neither avoid sinning or desire to please God, unless God undoes the curse he put upon him.’
Nowhere does scripture say such a monstrous thing. In fact, anyone who actually reads Romans from the beginning will see that Paul outright states the exact opposite.
Read Romans 1-3, but most are familiar with Paul’s teaching that all are without excuse, because what could be known of God was made known to all men by God. Rather than cursing them with an inability to desire, seek and know God, Paul asserts that He did the exact oppostite – He revealed himself to men, so that they could know him, and could never justly claim the excuse, ‘But I didn’t know! I was blinded by your curse, totally depraved and unable to understand truth.’
Does Paul assert that men could not understand truth? Again, just the opposite. They had to first know the truth before they could deliberately exchange it for a lie, which Paul explains is what the wicked do. And just in case the reader does not have Paul’s logical expertise, he spells it out.
Why do the wicked exchange the truth for a lie? Because they love their sin – not because they were helplessly, irresistibly ordained to perform it without fail and do not know right from wrong. Anybody remember the fruit of eating the forbidden fruit? Knowing good from evil, which is the exact opposite of the Calvinist curse of Total Depravity. Just another Calvinist logical error, to in one breath cite ‘all men are without excuse’ and in the next offer men an excuse, i.e., Total Depravity or the absence of knowledge.
Paul goes on to explain that the wicked love darkness, not because they have been cursed with a carnal mind/death/Total Depravity, but because the light exposes the truth of their wickedness – and they know it. Now how could any of this possibly apply to a cursed, totally depraved, dead, in the dark sinner? It cannot, and it does not. Such is simply the false creation of the confused, illogical Calvinist mind as he creates pretzel after pretzel.
It is the conscious, deliberate, chosen rejection of truth that is judged as sin. There is no such thing as ‘irresistible’ sin done by cursed men who can not do otherwise. That would be the height of cruelty and injustice, were God to do such an immoral act, then punish those he so cruelly cursed. If it was not a free choice, it was not sin. If it was irresistibly determined before the individual was ever born, it was not a free choice. Paul would never make such a logical error.
rh: “Basically what Paul said in Romans, “…the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.’”
TS00: “What Paul did not write in Romans, but is falsely read into scripture by Calvinists:
‘God cursed man with an inescapable carnal mind (a.k.a. Total Depravity or sin nature), whereby he can neither avoid sinning or desire to please God, unless God undoes the curse he put upon him.’
TS00 sounds like Shiff pretending to quote Trump. Unable to deal with Romans 8, TS00 has to invent a strawman. br.d says such misrepresentation is against the rules.
Then, “It is the conscious, deliberate, chosen rejection of truth that is judged as sin.”
Close enough from a non-Calvinist. What does Romans 1 tells us – “…the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness…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. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” Paul then explains why this happens in Romans 8, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
TS00
sounds like Shiff pretending to quote Trump. Unable to deal with Romans 8,
rhutchin
TS00 has to invent a strawman. br.d says such misrepresentation is against the rules.
br.d
rhutchin –
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.
If TS00 had said “rhutchin is unable to respond to Romans 8” – that would still not be a strawman – but it would be a false representation of rhutchin.
I agree that saying “unable to deal with Romans 8” is right on the edge of what you did – because it wasn’t emphatically asserted (as you did to Aidan) but rather represented the arguers impression (where it was stated “it sounds like”).
I will therefore ask TS00 to be more careful not to give the appearance of following your previous patterns.
Actually, those were not my words. 😉
Really? I apologize for not seeing that!
Obviously rhutchin thought they were.
Sorry I got that wrong TS00!
Well said BR.D,
I think I know the scripture for this.
“But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one”(Mat. 5:37).
Aidan
“But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one”(Mat. 5:37).
br.d
YES Aidan – insightful catch!
Accept I quote it a little differently – “Let your communication be……etc”
This is a command from Jesus
And when one scrutinizes Calvinist communications (i.e. Calvinist language) – one will eventually discover that the Calvinist testimony in so many things does not follow this pattern – but rather disobeys it.
Calvinist communications are full of “Yea Nay” statements.
And Calvinists are intuitive enough to internally recognize this.
So what they so is totally focus on one half – while HIDING the other.
Now in LOGICAL terminology “yea” and “nay” equate to “TRUE” and “FALSE”.
In other words a statement in scripture that the Non-Calvinist interprets as simply TRUE – the Calvinist interprets that same statement as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
In LOGIC – this is classified as the law of non-contradiction (LNC)
It is a LOGICAL impossibility that propositions cannot be both TRUE and FALSE *IN THE SAME SENSE* at the same time.
Take for example the statement “God wills all men saved”
For the Non-Calvinist this statement is TRUE – and therefore cannot be FALSE
But for the Calvinist – this statement is both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
So we start to understand this as an inherent characteristic of the Calvinist interpretation of so many scriptures.
They know their interpretation turns a scripture verse into a YEA-NAY statement
And they don’t want anyone to see that – so they HIDE it
I believe this component of Calvinist doctrine is a byproduct of ancient Manichean thinking – which historically contained ONTOLOGICAL DUALISM – in which evil is good and good is evil.
So we can see that the Calvinist has a different *SENSE* in which he interprets many verses in scripture.
And that different *SENSE* takes scripture statements that are not AT FACE VALUE “Yea-Nay” statements and turns them into “Yea-Nay” statements.
The question is – did the Holy Spirit mean to inspire authors to craft statements within scripture in such a way that they APPEAR to comply with Jesus’ command – when in fact they really disobey it?
Sorry If this has gone to the wrong thread.
BR,D wrote:
Well for me – its still the case – the biggest RED-FLAG for people to see that something is wrong with the Calvinism – is the fact that Calvinists are constantly focused on HIDING what they don’t want people to see.
And with a highly evolved library of duplicitous language.
My Response:
Well said, Br,d, I believe I know a scripture for those who use “duplicitous language”.
Jesus said, “But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.”(Matthew 5:37)
Rhutchin says: “Yet, in all that, God does not coerce, compel, or force, either Adam or Eve to eat the fruit. They are able to act in line with their desires – desires unique to each one and not coerced, compelled, or forced on them by God.”
Hmm … God “does not coerce, compel, for force” Adam and Eve to sin? But they are simply acting out of their own desires, which are “not coerced, compelled or forced on them by God” in any way?
So … here he says that sinful desires are not put on people by God in any way, but let’s see what else Rhutchin has said in previous posts on this website (emphasis is mine):
“God CONTROLS ALL THINGS because He is sovereign over His creation. God ORIGINATES ALL THINGS because He created in Genesis 1, God specified and enforced the penalty of Adam’s sin, and God then CAUSES each person born to Adam TO HAVE A CORRUPTED HEART and to lack faith…. NOTHING originates outside God and NOTHING is outside God’s control.”
“That which originates people’s thoughts, desires, actions is the sin nature combined with a lack of faith. That condition WAS DETERMINED BY GOD and enforced when He creates each person.”
“And God DETERMINES all outside AND INSIDE factors by creating the system in the first place.”
“GOD MADE PEOPLE IMPERFECT, and people’s imperfection produces false perceptions.”
“God … enforces the decree that all people are born with a sin nature and without faith.”
“God predetermined you to choose that which you desired to choose.”
“Had God not decreed it, Satan could not have entered the garden, Eve could not have been tempted to eat the fruit and would not have offered the fruit to Adam, and Adam would not have eaten the fruit. IT ALL BEGINS WITH GOD’S DECREE.”
“God CANNOT BE PASSIVE IN ANYTHING simply because He is God. There is no difference between actively ordaining and actively permitting,”
“It is God who creates man with a sin nature that desires nothing of God’s plan.”
Let’s hear that again: “It is God who creates man with a sin nature that desires nothing of God’s plan.”
Let’s hear that again: “It is God who creates man with a sin nature that desires nothing of God’s plan.”
“The corrupted nature of man dictates neurological impulses and guarantees the certainly of those impulses that God decreed.
People’s desires come from their sin nature and their lack of faith.” (Heather’s note: People’s desires come from their sin nature, which, according to Rhutchin, was created and predetermined by Calvi-god!)
“More simply, God gives people a sin nature and withholds faith from them.”
Oh, I get it now! Calvi-god doesn’t really give people their “sinful desires;” he just gives them the “sin nature” that is full of ONLY SINFUL DESIRES, that leads to them ONLY being able to choose sin, and that can NEVER lead to them choosing to do right unless Calvi-god causes it to happen.
Yep, this is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than Calvi-god “coercing, compelling, or forcing” people to sin! I can see now how Calvi-god doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with people choosing to sin!
Calvi-god doesn’t “compel” them to sin; he just gives them the “sin nature” that can only always want to sin.
I get it now! Totally gets Calvi-god off the hook for sin, doesn’t it!?!
In one place RH says Calvin’s god ENFORCES his decree – and in another place says “yes” Calvin’s god’s decree is FORCE-LESS.
I think this can be stated as:
Calvin’s god uses a force that forces without forcing – by enforcing a decree which is force-less :-]
br.d writes, “I think this can be stated as:
Calvin’s god uses a force that forces without forcing – by enforcing a decree which is force-less”
The Calvinist position is illustrated by the Assyrians in Isaiah 10. By God’s decree, the Assyrians could not invade Israel until God said they could. God enforced this decree and the Assyrians could not invade Israel. Then, God decreed that the Assyrians enter Israel, but God did not have to force the Assyrians to do so. This is how Isaiah described it.
“Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation. I will send him against an ungodly nation, And against the people of My wrath I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Yet he does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations. For he says, ‘Are not my princes altogether kings? Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus? As my hand has found the kingdoms of the idols, Whose carved images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria, As I have done to Samaria and her idols, Shall I not do also to Jerusalem and her idols?’” Therefore it shall come to pass, when the LORD has performed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, that He will say, “I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his haughty looks.” For he says: “By the strength of my hand I have done it, And by my wisdom, for I am prudent; Also I have removed the boundaries of the people, And have robbed their treasuries; So I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man. My hand has found like a nest the riches of the people, And as one gathers eggs that are left, I have gathered all the earth; And there was no one who moved his wing, Nor opened his mouth with even a peep.” Shall the ax boast itself against him who chops with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself against him who saws with it? As if a rod could wield itself against those who lift it up, Or as if a staff could lift up, as if it were not wood! Therefore the Lord, the Lord of hosts, Will send leanness among his fat ones; And under his glory He will kindle a burning Like the burning of a fire.”
br.d seems to have a hard time grasping this.
heather writes, “Calvi-god doesn’t “compel” them to sin; he just gives them the “sin nature” that can only always want to sin. ”
Where do you say the sin nature comes from?
rhutchin
Where do you say the sin nature comes from?
br.d
How about Libertarian Free will?
Where do you say the sin nature has its SOURCE and ORIGIN if not in the mind of Calvin’s god?
rhutchin: “Where do you say the sin nature comes from?”
br.d: “How about Libertarian Free will?”
You can’t tell us what LFW is, you aren’t really saying anything here.
Then, “Where do you say the sin nature has its SOURCE and ORIGIN if not in the mind of Calvin’s god?”
Certainly, God understood the effects of Adam’s sin before he ate the fruit. The concept of the sin nature had its SOURCE and ORIGIN if not in the mind of God. That sin nature came to fruition when Adam ate the fruit.
rhutchin
Where do you say the sin nature comes from?”
br.d
How about Libertarian Free will?”
rhutchin
You can’t tell us what LFW is, you aren’t really saying anything here.
br.d
Sure – Libertarian Free will exists when a being has multiple options all of which are available to him – and he is permitted to choose among that range of options – that choice being compatible with his nature.
So Where do you say the sin nature has its SOURCE and ORIGIN if not in the mind of Calvin’s god?
rhutchin
Certainly, God understood the effects of Adam’s sin before he ate the fruit. The concept of the sin nature had its SOURCE and ORIGIN if not in the mind of God. That sin nature came to fruition when Adam ate the fruit.
br.d
This answer evades the question – the question does not ask about “fruition” it focuses solely on the SOURCE and ORIGIN.
And since Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES all sin and evil in his mind – it LOGICALLY follows – the sin nature has its SOURCE and ORIGIN in Calvin’s god’s mind.
When sin is FIRST CONCEIVED (in Calvin’s god’s mind) it brings forth death.
br.d writes, “Sure – Libertarian Free will exists when a being has multiple options all of which are available to him – and he is permitted to choose among that range of options – that choice being compatible with his nature.”
LOL!!! The only choice that matters is accept/reject salvation and most people don’t have this option until God gives them faith and here, the Scriptures are clear that God only gives faith to His elect. Otherwise, the choice between mustard or mayo on a cheeseburger is inconsequential.
Then, “And since Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES all sin and evil in his mind – it LOGICALLY follows – the sin nature has its SOURCE and ORIGIN in Calvin’s god’s mind.”
But not apart from Adam and the decision he made. God gave Adam a mind and the ability to desire. His desires were shaped by the presence of Eve in his life – he loved her – and the presence of Satan enticing Eve to eat the fruit and offer him the fruit. God certainly understood Adam’s desires for Eve but God did not form those desires in Adam’s mind – God gave Adam the ability to have desires. However, all of history that was to play out had its origin in the mind of God and it was only after God determined all things after the counsel of His will that history was certain.
br.d
Sure – Libertarian Free will exists when a being has multiple options all of which are available to him – and he is permitted to choose among that range of options – that choice being compatible with his nature.”
rhutchin
LOL!!! The only choice that matters is accept/reject salvation and most people don’t have this option until God gives them faith and here, the Scriptures are clear that God only gives faith to His elect. Otherwise, the choice between mustard or mayo on a cheeseburger is inconsequential.
br.d
Earth to rhutchin!
The question is on where does the sin nature come from
I answered Libertarian Free Will
You needed a definition
I provided it.
Are you unable to stay on point?
And since Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES all sin and evil in his mind – it LOGICALLY follows – the sin nature has its SOURCE and ORIGIN in Calvin’s god’s mind.”
rhutchin
But not apart from Adam and the decision he made.
br.d
You’re showing here – any claim of RATIONAL reasoning is almost non-existent.
Firstly – Adam does not exist at the foundation of the world in which sin is FIRST CONCEIVED in Calvin’s god’s mind.
Secondly – Adam and all of his attributes are the handi-work of Calvin’s god – all FIRST-CONCEIVED in Calvin’s god’s mind.
rhutchin
God gave Adam a mind and the ability to desire. His desires were shaped by the presence of Eve in his life …etc
br.d
Calvin’s god’s DECREE produced Adam’s brain – as well as every neurological impulse that would ever appear in it.
Calvinist Bruce Reichenbach
-quote
“There is no instance in which I can desire anything other than that DECREED by god. Should I desire…..that very desire is itself DECREED by god. That is, god *MOVES* the desire of man in order for man to act accordingly.
We see then that god does not just *ALLOW* for evil events to occur. But rather he *BRINGS ABOUT* these evil events. ” (Predestination and Free Will p. 51)
Exactly what I’ve been consistently stating here as what LOGICALLY follows in Theological Determinism!
Follow every link of the CASUAL CHAIN – back to its SOURCE ORIGIN – and you arrive at Calvin’s god.
br.d writes, ‘The question is on where does the sin nature come from I answered Libertarian Free Will. You needed a definition I provided it.”
And I said that the only decision that matters is accept/reject salvation and because of lack of faith, this option is not available to people. Thus, by your definition, LFW cannot be exercised by people with a sin nature.
Then, ‘And since Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES all sin and evil in his mind – it LOGICALLY follows – the sin nature has its SOURCE and ORIGIN in Calvin’s god’s mind.”
God conceived the world and all that would happen before He created the world. He gave Adam certain attributes and manipulated the environment in which He placed Adam. The result was Adam eating the fruit and this corrupted both him and his descendants. So, you are correct to say, “Firstly – Adam does not exist at the foundation of the world in which sin is FIRST CONCEIVED in Calvin’s god’s mind.
Secondly – Adam and all of his attributes are the handi-work of Calvin’s god – all FIRST-CONCEIVED in Calvin’s god’s mind.” Yes, God understood what He was doing and everything plays out exactly the way God conceived it. All God had to do was make Adam with certain attributes and place him in an environment in which those attributes would result in Adam eating the fruit.
Then, “Calvin’s god’s DECREE produced Adam’s brain – as well as every neurological impulse that would ever appear in it.”
God created Adam’s brain knowing the impulses that it would produce as Adam’s attributes (knowledge, understanding, etc) enabled him to interact with his environment. Of course, God understood those impulses that would be generated in Adam’s brain under those conditions (especially when Adam first saw Eve).
Then, “Calvinist Bruce Reichenbach
-quote
“There is no instance in which I can desire anything other than that DECREED by god. Should I desire…..that very desire is itself DECREED by god. That is, god *MOVES* the desire of man in order for man to act accordingly.
We see then that god does not just *ALLOW* for evil events to occur. But rather he *BRINGS ABOUT* these evil events. ” (Predestination and Free Will p. 51)”
How does God do this? By giving a person a specific set of attributes and then putting that person into an environment to which those attributes react. Our desires reflect the attributes God gave us interacting with the environment into which God placed us. Even you harp on this but never attempt to dispute it as even you know it is true. You know that you have attributes with which you were born and you inhabit an environment that you did not create. Your attributes interacting with your environment determine your desires and your desires determine what you do. Who decided all this – God did. Everything you is what you want to do.
br.d writes, ‘The question is on where does the sin nature come from I answered Libertarian Free Will. You needed a definition I provided it.” Can you stay on point?
rhutchin
And I said…..this option is not available to people. Thus, by your definition, LFW cannot be exercised by people with a sin nature.
br.d
FALSE evades the point.
Theological Determinism and Libertarian Free Will are mutually excluding – where one exists the other does not.
A RATIONAL thinker would know that.
And since Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES all sin and evil in his mind – it LOGICALLY follows – the sin nature has its SOURCE and ORIGIN in Calvin’s god’s mind.
rhutchin
God conceived the world and all that would happen …..etc
br.d
You already acknowledged “YES” to this in the previous post.
So I’ll stick with that.
Calvin’s god’s DECREE produced Adam’s brain – as well as every neurological impulse that would ever appear in it.”
rhutchin
God created Adam’s brain knowing the impulses that it would produce as Adam’s attributes
br.d
DUH! How hard is it to know what one creates! :-]
Calvinist Bruce Reichenbach
-quote
“There is no instance in which I can desire anything other than that DECREED by god. Should I desire…..that very desire is itself DECREED by god. That is, god *MOVES* the desire of man in order for man to act accordingly.
We see then that god does not just *ALLOW* for evil events to occur. But rather he *BRINGS ABOUT* these evil events. ” (Predestination and Free Will p. 51)”
rhutchin
………….Who decided all this – God did.
Everything you is what you want to do.
br.d
TRUE
Calvin’s god “decided” on how he would DESIGN the creature and every attribute of the creature.
Calvin’s god “decided” every neurological impulse that will appear in the creatures brain.
And the rest – as they say – is history. :-]
br.d writes, “Theological Determinism and Libertarian Free Will are mutually excluding – where one exists the other does not.
A RATIONAL thinker would know that.”
We’ve agreed to that. Your problem is that you don’t know how to avoid Theological Determinism and substitute LFW for it. Until you do that, all your complaining about Theological Determinism is fluff and double-talk. I don’t see you changing anything anytime soon.
br.d
Theological Determinism and Libertarian Free Will are mutually excluding – where one exists the other does not.
A RATIONAL thinker would know that.
rhutchin
We’ve agreed to that. Your problem is that you don’t know how to avoid Theological Determinism and substitute LFW for it. Until you do that, all your complaining about Theological Determinism is fluff and double-talk. I don’t see you changing anything anytime soon.
br.d
AH! Calvin’s god has given you FALSE perception #12.
This is getting fun to watch!
And as always – Mr. Spock is keeping the count! :-]
rhutchin: “Your problem is that you don’t know how to avoid Theological Determinism and substitute LFW for it. Until you do that, all your complaining about Theological Determinism is fluff and double-talk. I don’t see you changing anything anytime soon.”
br.d: “AH! Calvin’s god has given you FALSE perception #12. This is getting fun to watch! And as always – Mr. Spock is keeping the count!”
Your problem is still that you don’t know how to avoid Theological Determinism and substitute LFW for it. Until you do that, all your complaining about Theological Determinism is fluff and double-talk. I don’t see you changing anything anytime soon given your response. above
rhutchin: “Your problem is that you don’t know how to avoid Theological Determinism and substitute LFW…..etc
br.d
AH! Calvin’s god has given you FALSE perception #12.
This is getting fun to watch!
And as always – Mr. Spock is keeping the count!”
rhutchin
Your problem is still that you don’t know how to avoid Theological Determinism and substitute LFW for it…….
br.d
AH! Calvin’s god has given you FALSE perception #13
I’ll have enough data for a trend analysis pretty soon :-]
rhutchin
God created Adam’s brain knowing the impulses that it would produce as Adam’s attributes
Everything, every error this gentleman spews out, derives from the insistence on seeing the world through fatalistic, deterministic eyes. Who, anywhere, is suggesting that God didn’t know how his creation would work? No matter what he might have designed, most believe God knew how his design would work.
No one is suggesting that God screwed up and somehow sin and evil snuck in before he could stop it. That is a possibility, but I know of no theological system which affirms it. What we do genuinely have is two, contradictory alternatives:
1) God not only knew, but deliberately chose to design his creation to consist of sin and evil, deliberately ordaining every sin and evil which would ever come to pass before creating one atom. Or Adam. Because he wanted/needed sin and evil in order to get the full glory he felt was his due, he determined that the end – his glory – was worth the means – ordaining sin and evil.
2) God not only knew, but deliberately chose to design his creation with the power to choose, granting them the possibility – which he knew they would take but neither desired or determined – to choose poorly, and perpetrate endless sin and evil. Knowing this, it was, in God’s estimation, better to allow free choice – and the evil it would bring – than to control all things absolutely, meticulously and determinitively, thereby eliminate not only any possibility of sin and evil, but also any possibility of genuine, volitional relationships or love.
It would be helpful if the Calvinist would honestly portray what the debate actually consists of, rather than seeking to throw out straw men and deceptive misconceptions. Either God is deterministic or he isn’t. It doesn’t really matter what one believes to be the reason. Is he directly responsible – through however many and whatever sort of means he uses – for whatsoever comes to pass; or, to the contrary, did he create men with the genuine freedom to make volitional choices, including choices that are directly contrary to the desire, will and commands of God?
Great post!
TS00 writes, “Either God is deterministic or he isn’t.”
Under Calvinism, God is sovereign and in absolute control of His creation. Nothing can happen without God knowing it and having to decide that it should happen. Some call this deterministic.
rhutchin
Under Calvinism, God is sovereign and in absolute control of His creation. Nothing can happen without God knowing it and having to decide that it should happen. Some call this deterministic.
br,d
Another wonderful example of *AS-IF* language!
“knowing what will happen” and “deciding it should happen”
*AS-IF* anything can happen without Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVING it in his mind and DECREEING it.
What a hoot!
If a Calvinist didn’t speak DOUBLE-SPEAK – could he speak at all? :-]
Rhutchin: “Then, God decreed that the Assyrians enter Israel, but God did not have to force the Assyrians to do so.”
Yeah, right! If Calvi-god did not “have to force the Assyrians to do so,” it’s because he gave them the sinner-nature which caused them to only want to be wicked. He predestined them to be wicked sinners and to do the things they did. And they could never have chosen otherwise because Calvi-god made sure to give them the sinner nature which could do nothing but sin.
And yet I suppose you’ll say this Calvi-god still had no part in “coercing, compelling, or forcing” them to sin, even though, according to your own words:
“… God ORIGINATES ALL THINGS … and God CAUSES each person born to Adam TO HAVE A CORRUPTED HEART … and NOTHING originates outside God and NOTHING is outside God’s control … and [the sin nature] was DETERMINED BY GOD and enforced when He creates each person … and God DETERMINES all outside AND INSIDE factors … and GOD MADE PEOPLE IMPERFECT … and God enforces the decree that all people are born with a sin nature and without faith … and God predetermined you to choose that which you desired to choose … and God CANNOT BE PASSIVE IN ANYTHING … and it is God who creates man with a sin nature that desires nothing of God’s plan …”
You say that Br.d. has a hard time grasping the Calvinist view of the Assyrians passage.
Well, so do I! And any logical, rational Christian who takes God at His Word and who understands the overall Truth of the Bible and who sees God for who He really is, as presented in His Word, should have a hard time grasping it too!
heather writes, ” If Calvi-god did not “have to force the Assyrians to do so,” it’s because he gave them the sinner-nature which caused them to only want to be wicked.”
That may be true, but Isaiah does not explain their actions in that manner saying, “it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations. For he says, ‘Are not my princes altogether kings? Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus? As my hand has found the kingdoms of the idols, Whose carved images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria, As I have done to Samaria and her idols, Shall I not do also to Jerusalem and her idols?’ As Jeremiah said, “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;” and we see that in the Assyrians. The “heart” of the Assyrians was inherited from Adam and was wicked as a consequence of Adam’s sin. So, you are correct, also, God gave the Assyrians the sinner-nature which caused them to only want to be wicked.
Nonetheless, God holds the king of the Assyrians responsible for his actions as Isaiah describes, “Therefore it shall come to pass, when the LORD has performed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, that He will say, “I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his haughty looks.” For he says: “By the strength of my hand I have done it, And by my wisdom, for I am prudent; Also I have removed the boundaries of the people, And have robbed their treasuries; So I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man. My hand has found like a nest the riches of the people, And as one gathers eggs that are left, I have gathered all the earth; And there was no one who moved his wing, Nor opened his mouth with even a peep.” Shall the ax boast itself against him who chops with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself against him who saws with it? As if a rod could wield itself against those who lift it up, Or as if a staff could lift up, as if it were not wood! Therefore the Lord, the Lord of hosts, Will send leanness among his fat ones; And under his glory He will kindle a burning Like the burning of a fire.”
I also noticed the tiny little qualifier in this statement – Calvin’s god DOES NOT HAVE TO force or coerce. Which of course leaves open the that he CAN or DOES force or coerce.
The truth is – the Calvinist cannot possibly speak with authority on whether or not Calvin’s god forces people to do what he has people do – because the Calvinist simply doesn’t know one way or the other.
But that doesn’t stop anyone from MAKING-BELIEVE he speaks with authority :-]
br.d writes, ‘I also noticed the tiny little qualifier in this statement – Calvin’s god DOES NOT HAVE TO force or coerce. Which of course leaves open the that he CAN or DOES force or coerce.”
I said, “God did not have to force the Assyrians to do so.” The reason explained by Isaiah, “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation. I will send him against an ungodly nation, And against the people of My wrath I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Yet he does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations.”
rhutchin
I said, “God did not have to force the Assyrians to do so.” this is explained by …..etc
br.d
Ok where in that text does it state or convey “DID NOT HAVE TO FORCE” ?
br.d: “Ok where in that text does it state or convey “DID NOT HAVE TO FORCE” ?”
“Yet he does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations…As I have done to Samaria and her idols, Shall I not do also to Jerusalem and her idols?’”
br.d
Ok where in that text does it state or convey “DID NOT HAVE TO FORCE” ?”
rhutchin
“Yet he does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations…As I have done to Samaria and her idols, Shall I not do also to Jerusalem and her idols?’”
br.d
Well this text describes attributes of the creature.
And it LOGICALLY follows that Calvin’s god DETERMINES – all creaturely attributes – leaving ZERO left over for the creature to determine.
But where does it state that Calvin’s god DOES NOT FORCE those attributes to be what they are?
br.d writes, “But where does it state that Calvin’s god DOES NOT FORCE those attributes to be what they are?”
What attributes did you have in mind – intelligence, cultural background, experiences, initiative, etc. Regardless the attributes, James is still true, “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”
rhutchin
“Yet he DOES NOT MEAN SO, Nor does his HEART THINK so; But it is in his HEART TO destroy, And cut off not a few nations…As I have done to Samaria and her idols, Shall I not do also to Jerusalem and her idols?’”
br.d
Well this text describes attributes of the creature.
And it LOGICALLY follows that Calvin’s god DETERMINES – all creaturely attributes – leaving ZERO left over for the creature to determine.
But where does it state that Calvin’s god DOES NOT FORCE those attributes to be what they are?
rhutchin
What attributes did you have in mind ….
br.d
Don’t be silly! All of them!
Look at the words in capitals within the text you posted. You have the attribute of intent – and the attribute of thought.
And BTW nowhere in are there any terms that correspond to FORCE – COERCE etc
What is present is the description of the attributes I’ve mentioned.
So where does it state that Calvin’s god DOES NOT FORCE those attributes to be what they are?
And where does it state that Calvin’s god DOES NOT FORCE those attributes to be the CAUSE of the EFFECT?
I suspect indoctrination has CAUSED you to imagine a reference to FORCE or NON FORCE where there is none here.
Rhutchin: “How does God do this? By giving a person a specific set of attributes and then putting that person into an environment to which those attributes react. Our desires reflect the attributes God gave us interacting with the environment into which God placed us. Even you harp on this but never attempt to dispute it as even you know it is true. You know that you have attributes with which you were born and you inhabit an environment that you did not create. Your attributes interacting with your environment determine your desires and your desires determine what you do. Who decided all this – God did. Everything you [do] is what you want to do.”
“Everything you [do] is what you want to do.”
This is so deceptive! It’s worded in such a way to sound like people choose how they want to react to situations, that their behavior is affected by their personality and their environment and self-chosen desires, AS IF they really have a choice.
But Calvi-god doesn’t just give people “attributes,” as in personality characteristics which affect what we choose.
NO! Calvi-god gives people the natures they have which determines what they will desire, which determines what they will choose. And there’s only TWO possible natures Calvi-god can give you, either the “repentant, saved” nature which comes with the desire to do right or the “unrepentant sinner” nature which comes ONLY with the desire to ALWAYS do wrong. Those who have been predestined to get the sinner-nature can ONLY ALWAYS want to sin, and so they will ONLY ALWAYS choose to sin. Choosing to do right was NEVER an option for them because Calvi-god predetermined they would be unrepentant sinners.
And Calvinists act like this is actually “making real choices” … and “being responsible for your choices” …. simply because they say the sinner “wanted” to sin. Calvinists talk like “doing right” is actually a real option for the sinner … that the sinner could have chosen to do right IF they had WANTED to do right. But since they never wanted to do right, then their sin is on them.
But … once again … the sinner is only sinning because Calvi-god predestined them to have the sinner-nature which can ONLY want to sin and NEVER want to do right.
Some choice, huh!?!
Imagine we are all in a burning building that has two doors, one to safety and one to death. And there’s a leader who walks around handing out instruction cards to each person, and we all HAVE TO follow whatever’s on the card we get. Let’s even say that whatever is on our card dictates which desires we will have. We will end up desiring to do whatever’s on our card, no matter what it is, simply because the leader gets to decide for us what we will desire. Some people get the card that causes them to desire to be saved and that tells them which door leads to safety, and so they desire to be saved and walk through the door that leads to safety. But everyone else gets the card that tells them they HAVE TO desire death and that they HAVE TO “choose” the door that leads to death … and so, big surprise, they walk through the door that leads to death because they “desired” to go through the door that leads to death.
And Calvinists will say that those who chose death are really responsible for their choice to die because they “wanted” death, totally ignoring the fact that the leader forced them, from the very beginning, to have the death-desiring nature that can only ever desire death. They were never able to desire to be saved. Because of Calvi-god!
It’s insane!
We don’t dispute that we are all born with attributes and born in environments that affect us. We dispute the part where Calvi-god predetermines our natures for us (saved, which desires to do right … or sinner, which can only desire to do wrong), thereby boxing us in to only one set of desires and only one way of responding to our circumstances.
Stop acting like this is really “having a choice”!
It’s pathetic! A desperate attempt to get Calvi-god off the hook for sin and to twist the Bible to fit Calvinism!
(And trying to get people to concede that we are born merely with attributes and an environment that affects us is an attempt to get us to agree with the “truth” layer that you wrap around the lies. It’s bait-and-switch, reel in the people with a small layer of truth that can’t be denied to get them to bite onto and swallow whole the huge lie that’s underneath it all.)
It’s absolute nonsense to try to reason that Calvi-god is NOT responsible for sin, that the sinner is responsible for their own sin when NOT SINNING was NEVER an option for them because Calvi-god gave them the sinner-nature that can ONLY DESIRE TO SIN.
The depth of brainwashing and self-deception in Calvinism is astounding! How they twist Scripture so completely to fit their theology so that Christians can’t see what’s wrong with it, and so that they actually defend it fiercely!
I agree with TS00 that it’s one of the most dangerous false theologies out there (I can’t remember exactly how you said it, though), simply because it has the appearance of being so biblically-sound to those who are not aware of what it really says. (As infuriating as it is, I appreciate that Calvinists keep sharing their views on this blog. It gives people more opportunity to see what’s wrong with Calvinism and how they hide what they really believe.)
heather writes, “This is so deceptive! It’s worded in such a way to sound like people choose how they want to react to situations, that their behavior is affected by their personality and their environment and self-chosen desires, AS IF they really have a choice.”
That’s the distinction between you and Calvinists. Calvinists say that people do not have real choices; they can only do what they desire. You want people to be able to choose other than their desires and you have no mechanism for that to happen.
Then, ‘We don’t dispute that we are all born with attributes and born in environments that affect us. We dispute the part where Calvi-god predetermines our natures for us (saved, which desires to do right … or sinner, which can only desire to do wrong), thereby boxing us in to only one set of desires and only one way of responding to our circumstances.”
OK. Explain how a person can avoid that. You complain a lot but have nothing to offer in rebuttal.
rhutcnin
That’s the distinction between you and Calvinists.
Calvinists *SAY* that people do not have real choices; they can only do what they desire.
br.d
Here is wisdom
Calvinist language is designed to HIDE more than it reveals.
Dr. Neal Judisch
-quote
Whether or not the control Calvinists imagine exerted by Calvin’s god is immediate or mediated through secondary causes, is ultimately an irrelevant *RED-HERRING*. For the ethical problem remains: The CONTROL IS THERE. And that CONTROL IS INTENTIONAL, SUPER-OPERATIVE, AND UNREMITTING. In the Calvinist scheme it isn’t within one’s power to alter, affect, or to “do otherwise” than what one is being controlled to think, choose, desire, do.
Calvinist Paul Helms:
-quote
“Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each
of these is under the DIRECT CONTROL of God”
Calvinist Thomas Chamblers
-quote
The will of god gives IMPULSE to every desire, and the will of man is an instrument in his hand, he turns it at his pleasure.(On Predestination)
Calvinist Bruce Reichenbach
-quote
“Thus there is no instance in which I can desire anything other than that DECREED by god
Ggod MOVES the desire of man in order for man to act accordingly”
Heather – quoting RH (“Everything you [do] is what you want to do.”)
This is so deceptive! It’s worded in such a way to sound like people choose how they want to react to situations, that their behavior is affected by their personality and their environment and self-chosen desires, AS IF they really have a choice.
br.d
You hit it on the bulls-eye Heather!
From my perspective its simply a way to SMUGGLE IN “mere” permission.
Calvinism always wins the grand prize for being the most “subtle beast” in the field of Protestant Christianity. :-]
You go girl! I thought this was br.d’s comment, but as I’m reading, I realize this had to be you!
They only choose what they desire. They only desire what Calvi-god chooses. But they are supposedly responsible for desiring and choosing what Calvi-god irresistibly determined they must. Look over here, while I saw the woman in two . . .
Rhutchin says: “That’s the distinction between you and Calvinists. Calvinists say that people do not have real choices ….”
Thank you, Rhutchin, for confirming my assessment of Calvinism.
Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.(Rom 7:12)
for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
who show the work of the law written in their hearts, (Rom.2:14,15.)
The law (written by Moses) was “holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good”; and Gentiles who had not the law (written through Moses) did by – nature – the things contained in the law. How in the name of reason can one declare that man is by “nature” born totally depraved? For by – nature – man is able to do what is right – things that are contained in the law. Thus, they show the work of the law (written in their hearts).
Professor Flowers, can you provide me with another interpretation of verse 8 in this chapter, other than, it is an impossibility for man to choose God? If the verse says those in the flesh cannot please God, how can you interpret that any other way? Paul is very clear, those in the flesh (lost sinners) cannot please God, they are unable, they are incapable, of pleasing God. I have heard a number of your podcasts and videos on YouTube and it seems to me that you have a problem believing that God would make man WITH an inability to know Him, the problem is sir, God made man WITH the ability to know Him and Adam DID know Him. Who ate of the tree sir? It was Adam, its was Eve, man chose their own sinful state in there choosing of eating from the tree. Man brought the curse of sin upon themselves by their disobedience, and somehow you want to put that on God? And make God the bad buy because He apparently made man to sin or as a sinner? This sir, is a clear misunderstanding of the Reformed position.
Paul says very clearly those in the flesh cannot please God, this inability does not come from God but from man himself. I have heard you say that you believe God holds man responsible for their sin therefore they are able to respond. That’s not how word play works sir, you cannot just define a word by moving the letters around or taking parts of the word out to make another word and then define the first word by the second word. For example: the word DANGEROUS, if I had a barrel of acid in front of me with a sign that said “dangerous” and I was with a couple friends and we saw the sign and I said “hmmm, I guess we shouldn’t touch the acid because we are danger to it.” What’s the problem there? Is the sign referring to me and my friends or to the acid? Clearly its calling the acid dangerous, but using your way of defining words I could say well you can get the word OUS from DANGEROUS therefore the word must mean “WE ARE DANGER”.
The truth is sir, the word RESPONSIBLE doesn’t mean simply – able to respond – rather, it actually has a number of definitions with slight nuances among them but none referring to an ability to respond to something. Responsible can mean having the job or duty of dealing with or taking care of something or someone. It can also mean able to be trusted to do what is right or to do the things that are expected or required. The second definition is the one most closely relevant to our responsibility to obedience to God. God commands us to be perfect, (Matthew 5:48) You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
God commands perfection from us, so why hold us responsible for this when He knows we cannot and will not be perfect? Because we are condemned in the flesh for our SINS, not merely what abilities or inabilities we have or don’t have, we choose to sin, God does not force us to do this, its a choice; God in return holds us responsible for this, He doesn’t hold us responsible for the inability we have of knowing Him, bur rather condemns us or the sin of rejecting Him. His law is written on all of our hearts, so no one is without excuse, but man does what man wants to do, and a lost sinner living in perpetual hatred toward God cannot and will not ever WANT or desire this Holy and gracious God according to Paul here.
So your understanding of Reformed theology sir, seems to be a little blurred and misguided, at least on this point of doctrine. I have great respect for you Professor Flowers, and much enjoy your work and passion for the gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, but you need to come to a better understanding of Reformed theology or if you do in fact understand it, be willing to interpret its meanings more accurately.
-Blessings-
Clayton
If the verse says those in the flesh cannot please God, how can you interpret that any other way? Paul is very clear, those in the flesh (lost sinners) cannot please God, they are unable, they are incapable, of pleasing God.
br.d
Hello Clayton and welcome!
Firstly Dr. Flowers – due to a heavy schedule is not able to participate here in dialog. You may however find him on FaceBook.
On your questions – if you don’t mind I give my answers – I would look at this verse LOGICALLY.
Let me address your key points:
Clayton
you have a problem believing that God would make man WITH an inability to know Him
br.d
Yes – On Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) man is DESIGNED to sin and DESIGNED to fall.
This is Calvinism’s “divine potter” doctrine.
Clayton
the problem is sir, God made man WITH the ability to know Him and Adam DID know Him. Who ate of the tree sir?
br.d
As a representation of Calvinism this statement does not tell the WHOLE truth
On Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Adam obeyed the SECRET will.
Remember in Calvinism it is a LOGICAL impossibility to NOT OBEY the SECRET will.
The creature is NOT PERMITTED to falsify or negate the DECREE.
And neither are any events in time PERMITTED to do so.
So no other options were made available to Adam.
Clayton
It was Adam, its was Eve, man chose their own sinful state in there choosing of eating from the tree.
br.d
Again as a representation of Calvinism this statement does not tell the WHOLE truth
Remember Calvinism is predicated on Universal Divine Causal Determinism. In this model the THEOS determines *ALL* things exclusively – leaving ZERO left over for the creature to determine.
Therefore Calvin’s god made Adam’s choice for him.
To argue otherwise is to assert “mere” permission – which Calvinism rejects.
Clayton
somehow you want to put that on God? And make God the bad buy because He apparently made man to sin or as a sinner? This sir, is a clear misunderstanding of the Reformed position.
Br.d
Clayton – think this through.
That position is based on a deceptive technicality.
When you strike the #5 ball on a pool table – and #5 strikes the 8 ball knocking it into the corner pocket – do you declare the #5 ball at fault? Really? Is that the truth – the WHOLE truth – and nothing but the truth?
Doesn’t your conscious demand a little more honesty than that?
Clayton
The truth is sir, the word RESPONSIBLE doesn’t mean simply – able to respond – rather, it actually has a number of definitions with slight nuances among them but none referring to an ability to respond to something.
br.d
I don’t know anyone who would agree with you on this claim. You should have learned in English class that the word Responsible is a compound word. And one of the definitions includes “Able to discharge obligations or pay debts.”
Calvinism has a divine potter who DESIGNS vessels of wrath and then holds them accountable for being what he DESIGNED them to be. That conception of ethics is considered perverted in Main-stream Christianity. And from my observation the only answer Calvin has for it is that it is “good” when Calvin’s god perverts his own standards of ethics simply because everything Calvin’s god does is good.
I think you’ll eventually find this aspect of Augustine/Calvin doctrine is a byproduct of Gnosticism – by virtue of its ONTOLOGICAL DUALISM – in which evil is good.
Clayton
So your understanding of Reformed theology sir, seems to be a little blurred and misguided, at least on this point of doctrine.
br.d
From my perspective – you have not taken the personal effort to LOGICALLY scrutinize the positions you’ve assumed. And its obvious they LOGICALLY break down. Dr. Flowers has – and that is simply what makes the difference in your position from his.
Clayton
I have great respect for you Professor Flowers, and much enjoy your work and passion for the gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior….etc
Br.d
I’m sure Dr. Flowers will appreciate that statement – thank you Clayton!
BTW – you use the term “Reformed” *AS-IF* it refers only to Calvinism – which is a sophomoric position. So you might want to think that through a little better also.
Blessings and thanks!
Clayton,
In response to your question regarding Romans 8:8 in context.
First, it is important to point out that Paul is addressing the Jews in his audience, those who “know the law” (Romans 7:1).
Romans 8:1-11 (NKJV)…
There is therefore now no condemnation to those (faithful Jews) who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me (Paul) free from the (Mosaic) law of sin and death. For what the (Mosaic) law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the (Mosaic) law might be fulfilled in us (the faithful Jews) who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the (Mosaic) law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God (by keeping the Mosaic Law).
Compare Romans 8:8 to what Paul wrote in Galatians 2:15-16 (NKJV). Almost verbatim….
Galatians 2:15-16 (NKJV)…
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified (made righteous/declared “not guilty”) by the works of the (Mosaic) law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we (the Jew) might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the (Mosaic) law; for by the works of the (Mosaic) law no flesh shall be justified (made righteous/declared “not guilty!).
What both are saying is that the Jew cannot please God by keeping the Mosaic Law. The righteous requirements God demands can only be found in Christ Jesus, who was the fulfillment of the Law.
Galatians 3:24 (NKJV)…
Therefore the (Mosaic) law was our (the Jews’) tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified (made righteous/declared “not guilty!”) by faith.
Blessings.
RH versus all of the allies of Non-Calvinists debaters in this blog site working together and yet you cannot afford to overcome him. RH remains standing unmoved.
How we can trust God at His word? … if someone holds on to a universal atonement of Christ but the rest are still damned to hell?
Very interesting imagination! :-]
JTL Praises RH: “RH remains standing unmoved.”
I agree with you. You are right that RH has lots of energy to defend Calvinism and does a good job of stating what Calvinism holds to. (At least when he quits hiding more than what he reveals).
JTL – I disagree with you but respect the fact that you so unapologetically embrace the “Ugly” of Calvinism. That is honest of you to remain consistent with your system…
I also agree with you JTL that RH really does have stamina to remain unmoved, however, the fact that he remains unmoved is not evidence of being right.
We do see in scripture many who remained unmoved in the face of Truth. Pharaoh, the Pharasees, the people in Noah’s day and the list goes on…
Remaining unmoved could be translated remained stubborn.
JTL states: “if someone holds on to a universal atonement of Christ but the rest are still damned to hell?”
JTL you find it hard to believe that God genuinely loves all of his creation and is not willing that any should perish and that God would make it genuinely possible for any person to be saved. On our side below are some of the scriptures that show us God REALLY is good to ALL.
The fact that some end up in hell is because God gave us a genuine choice…some choose to believe and others choose not to believe. That is the choice Sovereign God has given to all men everywhere. It does not diminish His Love and His Provision, In fact it exalts His Grace in Mercy as He genuinely extends it towards those who choose to walk away.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, NOT WISHING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH*, but that *ALL SHOULD REACH REPENTANCE*.
Joh 3:16 “For God so *LOVED THE WORLD*, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Isa 53:6 ALL we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of US ALL.
1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also * FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD*.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should * TASTE DEATH FOR ALL*
1Ti 2:3-6 …God our Savior, who * DESIRES ALL PEOPLE TO BE SAVED* and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
who *GAVE HIMSELF AS A RANSOM FOR ALL, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
Act 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but NOW HE COMMANDS ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE TO REPENT,
Since we have a choice you can choose to say “these verses do not show God’s love and provision to all” that is up to you.
I on the other hand choose to believe that God was communicating truth and He does not have a “secret will” that contradicts His Revealed will.
It is your choice…choose wisely.
I appreciate your gracious attitude GA. And it is difficult to imagine why anyone, learning that there are other explanations for the verses they have been taught ‘prove’ a cruel, partial unloving god, would not eagerly seek out such explanations. Seriously, who would want the god of Calvinism? The only benefit I see is the comforting belief that if God chooses irrevocably, and you consider yourself ‘chosen’, you never have to worry.
Whereas, under the true gospel, God demands a genuine, life-changing faith, and a continuing walk in a journey to Christlikeness. A young lady on the Sot101 FB discussion group admits how scary it is, as a fomer Calvinist, to walk away from that comforting, if false, assurance. All of a sudden you realize that your life, your decisions and your walk with God matters, actually makes a difference in whether or how you grow and what you will face in life. It is so much safer to remain a Frozen Chosen.
TS00 writes, “The only benefit I see is the comforting belief that if God chooses irrevocably, and you consider yourself ‘chosen’, you never have to worry. ”
That is what John 6, tells us. Christ said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out….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.”
Then Paul says in Romans 8, “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?”
Then Paul in 2 Timothy 2, “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. This is a faithful saying: For if we died with Him, We shall also live with Him. If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself….Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,”
In these verses, Calvinists see the assurance that God gives to those He gives to Christ that they will not, and cannot, be lost.
Then, “…under the true gospel, God demands a genuine, life-changing faith, and a continuing walk in a journey to Christlikeness.”
Calvinism says this, also. It is God who gives a person life changing faith so that, “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Then, “In Christ also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.”
The Scriptures, in many ways, give us confidence that, “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;”
TS00
The only benefit I see is the comforting belief that if God chooses irrevocably, and you consider yourself ‘chosen’, you never have to worry. ”
rhutchin
That is what John 6, tells us. Christ said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out….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.”
br.d
AH! But no specific Calvinist knows whether or not those verses apply to himself or not.
Remember – according to Calvin – there is a “LARGE MIXTURE” of TOTALLY DEPRAVED Calvinists.
Those who are “elect” represent a -quote “few grains of wheat”
Those who are TOTALLY DEPRAVED represent a -quote “pile of chaff”
Now statistically – a “few grains” within a “pile of chaff” would represent a fraction of a percentage who are not.
So now we have a population – TOTALLY DEPRAVED Calvinists with a fraction of a percentage are not.
A LOGICAL Calvinist can assume the probability – he is TOTALLY DEPRAVED – and DESIGNED for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
Mr. Spock could calculate those probabilities.
And Dr. McCoy would call him a cold blooded Vulcan.
And that is the “comforting” GOOD NEWS for Calvinists :-]
GraceAdict – Are you going to give us statements contrasting what you believe with the points on Calvinism that I provided to you?
Here are my statements again so you don’t have to search for them:
1. God alone creates people.
1a. God knows from the beginning whom He will save and whom He will damn (not save) ,
1b, Some God creates knowing that he will save them.
1c. Some God creates knowing they are FOR damnation…leaving absolutely no option but that for the vast majority of His creation.
2. God knows whom He will save. For those that He knows He will not save, one might say that God Never loved them to save them (Christ would say, “I never knew you.”), and Never intended to love them to save them.
3 Before the Reprobate even existed God excluded them from His saving Love, Grace and Mercy.
4. God purposefully refused to have Jesus die on the Cross for their sins because HE always desired with a “surpassing intensity” that an unknown number MUST burn in hell. (His Secret Will)
5. God created the Reprobate knowing they were destined for Hell and made it absolutely Impossible for them to be saved, atoned for and forgiven.
GraceAddict writes:
“JTL you find it hard to believe that God genuinely loves all of his creation and is not willing that any should perish and that God would make it genuinely possible for any person to be saved. On our side below are some of the scriptures that show us God REALLY is good to ALL.”
——-Here’s My Response———
GA and her Non-Calvinists allies interprets the “ALL” in those verses cited as referring to all humanity on earth, i.e: including Judas Iscariot, the False prophets, the cults, the Pope of the RC, the goats, the Tares, the Swine, atheists, and those residents of Canaan whom God commanded Joshua and his armies to annihilate. In your view Jesus loves them and that Jesus offered His life for them, yet they still perish.
On the Calvinists side, the “ALL” is referring to all of the Elect Israel and elect Gentiles coming from all nations, tribe, peoples and, tongue. (Rev. 7:9). But not all Gentiles or entire humanity on earth. Christ atonement provided for them is sure and effective whereas it is not effective to those reprobates even if they will claim for it or be offered to them, as an example: Jesus denies them in Matt. 7:21-23
Rev. 7:9 After these things, I looked and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of ALL nations [Gentiles] tribes, peoples, and tongues standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands.
JT – Calvinist A.W Pink says “god DOES NOT love everybody”
Do you agree with A.W. Pink’s position YES or NO?
JTL: “In your view Jesus loves them and that Jesus offered His life for them, yet they still perish.”
You (and all Calvinists) assume that “God loving you” means “God WILL MOST DEFINITELY save you,” instead of what it is biblically is, that God bought salvation for you (for all people) but you have to accept or reject it. If you can’t see this, if you misunderstand what God’s love accomplished, if you choose to always insist that God will force salvation on those He loves and that He only really loves those He saves, then you will never understand Scripture correctly. You will always have to twist the “all” verses and the “world” verses and the “God loves” verses to fit your presumption.
2 Peter 2:1: “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign LORD who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves.”
WHO BOUGHT THEM!
The Lord’s death bought the false teachers who brought destruction on themselves.
How is it possible for Jesus to have bought false teachers who are going to hell if Jesus’s death supposedly only bought the elect?
If Calvinism is true, either God “elects” false teachers or He is lying when He says that He “bought” them, because Calvi-Jesus didn’t die for those on their way to hell. (And He’d be lying that they brought destruction ON THEMSELVES. They didn’t ultimately bring destruction on themselves; Calvi-god did it. Supposedly for his glory, right!?! So then why would Calvi-god share his glory with these false teachers by saying that they did it?)
But if you toss out the Calvinism, we understand this verse as saying that Jesus’s death paid for these false teachers, for EVERYONE, but they end up bringing destruction ON THEMSELVES because they reject the truth. God didn’t love them any less. He provided salvation for them just like He did for those who accept Him. But we decide to accept or reject that offer of salvation.
This is so simple to understand that I am amazed at how Calvinists can’t see it, how they refuse to it, how they continue to try to build up their view that God only loved a few people and that Jesus only died for a few people and that God deliberately created most people so that He could hate them and send them to hell, supposedly for His glory … and to show how just He is, how seriously He takes sin (sin that He supposedly first CAUSED, but then He punishes us for – yep, sounds like “justice” to me!!!) … and to show the elect how loving and merciful He is to them.
Calvi-god to the elect: “I could have randomly hated and slaughtered you too for no reason at all other than I felt like it. So be thankful I randomly picked you to love enough to save. Now love me and worship me, although you have no choice about it anyway. Yep, I feel glorified now!”
It’s sick! It really is! Calvi-god is a sick, sick god!
Calvinist’s can come up with all the verses they want to. They can “verse bomb” us with verse after verse that supposedly “supports” their view. But the problem isn’t that they can’t quote Scripture, it’s that they have presuppositions underneath all those verses that change the clear, simple, expressed meaning of those verses. So it’s pointless to listen to Calvinists quote verses. Because they always have a hidden, different understanding of those verses that changes the meaning.
Hi Heather,
I certainly agree with much of what you’ve said regarding how Calvinism often twists the meaning of these words. Words should mean what they normally mean unless something in the context forces one to interpret them differently. But I would disagree, If I may, on your interpretation on the word “bought” in 2 Peter 2:1.
As far as I can see, all the other figurative passages where this word is used, is speaking only of those who are Christians. Therefore, only Christians have been “bought” by the Master. 1 Cor. 6:20 and 7:23, indicate that those who have been “bought” belong to God – belong to Christ. On that basis alone I would suggest that these “false teachers” were Christians who went astray from the faith, the truth.
Regards,
Aidan
Aiden, That’s an interesting way to look at “bought.” I hadn’t thought of that before, but it’s definitely worth considering.
I assume then that you believe true Christians can lose their salvation. I, however, do not. (And of, course, this is a whole other debate!) And so to keep Scripture consistent – if true Christians cannot lose salvation – those false teachers could not have been “bought” Christians who eventually left the faith. The very fact that they are “false” would imply that they are not “true.” And the very fact that they deny Jesus shows that they are teaching a different Gospel. There is nothing in this passage to imply that they were once true Christians who believed the true Gospel. In fact, if you read all of 2 Peter 2, you get a picture of people who are anything but true Christians.
But if I am wrong – if true Christians CAN lose salvation – then your interpretation would definitely be worth looking into more deeply. Thank you.
Hi Heather,
Thank you for a very civil and pleasant response. Here are all the other relevant passages that I found with that particular Greek word for “bought” (1 Cor.6:20; 7:23; Rev.5:9; 14:3,4). Perhaps you might let me know what you think they reveal about those who have been bought by the blood of Christ? Certainly those in 2 Pt 2:1, had been “bought” by the Master. The verse says so.
I believe that a faithful Christian can become unfaithful and lose their salvation. This verse says that they are “false teachers”. Based on that statement you had concluded that; “There is nothing in this passage to imply that they were once true Christians who believed the true Gospel”. While I agree that the clear implication here is that they are not now true Christians, that does not necessarily mean that they never were.
While I do acknowledge that false teachers can come in who were never true Christians in the first place. I am also convinced that they can be of those who have fallen away from the faith. Here’s what I believe the weight of evidence implies in this chapter.
WERE THESE FALSE TEACHERS ONCE TRUE CHRISTIANS…? 1. They were “denying the Lord who bought them” – 2 Peter 2:1. These are souls who at one time had been “bought by the Lord” Thus, these are souls who at one time became “blood bought individuals”
2. “They have forsaken the right way and gone astray” – 2 Peter 2:15. The implication here is that they were once on the right way. For it is impossible to forsake something you never had, or to go astray if you were always lost. If you look up the word “forsake,” it means to, ‘depart from, abandon, forsake’. They had departed from, and abandoned the right way and gone astray.
3. “…they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the true knowledge (epignosis) of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome…” – 2 Peter 2:20. Compare: “having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” – 2 Peter 1:4
What was said of Christians at the beginning of the epistle is now used to describe these false teachers! They had escaped the pollutions of the world “through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” – 2 Peter 2:20. Remember that this “true knowledge” includes such things as listed in 2 Peter 1:5-8. Through such “saving” knowledge, then, they had escaped, but are now enslaved again.
4. “…it has happened to them according to the true proverb:” – 2 Peter 2:22. They like dogs have returned to what they had gotten rid of at one point, and are like a washed sow returning to wallowing in the mire. In other words, they had been washed and cleansed, but had returned to their former state. In fact, their state was even worse than it was before!
Therefore, both the weight of evidence, and the overall context of 2 Peter 2, would seem to imply that these were once Christians who went astray to become – false teachers. Shocking, I know!!
Sorry Heather, 5alive is Aidan. I mistakenly do that some times.
Regards,
Aidan
Aiden, You make some good points, and I will look into it more. I have been very interested in figuring this issue out, about if true Christians can lose their salvation. So I will definitely give it the consideration it deserves.
I won’t have time to totally get into it now (due to family crisis kind of stuff that is clogging up my mind), but briefly I will say that I have studied this issue a lot already (but it’s always worth studying more), and I conclude that true Christians cannot lose their salvation due to the fact that true Christians have the Holy Spirit and that I believe God only gives the Holy Spirit to those whom He knows are true Christians. (And these true believers are the ones who are predestined to grow to be more like Christ, to obedience, because of the Holy Spirit’s help.)
However, I do believe that there are many, many “Christians” – in name only – who “leave” the faith. And I think these are the ones that the Bible says “forsake the right way,” etc. They heard the truth, knew the truth, knew what the Bible says is the only way to salvation, might even have convinced themselves that they were Christians for awhile, but then they turn from it.
1 John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”
I may be wrong, but I understand this to mean that a true, Spirit-filled Christian will not leave the faith, and that if someone leaves the faith then it proves that they were never really truly IN the faith, even if they convinced themselves they were.
And I do want to point out one thing about the “bought them” verses, how you say that the verses say that God bought only the Christians. If I am wrong, then this may be the case. But it’s important to keep in mind that just because a verse says that God “bought” Christians doesn’t mean that He didn’t buy anyone else, unless the verse clearly says “God ONLY bought Christians” or “God didn’t buy non-Christians.”
This is one big error that Calvinists fall into when they read Scripture. They see what a verse says and then assume that the inverse MUST also be true. Such as if a verse says “God loves those who obey Him,” they assume it must mean “God hates those who disobey Him, that He ONLY loves those who obey Him.” Or if it says “God opened their eyes,” then it must mean that “God blinds everyone else.” But this is assuming things that the verse isn’t saying. Just because God bought the Christians doesn’t mean He didn’t buy anyone else. If I said I went to the store and bought carrots, it doesn’t mean I didn’t also buy potatoes.
(Kevin at Beyond The Fundamentals calls this Calvinist error “Negative Inference Fallacy.” Watch his video “Calvinist Tactics Exposed.” It’s great!
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=beyond+the+fundamentals+calvinist+errors+exposed&view=detail&mid=34DC62BC5295DAE0A0DC34DC62BC5295DAE0A0DC&FORM=VIRE)
This is a confusing issue which isn’t easily figured out because the Bible seems to show both sides, which is why I don’t brush off your suggestions. I appreciate the “iron sharpens iron” aspect to talking this issue over with those who see it differently. Thank you! (If I get around soon to looking more deeply into this, I will try to get back to you on it. But as I said, my brain is pretty overloaded right now with some heavy family stuff going on. But I will tuck all you said in the back of my mind for when I can think more deeply about it. Blessings to you.)
(And I may have already shared this with you in some other place, but I did write a post about this topic:
https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/2019/05/can-you-lose-your-salvation.html. It may help explain more why I believe what I do about this issue.)
I will admit to being in over my head, as I am still grapplling with replacing PSA thinking with a more Christus Victor approach to the atonement. I tend to think part of the problem I see here is due, at least in part, to viewing salvation as a one time, forensic transaction. That, I believe, is more the realm of justification, the distinctions of which has become very murky. When Jesus offered himself for atonement he offered himself up to death, but, thanks be to God, death could not hold him. Death itself was conquered, and hope was provided for all men that they too could escape the curse of death. Like I said, I’m still working through it all, but you could certainly look up Christus Victor, or study the Eastern Orthodox view of atonement for a much better explanation than I can offer.
When we realize that the point of the atonement was not to give us an irrevocable ticket to heaven but to provide a doorway through which we could enter into a relationship with God, we might begin to understand why Calvinism flounders so, as it focuses on the forensic, legalistic PSA. If Jesus has opened the door through which all men may escape sin and death and be restored to a right relationship with God, there still remains the truth that each man must desire, believe and access that doorway. And while some may believe ‘once through, always through’, I do not believe the door is ever slammed shut, whether we are on the inside or the outside, until the day of judgment arrives. We are free to walk away from the relationship we have begun, though it seems unthinkable that anyone would ever want to do so.
Calvinism, and much of Protestantism – which it birthed – still tends to view salvation as a forensic transaction. This renders it easily turned into legalism, or a belief that it’s all about the right doctrine. Those who view the atonement as the means by which sin and death were overcome, have a different perspective than those who are simply lining up for their ‘Get out of hell free’ ticket. They understand that forgiveness is simply the beginning of the redemptive process, and that, once we choose to follow Jesus, we, well, have some following to do.
Recall that what has been predestined is that those who are in Christ become like Christ, praise be to God! This is the sanctification process with which the believer should be actively engaged. Rather than sticking his ticket in his wallet and living as he pleases while awaiting the Great Day, the believer is called to follow after Jesus, imitate him and become more like him.
Nor do I affirm that this happens simply by sitting and meditating upon who Jesus is and what he has done. Rather, it is an ongoing process that happens in the midst of our day to day lives. We grapple with how to better love others, and how to let go of the things that defeat and enslave us. It has been exemplified as a struggle, a battle and a race to be run. When a child is born, his journey into adulthood has just begun. He must study and grow, and acquire the countless skills and abilities that life demands of an adult.
Nor is the new birth a one time, irrevocable transaction with no terms, no conditions and no effort. There never was such an unconditional contract between God and man. The Old Covenant had terms and conditions, which were mostly not met by Israel, and the New Covenant also is based upon a living, ‘working’ faith, rather than a ‘Sin boldly’ transactional faith.
God is not simply calling us to accept a free gift, no strings attached; rather, he is inviting us to walk with him, to learn what Christlikeness means, and how we can grow into it. I realize this has mostly been rejected since the Reformation, but it was much more the view of the early Church Fathers. It was Luther, Calvin and the like who began to view James with deep antagonism for preaching ‘works’. I am not sure the institutional Christian church has ever presented a balanced view of faith and works, tending to vilify any possibility that works – while not salvific or meritorious – are an important and integral part of a life of faith.
This has served to turn the relationship Jesus came to establish back into a religion. I have seen many versions of this christian religion, and am not terribly impressed with any of them. Personally, I am back to valuing the relationship with our loving heavenly Father that Jesus has made possible, and seeking to surrender myself to the sometimes painful process of stripping away my ‘melikeness’ and replacing it with ‘Christlikeness’. I spend a lot of years lost in the doctrinal desert.
TS00 writes, “When we realize that the point of the atonement was not to give us an irrevocable ticket to heaven but to provide a doorway through which we could enter into a relationship with God,…”
The purpose for the atonement was to appease God’s wrath for sin. People brought animals to the temple to be put to death as an atonement for their sins and restore the relationship with God that was broken by that sin. To call it a doorway, degrades it’s meaning.
rhutchin
The purpose for the atonement was to appease God’s wrath for sin. People brought animals to the temple to be put to death as an atonement for their sins and restore the relationship with God that was broken by that sin. To call it a doorway, degrades it’s meaning.
br.d
Reformation Riches for the Contemporary Church
-quote
The doorway into god’s kingdom is only the beginning of the good news, not the end.
Aiden, Just throwing this out there for consideration (you’ll have to excuse me if my thoughts are a little jumbled and if I’ve missed things you’ve already said) …
But saying that God only “bought” Christians sounds like a version of Calvinism’s Limited Atonement, that Jesus’s death “bought” only the elect (maybe you do hold to Limited Atonement, I’m not sure, I haven’t reviewed all your comments).
I believe, though, that Jesus’s death paid for all sins of all men, which would mean that all people are technically “bought” by God. We’ve all had the price for our sins paid for by God. But most people will reject this “payment on their behalf,” and choose to pay the price themselves in hell.
And if Jesus’s death really did pay for all sins of all men, then that’s why that verse says that Jesus bought the false teachers. It doesn’t mean they are saved (or even necessarily WERE saved) but that they have been bought by Jesus’s blood, even though they choose to reject it.
And so I guess the first question for you is “What did Jesus’s death really accomplish? Whose sins did He pay for?”
And if you believe that Jesus’s death only paid for the Christians, then the next question is “Can Christians lose their salvation?” (And it’s clear you believe they can lose their salvation.)
But if you believe that Jesus’s death paid for all, then there should be no trouble understanding how that verse can say Jesus “bought” the false prophets who are not saved. We’ve all been “bought,” but we’re not all saved because most reject the price Jesus paid on their behalf.
(Of course, Calvinists will disagree with me that Jesus’s death bought ALL men. According to Calvinists, only the elect are “bought,” and the elect CANNOT lose their salvation. Yet in this verse we see “bought” people who are not saved. And so for them the question is “Then what does ‘denying the sovereign Lord who bought them’ mean”, if Jesus didn’t buy the salvation of the non-elect and if the elect CANNOT lose their salvation? Bought them doughnuts?)
I’m not sure if I’m clearly explaining what I mean or if I’m making sense; my head is so full right now that I can barely make sense of where I’m trying to go with this. But like I said, it’s just for your consideration. 🙂
heather writes, ” We’ve all been “bought,” but we’re not all saved because most reject the price Jesus paid on their behalf.”
If you were “bought” (a past tense completed transaction) how does a person reject that. I think you mean that Christ, by His death, didn’t buy anything – His death didn’t pay for any sin in particular but could only make salvation available for acceptance/rejection. A person accepting salvation could then have God apply Christ’s death to their sins.
Then, “Jesus’s death paid for all sins of all men, which would mean that all people are technically “bought” by God.”
If Jesus paid for all sins of all men, then that is a completed transaction and cannot be overturned – it would include the sin of rejection making that rejection of no effect.
You seem to recognize this when you say, “…technically “bought” by God…” Technically, but not really?
Sounds like you have a gripe with scripture, which says, they were “denying the Lord who bought them” – 2 Peter 2:1. Funny how willing the Calvinist is to throw scripture under the bus when it undermines their theology. Maybe you should set up an appointment with God, so you can explain to him why Jesus could not have paid the price for all sin. You could explain to him how men cannot possibly reject the salvation he offers to them, due to Jesus having died, once for all. Good luck.
TS00 writes, “Sounds like you have a gripe with scripture, which says, they were “denying the Lord who bought them” – 2 Peter 2:1.”
I am taking the larger context “there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them,” concluding that “denying the Lord who bought them” is one of the ‘destructive heresies” being taught. If the supposed Jewish converts were teaching that one had to be circumcised to be saved or had to continue offering sacrifices for their sins, they would be “denying the Lord who bought them.”
Given that they are “false” teachers, and “many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words…” I don’t see them as believers.
rhutchin
Given that they are “false” teachers, and “many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words…” I don’t see them as believers.
br.d
John Calvin
-quote
We are *NOT* bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect – that is for God alone, not for us, to do. (Institutes 4. 1. 3.)
rhutchin
If you were “bought” (a past tense completed transaction) how does a person reject that.
br.d
Silly question any intelligent Calvinist already knows the answer to.
The dept has been paid – but the person chose not to take advantage of it.
rhutchin
I think you mean…….[enter Calvinist thinking here] – any intelligent Calvinist would already know is not what Heather means.
br.d
Heather – it should be obvious this one has gone into his disingenuous-game-playing mode again.
Rhutchin says: “I think you mean that Christ, by His death, didn’t buy anything – His death didn’t pay for any sin in particular but could only make salvation available for acceptance/rejection.”
Heather: You can think I said whatever you want to think, but I said that Jesus paid for all sins of all people…
1 John 2:2: He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins OF THE WHOLE WORLD.
1 Timothy 2:6: Who gave himself as a ransom FOR ALL …
John 1:29: The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away THE SIN OF THE WORLD!
Romans 5:18: Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life FOR ALL MEN.
To say that Jesus’s death only made it possible, that it didn’t actually pay the price fully, would be to say that there’s work we have to do to get that salvation or activate it. But the price has been paid in full, and all we have to do is accept it. (Of course, a Calvinist would say that “accepting” the sacrifice Jesus made for us is work. But it’s not. It’s actually simply acknowledging and accepting the work that someone else did for us.)
Rhutchin says: “If you were “bought” (a past tense completed transaction) how does a person reject that.”
Heather: What I mean by “bought” is NOT like being “bought” like a pet gets bought. With pets, we pick out the pet, pay for the pet, and drag it home with us whether it wants to go with us or not. In this case, the pet has no say in being bought or not, and it cannot “undo” it.
But I mean “bought” as in everyone’s freedom is paid for, their sins were paid for by Jesus. And they can accept what He did – His sacrificial death in their place – and go to heaven. Or they can reject His payment on their behalf, choosing to face the penalty of their sins for themselves, which is eternal death, separation from God. I can pay for someone’s tuition for four years of college, giving them a scholarship they didn’t ask for, work for, or deserve … but they can choose to reject my gift and go somewhere else and pay the price on their own. That is more similar to what I’m talking about. And if they accept my gift, that’s not “working for it.” It’s simply accepting it in humble gratitude.
heather writes, “But I mean “bought” as in everyone’s freedom is paid for, their sins were paid for by Jesus. And they can accept…Or they can reject His payment …”
“Bought” is past tense. It is a done deal. The transaction was between God and Christ. God treats a person’s sins as being “paid for” regardless what the person does (accept/reject).
Then, “I can pay for someone’s tuition for four years of college, giving them a scholarship they didn’t ask for, work for, or deserve … but they can choose to reject my gift …”
If you paid the scholarship, then every annual or semester/quarter bill sent to the person would list the tuition expenses and subtract out the scholarship so the the bill would be marked $0.00 due for tuition. It’s a done deal. The student, if he actually found that reprehensible, could go to the business office and tell them to apply the scholarship to another student’s tuition and he will pay his own costs. The scholarship was paid and can only be applied as a scholarship. To extend the analogy to Christ: Christ paid for the sins of God’s elect and God applies it to the sins of His elect essentially at the day of judgment. Paul said, “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,” but Paul knew that that option was not available to him.
Rhutchin: “I am taking the larger context “there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them,” concluding that “denying the Lord who bought them” is one of the ‘destructive heresies” being taught. If the supposed Jewish converts were teaching that one had to be circumcised to be saved or had to continue offering sacrifices for their sins, they would be “denying the Lord who bought them.””
Heather: I hadn’t thought of it in that light before, but it’s an interesting take on it. But shouldn’t it then say “denying THAT the Lord bought them” instead of “denying the Lord WHO BOUGHT THEM”?
heather writes, “But shouldn’t it then say “denying THAT the Lord bought them” instead of “denying the Lord WHO BOUGHT THEM”?”
The phrase, “denying THAT the Lord bought them” would apply if they were denying that God had bought them. The phrase, “denying the Lord WHO BOUGHT THEM” applies to the heresy that is taught where “them” is the audience being taught the heresy. I think the latter phrasing is correct.
rhutchin
denying the Lord WHO BOUGHT THEM” applies to the heresy that is taught where “them” is the audience being taught the heresy. I think the latter phrasing is correct.
br.d
Interesting!
In claiming those false teachers were not bought – appears to follow that very pattern – where “supposedly” they were also denying someone else *but not themselves* as being bought.
It would then make sense if those false teachers were Calvinists – and denying the Lord has bought someone else would appear to be a repeating pattern.
However the Cambridge Expository Commentary says this:
-quote
τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι
The sin of the teachers of these “heresies of perdition” was that THEY would not accept the position of redeemed creatures which of right belonged to THEM. The “denial” referred to may refer either to a formal rejection of Christ as the Son of God, like that of 1 John 2:22-23, or to the practical denial of base and ungodly lives.
“However the Cambridge Expository Commentary says this:
-quote
τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι
The sin of the teachers of these “heresies of perdition” was that THEY would not accept the position of redeemed creatures which of right belonged to THEM. The “denial” referred to may refer either to a formal rejection of Christ as the Son of God, like that of 1 John 2:22-23, or to the practical denial of base and ungodly lives.”
The false teachers would be in this position if they were insisting on circumcision and the continued offering of sacrifices as a condition of salvation.
“However the Cambridge Expository Commentary says this:
-quote
τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι
The sin of the teachers of these “heresies of perdition” was that THEY would not accept the position of redeemed creatures which of right belonged to THEM. The “denial” referred to may refer either to a formal rejection of Christ as the Son of God, like that of 1 John 2:22-23, or to the practical denial of base and ungodly lives.”
rhutchin
The false teachers would be in this position if they were insisting on circumcision and the continued offering of sacrifices as a condition of salvation.
br.d
And they would be in that position – as the Calvinist is – if (as you argue) they were teaching that the “audience” was not bought.
But for a different reason – which the Holy Spirit deems unimportant – and thus is not in the text.
So we have CONJECTURE on your part – beyond what the text indicates.
And that would be a HUMAN response for a Calvinist who has a vested interest in a doctrine – rather than on the text.
So we see another the danger of representing a doctrine rather than representing the text.
And that is why scholarship (e.g. the Cambridge Expository Commentary) would address the text rather than represent a doctrine.
Br.d. quotes rhutchin as saying “Given that they are “false” teachers, and “many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words…” I don’t see them as believers.”
And br.d responds: “John Calvin-quote: ‘We are *NOT* bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect – that is for God alone, not for us, to do. (Institutes 4. 1. 3.)'”
Heather says: Great response! Always great when you can use Calvin/Calvinism’s own words against Calvinists!
i actually liked your response better! :-]
heather writes, “Heather says: Great response! Always great when you can use Calvin/Calvinism’s own words against Calvinists!”
Scripture trumps Calvin, Wesley, and anyone else who offers comments on the Scripture. No one, including Calvin, was perfect.
rhutchin
Scripture trumps Calvin, Wesley, and anyone else who offers comments on the Scripture. No one, including Calvin, was perfect.
br.d
With the caveat that the Calvinist gets to EX-CATHEDRA what scripture, Calvin, and Wesley mean by whatever they say.
Even if that EX-CATHEDRA meaning is the LOGICAL opposite of what they said.
Creating every in their own image – just like Calvin did – the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree! :-]
Hi Heather,
I don’t think either of us believe in any version of Calvinism, with it’s limited view on salvation, nor do we believe in Universalism. So let’s get that out of the way.
When John the Baptist said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” he was revealing the very heart of God’s plan to save mankind.
Christ was God’s final sacrifice for sin. The sinless Son of God was to offer Himself once, and the effectiveness of this action would be “sufficient” to take away the sins of the world, for all time to come (Heb. 10:12-14). For this cause it was necessary that Christ suffer on the cross. Without His sacrificial death there could be no forgiveness. What a price to be paid!
Does this mean that the sins of the world are all taken away? Obviously not! It just means that His sacrifice was “sufficient” to take away the sins of the world for all time to come. This is what Jesus’ death accomplished once for all, and He paid for it with His life.
I’m not trying to be unfair, but I think your theology is tainting your view on the word “bought” in 2 Peter 2:1.
1. Because nowhere else in scripture does (agorazō), the greek word for “bought,” ever refer to anyone, other than those who are “saints”; who had “availed” of the sacrifice of Christ. Always let the easier and plain passages explain the more obscure ones. I’m afraid your view on 2 Peter 2:1, doesn’t fit with what the rest of scriptures teach about those who have been bought by the blood of Christ.
2. Also, you need to be able to explain – 2 Peter 2:15, which implies that these were once faithful Christians, who had departed from, and abandoned the right way and gone astray.
3. You have yet to give an explanation as to how those, who had once “… escaped the pollutions of the world through the true knowledge (epignosis) of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ..,” – 2 Peter 2:20, how they were never Christians?
4. But if they were Christians, how is it they become enslaved again to the corruption and defilements of the world – 2 Peter 2:19-20? If they are still saved, how is their “last state become worse for them than the first?” (v.20)
5. In – 2 Peter 2:21, it says that they knew the way of righteousness and turned away from it. Again, how is that not teaching that they were once saved, but now are lost, unless they repent of course?
6. And in – 2 Peter 2:22, what does it mean that these “Individuals” are now compared to a “sow” who, after being washed and cleansed, goes back to wallowing in the filth and mire? Surely that’s teaching that these were once saved, having been washed and made clean? But then, as the context reveals, they go back into the corruption and defilements of the world, from whence they came.
If you were to look at all of these scriptures, objectively, I believe you would be able to see that it refutes the whole idea of “once saved, always saved”.
Kind regards,
Aidan
Aidan writes, “…the effectiveness of this action would be “sufficient” to take away the sins of the world, for all time to come (Heb. 10:12-14).”
Hebrews 10
12 But this Man [Christ], after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
Rather than the sins of the world, this Scripture refers to the sins of ‘those who are being sanctified.”
Then, “Does this mean that the sins of the world are all taken away? Obviously not! It just means that His sacrifice was “sufficient” to take away the sins of the world for all time to come.”
This refers to the extent of value of Christ death to which both Calvinist and non-Calvinists agree. Where Calvinists and non-Calvinists disagree is on God’s intent in sending Christ to the cross. John Owen addresses “intent” in “Death of Death…” I am not aware that anyone has disputed Owen’s argument.
Then, “2. Also, you need to be able to explain – 2 Peter 2:15, which implies that these were once faithful Christians, who had departed from, and abandoned the right way and gone astray.”
15. They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
The term, “they,” traced back to its antecedent noun in v9 is “the Lord knows how…to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority….” Calling them “once faithful Christians” does not seem warranted to me.
Heather,
I somehow missed your earlier post where you made mention of some family issues. I’m sorry that you are having to deal with these struggles at the moment. I hope everything works out okay, and I’m sorry for sending my last post putting extra stress on you. Please ignore any immediate demands I may have put on you. And hopefully we can get back to this issue again when you are good and ready. So, don’t mind me!
And, thanks again, for the pleasant exchanges,
Aidan.
Aiden, thanks for your response. I will be looking into it when I can. (And thanks for your polite response and understanding about my family struggles. My brain is foggy with all the stress so forgive me if I am unclear in what I say.) For the record, I myself am still trying to figure out all the ins and outs of what I believe about this issue. It’s not an easy one to sort out fully (IF we even can do it fully). And so I will take anything you say into consideration. I know enough about this issue right now to know that I don’t know everything there is to know about it. 🙂
So we’re not looking at the issue of Limited Atonement here, since we both believe that Jesus paid for everyone’s sins. (So for this thread, I won’t respond to anything rhutchin says because this is where he’ll try to take the conversation.) So the issue is “Can true Christians lose their salvation?” Please note that I am not claiming for sure that I am totally right in this, or that my view is the Bible’s view. I am simply sharing what I believe at this point in my research.
And until I can research what you’ve shared more, I will simply throw this out there for consideration for now:
I believe that many of the predestination passages in the Bible (which the Calvinist twists to mean that God predestines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell) are about God predestining the path that a believer takes after salvation. And I believe that God can and has predestined this path – the path of growing to be more and more like Christ and bringing Him glory – because He gives the Holy Spirit to true believers to help them on this path. If you truly have the Holy Spirit, this IS the path you’ll take. (This doesn’t mean it won’t be a bumpy path for many Christians, as our human nature battles our spiritual nature.)
But I don’t see anything in these “predestined” passages that leads me to believe that God meant to say “predestined to obedience, but not really predestined because you might lose the Holy Spirit if you drift too far from Me” or something like that. The path of true Holy Spirit-filled believers is predestined. If you are truly Spirit-filled, there is a certain path you WILL walk, with the Spirit’s help. (But like I said, it’s a bumpy path for many, full of ups and downs and mistakes, etc.)
(Yet there are many people who can and do appear to be believers, who understand the right path to take and who are headed in that direction, but they eventually leave the right path and choose a wrong one. And I think there’s many biblical warnings for these people, to NOT reject the Truth and the only way to salvation.)
One thing that makes me think this is so is that I don’t think God is tricked into giving the Spirit to just anyone who claims to believe in Jesus. He can see the heart, so He knows when it’s real and when it’s not. I believe He knows from the beginning who will truly come to Him, aAnd these are the people who get the Spirit, the seal that guarantees our salvation.
How much of a seal or guarantee can He be if He can be lost? And for those who waffle back and forth over their lives, do they go from sealed to unsealed to sealed to unsealed? And then at what point does God say “Enough already!”? I do not think the Holy Spirit pops in and out of people like that, as if God is tricked into giving the Spirit easily.
But let’s say it’s that the Holy Spirit can only come in and be rejected ONCE (and then the person permanently loses their salvation and can never get it back again) then there are lot of people who have no hope anymore, those who seem to go back and forth on faith at different times in their lives. And of course, if I am wrong, this may be the case. But I think don’t think the Bible supports the idea that you get once chance and that’s it, that turning your back on God one time seals your fate in hell. Because then we’d have to tell all those people who, let’s say, lost faith due to a terrible crisis in their life and yet who now want to come back to God, “Don’t bother. You can’t come back to God now. You’re on your way to hell and there’s nothing you can do about it.” (And how then could the prodigal son return after he came to his senses? There would be no “returning” if someone can leave the faith and lose their salvation forever. Of course, I am saying this for sake of this example. But I do not believe that TRUE, SPIRIT-FILLED believers can lose their salvation, therefore I would say that those who return to the faith never really left it permanently and that those who “leave” the faith never really had it to begin with.)
Yes, I admit this is using a bit of human reasoning, but I think it fits with Scripture and with God’s character and with the promises for true believers. (And for now, I simply can’t put the mental effort into combing the Bible for the verses I want to share. So I will leave it to everyone else to do their own research on this.)
Plus, Scripture says that true believers can grieve the Spirit. But I don’t see the Bible spelling out a point where grieving leads to leaving, where we grieve the Spirit so much that He has no choice but to leave. Why would we be warned to not grieve the Spirit if the real risk is that we might repel Him so much that He leaves? (If you can, find Tony Evans book The Promise. It’s about the Holy Spirt in the life of the believer. He also talks about true believers being unable to lose salvation and how we can grieve the Spirit but not lose Him.)
I think the things we do as believers (how the Bible shows us true believers will be and act) are evidences of being true Spirit-filled believers. If you are truly a Spirit-filled believer, there will be certain evidences in your life that testify to that. But we do not do these things to somehow gain salvation or keep salvation. This adds human effort to Jesus’s sacrifice, which negates the idea that God has done all that needs to be done for our salvation. But if we don’t see these evidences, we should question whether our faith is real or not. But no one should put stock in their actions or behaviors, as if doing “the right things” somehow guarantees our salvation. These “right things” are evidences of true faith (salvation) but not the means to securing it. For our salvation was secured for us by Jesus, and when we truly believed in Him, accepted His sacrifice for us, and received the Spirit. (And so anyone who thinks that “once saved, always saved” is a license to sin is not a true Spirit-filled believer, for the Spirit would never lead someone to believe this. Or they are simply a very immature “baby Christian” who needs to grow in their understanding of what the Word really says and commands.)
(And if the issue is simply the word “bought” and even if there are “bought” passages that pertain only to true believers, I still think Scripture shows that salvation for all people was bought by Jesus, and therefore I think of all people as being “bought” in a sense. So to have verses that talk about true Christians being bought doesn’t necessarily mean that others weren’t bought too, just that the writer at the time was speaking to or about true believers in that passage.)
However, I will add this: In the post I wrote about all this, I did say that if – IF – a true believer can lose their salvation (which I don’t really believe, because I think those who end up drifting away were never really, truly, “sealed, predestined, Spirit-filled believers”) then it would be ONLY by deliberately and consciously rejecting it and walking away from it. (But this is a whole other tangent, one I will not get into because it’s only theoretical to me.) I do not believe a Christian has to be concerned that they will drift into losing their salvation, as if not doing things just right or not doing enough good works or not being pleasing enough to God might make them lose their salvation. This kind of belief terrifies Christians and causes them to keep trying so hard to be “just right” and to do everything “just right” so that they can “stay saved,” when they should be obeying out of the love we have for God, out of thankfulness for Jesus’s sacrifice, and out of the wonderful relationship we have with Him. It takes our focus off of loving God and doing things out of love and gratitude and to bring Him glory … and it puts it on performing the “right” way out of fear that we might make God so unhappy that He takes away our salvation.
I don’t think that’s part of the Gospel.
But once again, I am not claiming for certain that I am right and that others are wrong. So no one should take my (or anyone else’s) word for it. But we should keep going back to the Word and wrestling with the hard, confusing stuff until we have an answer (IF we can even get a solid answer about this issue on this side of eternity).
Thank you, Aiden, for your replies and for the good, thoughtful conversation. Definitely a lot to think about. (And I think I may be off this site for a little while, giving my brain time to rest. So don’t be surprised if I don’t reply for awhile.) God bless!
Heather, I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. I like you, am unprepared to insist that what I now think is correct. I am only one step over the line into thinking that probably people can deliberately turn from God, but I think your caveat – even though you view it as rhetorical – is extremely important.
If it is possible to reject God, that is still not saying that it is possible to slip through God’s fingers. It is not saying that God is watching us like a hawk, checking his checklist to make sure we are up to snuff, on schedule and making the grade. Rather, God is patient, loving and kind, even with his most stubborn children, who have to learn everything the hard way. We are never going to be rejected by God for not measuring up.
If there is any possibility of a genuine child walking away from his faith, it would be a deliberate, willful rejection of that which he knows is true. That is hard for me to imagine happening. Is it possible? Perhaps. Is it, if possible, likely? I would say ‘not very’. Most definitely it is not something that should cause a person to live in fear, as if they might somehow not measure up or fall through God’s fingers. That is NEVER going to happen.
About the only thing I can picture making me reject the God of my salvation would be to be convinced that he is the monster depicted in Calvinism. I cannot imagine greater trauma than believing he was truly what they say he is, and thinking that was what I had to ‘look forward to’ for eternity.
RH, you wrote:
“Rather than the sins of the world, this Scripture refers to the sins of ‘those who are being sanctified.”
Aidan:
“By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb 10:10). This verse, which is in the context, would seem to disagree with your limited atonement view.
RH, you wrote: In reference to – 2 Peter 2:15:
15. They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
The term, “they,” traced back to its antecedent noun in v9 is “the Lord knows how…to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority….” Calling them “once faithful Christians” does not seem warranted to me.
Aidan:
Again, I believe you are mistaken here. “They have forsaken the right way and gone astray” – 2 Peter 2:15. The implication here is that they were once on the right way. For it is impossible to forsake something you never had, or to go astray if you were always lost. If you look up the word “forsake,” it means to, ‘depart from, abandon, forsake’. These “unrighteous” (v9) had been on the right way, but had now departed from, forsook, and abandoned the right way and gone astray (v.15).
All those who become entangled again in the defilements of the world (v.20),.”.. it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them” (v.21).
Everything in this chapter is telling us that these were once faithful Christians.
Aidan: “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb 10:10). This verse, which is in the context, would seem to disagree with your limited atonement view.”
Unless we take, “all,” to refer back to “we” or “the sanctified,” so that the reader would understand this to mean “all of us” or “all the sanctified.” I think you give “all” a definition consistent with your belief without an argument from the immediate context to support it.
Then, “Again, I believe you are mistaken here. “They have forsaken the right way and gone astray” – 2 Peter 2:15. The implication here is that they were once on the right way.”
Or it could mean that they heard the gospel and rejected it. The verses leading up to this do not describe them in any way as believers. You refer to “implication” understanding that nothing points to them being believers. So, where does the “implication” come from? Certainly, not from the preceding context. Alternatively, we have Peter making several statements that could only refer to non-believers.
Then, ‘For it is impossible to forsake something you never had, …”
They had a knowledge of the gospel and could even have actively identified themselves with believers. This would not be unusual given what Jesus said in Matthew 7, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied 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!’
Then, “All those who become entangled again in the defilements of the world (v.20),.”.. it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them” (v.21).”
This can happen to people who come into the church and are separated from their former life and friends but then after a while they go back to their old ways. The immediate context where Peter describes these people as unbelievers should be allowed to rule in these verses unless you see a reason for Peter to have changed his train of thought.
Aidan
Then, ‘For it is impossible to forsake something you never had, …”
rhutchin
They had a knowledge of the gospel and could even have actively identified themselves with believers.
br.d
Firstly – its a LOGICAL impossibility to forsake knowledge.
Secondly – the language mode of the text points in the opposite direction.
If Peter believes Calvin’s position on the wheat and the chaff – that the chaff represent people whom Calvin’s god gives false perceptions to – deceiving them to temporarily perceive themselves as elect – and then manipulates their perceptions to the contrary – then Peter’s language – (as Calvin’s language clearly does) – would reflect that belief.
In such case (like Calvin clearly expresses it) Peter would express their situation as the result of the divine manipulation of their perceptions for the sake of holding salvation out to them as a savor of condemnation.
Instead Peter uses language which clearly attributes their “forsaking” to them and not to something Calvin’s god did to them.
As Calvin states it “Some times he illumines them for a time – holding salvation out as a savor of condemnation – and then later strikes them with greater blindness”
If Peter conceived of it the way Calvin did – then his language would reflect Calvin’s language – rather than reflecting the opposite – (i.e. that they embraced the Gospel and then forsook it.
Thanks Heather, and TS00, for being so frank and honest in yeir thoughts. None of us have all the answers. We are all constantly trying to work things out, hopefully as best we can. Sometimes the answers are not what we would have expected, or even what we might have wanted. That’s the time we especially need to trust in the lord with all our heart, and not lean on our own understanding.
I am reminded of Naaman the leper, who was told, by God, to go and dip himself seven times in the Jordan river in order to be cured.This man was enraged at how ridiculous this command was, and was refusing to do it, until one little lowly servant girl (obviously very clever and wise) spoke sense into the eejit. Just because it didn’t make sense to him, he wasn’t going to do it. Calvinism aside, sometimes, we are like that when it comes to things that God wants of us, or has commanded us to do. Our own thinking, and even our own selfish, fleshly selves, more often than not, get in the way of submitting to our heavenly Father.
The scriptures tell us, “Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins” (Eccl. 7:20). So we can see that being a faithful man, does not mean you will never sin. The only difference is, is that a righteous man is one who is constantly striving to be righteous, and is also constantly repenting when he does sin. That’s the difference between a faithful man and an unfaithful man.
Look at what John tells us, and note the “if” at the beginning of each sentence which makes the Christian’s forgiveness “conditional.” He says: “if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:7-9).
I’m going to ask some questions which will most likely go against what you believe, or would at least struggle to accept. Let’s take the first statement of John’s in (1:7): He says, “(if) we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.”
Do we ever see Christians being exhorted to “walk in love” and to not be hateful and bitter and envious, or immoral, or drunk, etc..? Do we ever see them being exhorted to “walk in the light” and to “not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness” and not to be partakers with them? To put away lying, and corrupt speech, to no longer walk as the Gentiles do, and put off the deeds of the flesh, etc, etc..? Why would there be all these exhortations, and warnings, if it was impossible for normal, everyday, Christians, to go back into their former ways?
So is it possible for a Christian not to be walking in the light? Absolutely! Therefore, John’s promise is conditional upon walking in the light. In other words, our fellowship, and our cleansing from sin,(v.7), depends on whether we walk in the light or not. John is including himself in this, saying that we must walk in the light if we are to have fellowship in Christ, and the cleansing from our sin. One has to ask the question, “what happens to those who are not walking in the light” ?
In (v.9) he says, “If” we confess our sins,…. Again, one has to ask themselves the question, ” what happens if I don’t confess my sins”? The answer is, he can’t be forgiven. Remember, these are Christians he is writing to, and he is telling them what they must continue to do, in order to have continual forgiveness, fellowship, and cleansing from their sin – through the blood of Jesus. What is the necessary implication here? Any Christian who ignores these admonitions, ignores it to his peril.
The frightening thing about continuing in sin, is that the deceitfulness of sin will harden a person’s heart. And that’s how many eventually fall away (Heb. 3:12-14).
JTL: “Jesus denies them in Matt. 7:21-23.”
You assume that Jesus denies them because He didn’t love them, because He didn’t die for them.
Where does it say this in Scripture?
Because what I see is that they are denied because they weren’t really doing the will of the Father, they didn’t really know the Father even though they claimed to know Him. They didn’t have real faith, but they had “religion.” And because of this, Jesus didn’t “know” them. But where in the verse does it say that God created them to have this fake faith or that Jesus didn’t really die for them or that they couldn’t have had real faith if they wanted it?
You assume it!
But, keeping the Bible’s message in tact, I would say that they themselves chose this fake faith, instead of choosing real faith in the real God.
And to support your assumption that “God loving ALL people” really just means “God loves the few people He elects,” you quote Rev. 7:9 “After these things, I looked and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of ALL nations [Gentiles] tribes, peoples, and tongues standing before the throne …”
But you’ll notice something in that verse that isn’t in the “God loves all men,” “Jesus died for all men,” “God wants all to be saved” verses … and it’s that Rev 7:9 specifies that there will be people from ALL NATIONS around the throne in the end. Whereas the other “all” verses don’t have that, they don’t specify that “God loved only some from ALL nations” or that “Jesus died for only some from ALL nations” or that “God only wants some from ALL nations to be saved.”
And they don’t specify that because it’s not what God intended to say. Calvinists add the idea of “some from all nations” to those verses. They take Rev 7:9 and insert it into other verses where it doesn’t belong.
But there is no incompatibility between Rev 7:9 and those other verses. God loves all and wants all to be saved and Jesus died for all, but all will not be saved because many will reject the salvation that is offered to them. And therefore, not ALL will be around the throne, but there will be some from ALL nations that have chosen to accept the salvation offered to them.
Calvinism is built on a foundation of assumptions and presumptions! But until and unless they first stop and examine the assumptions/presumptions they filter Scripture through, Calvinists will never understand Scripture correctly!
You explain it well, Heather. This is such an important point, that I would hope Calvinists would meditate upon it long and hard, praying for God to open their minds to the truth. This means very deliberately considering and making sure you understand both alternative explanations, not bowing to the common Calvinist arrogance of ‘Only we believe the truth’.
I cannot imagine how any true believer, in tune with the Spirit, would not be led to see and rejoice in the goodness of God in offering salvation to any and all who will receive it, once they shed the blinders that falsely insist that God is making a demand that no one can comply with. Under Calvinism, demanding ‘belief’ is an asinine impossibility, with Calvi-god just grandstanding so he can show off his ‘power’ to save.
In reality, no one has, or will have any doubts as to who has all of the power in this universe. The true God is not worried about men possibly getting some of his ‘glory’, for the very act of believing requires acknowledging your sin and need for a savior. ‘Thank you for offering me a second chance that I don’t deserve’ doesn’t sound like taking credit for the salvation which only God can offer. Also, built in to the true concept that salvation is freely offered to all is the obvious implication that no one is more deserving than anyone else – all sin, all deserve punishment, all are offered pardon.
And of course Paul himself tells us that believing – faith – is not a work, but clearly contrasts Abraham’s and others’ faith with works. Does scripture ever say that God unilaterally forces faith upon men who don’t even seek it? No, never. Anyone who honestly reads scripture, desiring to see the truth rather than prove their presuppositions, will see, how God loves and freely offers life to all. They will see the true glory of God and the true hope of the gospel, rather than the false Judaistic ‘chosen people’ concept which brought condemnation upon much of national Israel, who refused to accept that ‘all men’ were equally loved and sought by God.
Great comments, TS00. Well said! In particular, you said, “Also, built in to the true concept that salvation is freely offered to all is the obvious implication that no one is more deserving than anyone else – all sin, all deserve punishment, all are offered pardon.”
I totally agree. Offering salvation freely and unbiasedly to all people levels the playing field. No one is more “deserving” than anyone else because we do nothing to deserve it. It is freely offered to all, from the “worst” sinner to the “best” religious Law-follower.
Yet isn’t it funny how Calvinists basically say the opposite? They say that if salvation were offered to all people, for us to accept or reject, then that’s like saying those who accept it are claiming they have some sort of characteristic that makes them “better” than those who reject it, that makes them more “deserving” of it. They basically say that believing we can “accept salvation” is like us bragging that we have been cut from different cloth, having started with some quality that makes us better than others. As if those who reject it don’t have the qualities they need to accept it.
They say that Calvi-god arbitrarily choosing whom to save better shows that no one “deserves” salvation. They believe it’s unhumble to say that we “choose” or “accept” salvation, that it’s more humble to claim we do NOTHING to get to heaven, not even make a choice to accept an offer of salvation.
But I believe salvation is offered freely to all and that all people have the ability to accept it. And like you, I believe it’s humble to gratefully accept a gift that someone else paid for, knowing that we could never earn on our own, to say (as you wrote) ‘Thank you for offering me a second chance that I don’t deserve.’
This is humility … as opposed to the arrogance of basically believing “Calvi-god created ME special. He loves ME more. He died for MY sins. He created ME to love and to save, while He created most others to hate and to damn to hell. I MYSELF have been CHOSEN to go to heaven even though I did nothing, not even make a choice to follow Jesus. My choice was made for me by Calvi-god. And nothing can keep me out of heaven, not even choices I make (because Calvi-god predestined all my choices and predestined me to be a believer) or my sins (because Calvi-Jesus died for MY sins and I am not even really responsible for my own sins anyway because Calvi-god controls everything I do).”
It’s asinine, as you said! Totally backwards!
If people reject the offer of salvation, it’s not because they lacked some ability or quality to accept it. It’s because THEY DIDN’T WANT IT. It’s because they wanted to be their own god.
And the person who accepts it doesn’t do so because they are better or more deserving than anyone else; it’s just that they choose to acknowledge that they are being offered a gift they cannot earn on their own, that they don’t deserve, and they choose to thankfully, humbly accept it.
This doesn’t make them “better” or “more deserving” … but I would say it makes them “smarter.” 🙂
They are smart enough to realize they could never earn salvation on their own and that they had better accept the free gift of salvation being offered to them if they want to get into heaven. They are smart enough to realize that they really are responsible for their own choices, and that they had better make the right choice.
And I say this is a lot smarter than rejecting a free gift you can never earn for yourself, choosing instead to pay for your own sins in hell when Jesus already paid for them for you so that you could go to heaven. And it’s a lot smarter than believing that you’re not really responsible for your choices and that you don’t have to do ANYTHING to get to heaven, not even seek God or accept Jesus as Lord and Savior (when the Bible tells us over and over again to seek God, to choose obedience, and to choose whom we will serve).
But if Calvinists want to believe that it’s more humble to say Calvi-god only loves THEM and that Calvi-Jesus only died for THEM and that they are not really responsible for their choices and that they don’t even have to make a choice to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior because they were “elected” … well, that’s their choice! And they won’t see it any other way until they are willing to.
I, however, will take God seriously when He says “Seek Me” and “Believe in Me” and “Choose whom you will serve.” I’ll err on the side of believing that God meant what He said, the way He wrote it, than believing that He really meant something else, some secret layer of meaning that changes the Gospel and the way we view and approach faith.
If I’m wrong in how I believe Scripture, at least I’ll be able to say “But God, I was simply taking Your Word at face value, the way You wrote it” when I stand before Him.
Whereas if Calvinists are wrong, they’ll have to say “Yeah, I saw what You wrote but I thought there was some sort of secret double-meaning behind it. I thought You didn’t really mean what You wrote, the way You wrote it, and so I tried to figure out what I think You must have really meant to say instead.”
I wonder how well that excuse will hold up before God!
heather writes, “Offering salvation freely and unbiasedly to all people levels the playing field.”
Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that the gospel is offered to all who hear the gospel preached. The Calvinist adds that a person must have faith to respond positively to the gospel and without faith, “…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing…”
Then, “They say that if salvation were offered to all people, for us to accept or reject, then that’s like saying those who accept it are claiming they have some sort of characteristic that makes them “better” than those who reject it, that makes them more “deserving” of it.”
Calvinists say that people who accept salvation do so only because God gave them faith – “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them..” So, if God gives a perosn faith, then that person is better than the person to whom God withholds faith.
Then, “They say that Calvi-god arbitrarily choosing…”
God chooses whom to give faith “…according to the counsel of His will…”
Then, “But I believe salvation is offered freely to all and that all people have the ability to accept it.”
Then you believe that God gives all people faith. Given that “faith” comes from assurance and conviction, how do people with assurance and conviction make a choice that reflects a lack of assuranc eand lack of conviction?
Then, ‘If people reject the offer of salvation, it’s not because they lacked some ability or quality to accept it. It’s because THEY DIDN’T WANT IT.”
They did not want it because they had no faith.
This is deliberate obtuseness. It is simply blowing smoke to say Calvi-god offers salvation to someone, but only after he has deliberately ensured that they have no ability to respond to it. Honestly, Calvinists make their god look not only cruel and tyrannical, but stupid and foolish to boot. Even a blind, dead sinner can see through that smokescreen.
‘Nobody can say I didn’t offer salvation to all. Watch and see me offering the gospel to everyone. Come, all who are weary and I will give you rest. Believe in the gift I didn’t offer you and live! Hey, you morons, why aren’t you coming? Why don’t you respond to my false offer and believe? Do you want me to send you to hell? That does it, you guys are gonna get it.’
Sheesh, what a god. He is either too stupid to see his own foolishness or is a cruel, mocking tyrant who can’t wait to start the fun of torturing people. Either way, he is not a god anyone would want.
Heather: “Then, ‘If people reject the offer of salvation, it’s not because they lacked some ability or quality to accept it. It’s because THEY DIDN’T WANT IT.”
rh: “They did not want it because they had no faith.”
No, they did not want it because Calvi-god made sure they wouldn’t, couldn’t want it. Throwing out the feeble excuse that it’s because they didn’t have faith – when the only reason they don’t have faith is because Calvi-god withheld it from them – is just silly. It’s time Calvinists realize we are not idiots. We see through all of your silly, illogical pretenses.
TS00 writes, “No, they did not want it because Calvi-god made sure they wouldn’t, couldn’t want it. ”
Yes, because God is the one who gives faith to whom He will and those God does not give faith cannot change who they are, so that “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing…”
Then, ‘Throwing out the feeble excuse that it’s because they didn’t have faith – when the only reason they don’t have faith is because Calvi-god withheld it from them – is just silly.”
Yet, people do not have faith because God does not give them faith.
rhutchin
God is the one who gives faith to whom He will and those God does not give faith cannot change who they are, so that “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing…”
br.d
Firstly:
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) no creature can “change who they are” anyway
So this is another example of the red-herring fallacy.
Secondly:
“Those who are perishing” (present tense) have already been DESIGNED to for that end (past tense) and they are NOT PERMITTED to be/do otherwise.
Thirdly:
In the Non-Calvinist world faith is a human attribute given to the creature by DESIGN and comes as an attribute human functionality.
In this view the creature is “merely” permitted to make Jesus the OBJECT of his faith
And likewise the creature is “merely” permitted to not make Jesus the OBJECT of one’s faith.
Faith therefore exists in both contexts – but the OBJECT of one’s faith is what distinguishes the two.
And since Theological Determinism is not a NECESSARY world-view – then the Non-Calvinist world-view is just as viable.
rhutchin
Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that the gospel is offered to all who hear the gospel preached.
br.d
We must remember – Calvinists are instructed to speak “little” truths while HIDING the WHOLE TRUTH
And Calvinism – via Augustine contains the component of ONTOLOGICAL DUALISM – where so many things appear in “Good-Evil” pairs.
That which is [OFFERED] to the elect differs from that which is [OFFERED] to the non-elect.
It is wisdom also to remember – Calvinists are instructed to use EQUIVOCAL terms whenever possible in order to present FALSE APPEARANCES. And the term “offer” can be used in an EQUIVOCAL manner
Calvin’s god can [OFFER] the gift of salvation to the non-elect – with no intent to [GIVE] the gift of salvation to the non-elect.
Whether that meets one’s definition of the term [OFFER] is questionable.
It doesn’t meet my definition of moral and honest, that’s for sure. Since it is claimed that Jesus died only for ‘the elect’ then what exactly is being ‘offered’ to the ‘reprobate’? It is an outright lie to declare ‘Believe and you will be saved’ if Jesus never paid the price for their sin.
Nor do we see wording even close to that anywhere in scripture. It can only be manufactured if you conflate being ‘chosen’ with believing, which is why Calvinism distorts ‘faith’ into an object that must be given, rather than the personal, self-derived response of an individual to the revelation of truth.
Well said TS00!
TS00 writes, “It is an outright lie to declare ‘Believe and you will be saved’ if Jesus never paid the price for their sin.”
That is why the preaching of the gospel to all the world has the purpose of drawing God’s Elect to salvation and not the Reprobate. When Jesus said, ““Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” in one place and then, ““No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” in another, then we can understand that only those God is drawing could respond to Christ’s plea.
Then, ‘which is why Calvinism distorts ‘faith’ into an object that must be given, rather than the personal, self-derived response of an individual to the revelation of truth.”
Paul said in Romans 10 that faith comes through hearing the gospel. It enables a person to respond in “belief” or “the personal, self-derived response of an individual to the revelation of truth.”
Twist, twist, twist – you would think a person would eventually grow weary of going through hoops trying to make scripture fit into his false paradigm.
Rh says the purpose is ‘drawing God’s Elect to salvation and not the Reprobate’. Of course, scripture teaches no such thing, EVER, and repeatedly declares in countless places and ways that the purpose of the gospel is to declare the good news of a saviour and a salvation which shall be to all people. But the Calvinist will twist and twist, unaware of how obvious his distortions are to those who have sees through the deceptions of Calvinism.
After years of twisting, we are determined to pursue truth, not distortions manufactured to uphold the traditions of men.
TS00 writes, “scripture teaches no such thing, EVER, and repeatedly declares in countless places and ways that the purpose of the gospel is to declare the good news of a saviour and a salvation which shall be to all people.”
So, what about faith. If two people hear the gospel and one accepts and one rejects, isn’t the cause traced to faith and not the hearing so that one had faith and the other did not?
We’ve been through that too many times to count. You’ll have to find someone else to rise to the bait.
rhutchin
That is why the preaching of the gospel to all the world has the purpose of drawing God’s Elect to salvation
br.d
Here we have the same LOGICAL fallacy again – of preaching being classified as NECESSARY for Calvin’s god to accomplish [X]
He’s not ABLE to do it without preaching because he’s not omnipotent.
In Theological Determinism the purpose of preaching is to give the *APPEARANCE* of having the purpose of drawing……
A puppet master can have puppets listening to the preaching of the gospel.
One puppet is determined to respond in one way.
One puppet is determined to respond the opposite way.
The SHOW is designed to *SIMULATE* interaction between self-determining beings.
But that is not LOGICALLY possible since the puppet master is the SOLE DETERMINER of all puppet functionality.
br.d writes, “That which is [OFFERED] to the elect differs from that which is [OFFERED] to the non-elect.”
No. The same gospel is offered to all. The ability to respond to that gospel requires faith and faith is only given to God’s elect with that faith being the cause of them accepting salvation. As explained 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.”
br.d
That which is [OFFERED] to the elect differs from that which is [OFFERED] to the non-elect.
rhutchin
No. The same gospel is offered to all.
br.d
You say “no” in order to give the APPEARANCE of disagreement.
But then you point specifically to one distinct element (the gospel) while my statement did not
I think everyone here should be able to see through that. :-]
Rhutchin: “Yes, because God is the one who gives faith to whom He will … Yet, people do not have faith because God does not give them faith.”
Heather: And I guess the more you say it, the more true it makes it, huh?
heather writes, ” And I guess the more you say it, the more true it makes it, huh?”
??? What role do you see for faith in the salvation process??
Rhutchin quotes TS00: “scripture teaches no such thing, EVER, and repeatedly declares in countless places and ways that the purpose of the gospel is to declare the good news of a saviour and a salvation which shall be to all people.”
To which he replies: “So, what about faith. If two people hear the gospel and one accepts and one rejects, isn’t the cause traced to faith and not the hearing so that one had faith and the other did not?”
Heather: Notice the classic Calvinist tactic of diverting attention away from Scripture and to philosophical musings instead. TS00 referred to Scripture, to the lack of verses that teach what Calvinists say the Bible teaches and to the fact that the Bible repeatedly teaches the opposite of what the Calvinists claim. To which Rhutchin tries to draw TS00 into a philosophical debate about faith and why someone accepts while another does not. This is how they run people in circles, taking their focus off of what Scripture actually teaches and getting them to substitute their own “wisdom” and philosophical ideas instead.
You are right Heather,
The real “human reasoning” rests within Calvinism.
Ignore the scripture and then set up a false dilemma.
hether writes, “Notice the classic Calvinist tactic of diverting attention away from Scripture and to philosophical musings instead. TS00 referred to Scripture,”
TS00 referred generally to Scriptures but not to any specific Scripture, but that’s all right because FOH often listed them. However, to respond to those Scriptural appeals requires faith doesn’t it? Isn’t faith the real issue without which all those appeals fall on deaf ears? What does Paul say in Romans 10:
13. For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
14 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?
15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent?…
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Heather posted this one:
“2 Peter 2:1: “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign LORD who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves.”
“WHO BOUGHT THEM!”
“The Lord’s death bought the false teachers who brought destruction on themselves.”
“How is it possible for Jesus to have bought false teachers who are going to hell if Jesus’s death supposedly only bought the elect?”
——–Here’s My Response——–
1. I say it again : “Jesus Christ did not offer His life for the False prophets”
2. Using 2 Peter 2:1 to refute my claim does not fit and will never work. Why?
2.1 2 Pet. 2:1 has something to do with the history of the Hebrews when they were bought by God the Father in their slavery in Egypt. These false prophets have slip-in upon their exit of Egypt.. Peter wasa addressing the Jews in this verse, by saying that there were “false prophets among the people”.
2.2 within the context it does not talk about Salvation, but its main agenda are the false prophets and teachers.
2.3 Peter is consistent in his entire letter teaching about salvation by foreknowledge of the father and the Grace of Jesus Christ. He cannot contradict nor retract his former declaration with this single verse which does not refer to Salvation at all.
2.4 Example: I Peter 1″1-2 Peter an apostle of jesus Christ, to the pilgrims of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythynia. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the father in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ; Grace to you and peace be multiplied.
3. Who is the LORD mentioned in 2 Pet. 2:1? Answer: God the Father, [Gr. “Despotes”] not Jesus Christ [“Gr. “Kurios”]
Parallel with: Jude verse 4 where God the Father is also addressed as Lord [“Despotes”] “For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this CONDEMNATION, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Parallel with Deut. 32:6 “Do you thus deal with the Lord, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your FATHER, WHO BOUGHT YOU? Has He not made you and established you? = God the Father is the One who BOUGHT in 2 Pet. 2:1 – which so many has wrongly refer this to Jesus Christ atonement done in the cross of Calvary.
Parallel with Exod. 15:16 Fear and dread will fall on them; by the greatness of your arm they will be as stone, till your people pass over, O Lord [“Despotes”] till the people pass over whom You have PURCHASED.
So… How we can trust God in His words if one will hold on to a Universal Salvation, and Universal Atonement of Christ on the cross if the rest are still damned to hell?. If they were already paid for the sin of unbelief that Christ was punished for them, yet they are still thrown to hell? A double punishment and an un – sincere offer for ALL humanity !
Totally incoherent explanation, which I doubt even convinces he who speaks it. But hey, it’s tough when over 95% of scripture directly contradicts everything you believe. You just do the best you can, and hope no one sees through your smoke. Folks around here are too experienced to be tricked by this sort of blowing smoke; but they’ll just keep puffing and bluffing.
95%?
That’s being gracious.
It’s the least I can do . . . 😉
JTL: “Jesus Christ did not offer His life for the False prophets”
Heather: I’d like the chapter and verse for this please.
JTL: “Peter was addressing the Jews in this verse,…”
Heather: My Bible notes say that 2 Peter is written “to the church at large, and all believers everywhere.” So you might want to contact the editors of the NIV Life Application Bible and tell them they made a mistake, that you are certain 2 Peter was for Jews only. I’m sure they’ll take your word for it!
JTL: “within the context it does not talk about Salvation”
Heather: Oh, so since the main context isn’t salvation then there can be no reference to salvation anywhere, right!?! So I guess Peter meant to say something else, like “They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them doughnuts …”
Amazing how different it is when you leave one word out!
JTL: 1 Peter 1:1-2: To God’s elect, strangers in the world … who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood.”
Heather: I can see how this verse trips people up. It did for awhile for me too. But I have come to see that it’s NOT a verse about people being chosen for salvation, but about believers being chosen for obedience to Jesus. Basically, it’s NOT that God predestines certain people for salvation; it’s that He “predestined” the path a true Spirit-filled believer takes after they become saved, a path that the Spirit helps them follow. (Or it could possible be that God predestined the timing of Jesus and the first generation that would be able to find salvation in Jesus, through the help of the Holy Spirit. That’s another possibility. Either way, it’s not that God predestines who gets saved and who doesn’t.)
JTL: “… with this single verse which does not refer to Salvation at all.”
Heather: I don’t say that salvation is accepted by all but that it is available and offered to all.
JTL: “… if one will hold on to a Universal Salvation,”
Heather: You’re not listening to what I’m saying. Isn’t it TS00 that said somewhere that none of us non-Calvinists will escape without being called “Universalists” at some point? So true!
JTL: “How we can trust God in His words …”
Heather: You’re right … how can you Calvinists trust Calvi-god in his words if Calvi-god always has secret double-meaning for what he says, another layer that contradicts what he wrote, and if he tricks some non-elected people into thinking they are elected?
heather writes, “My Bible notes say that 2 Peter is written “to the church at large, and all believers everywhere.”
2 Peter 1 has, “Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:” which supports your Bible notes.
1 Peter 1 has “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion…” which is taken to be a reference to the Jews. So, written to Jews but applicable to all believers whether Jew or gentile.
jtleosala
October 23, 2019 at 9:38 pm
Jesus Christ did not OFFER His life for the False prophets
br.d
I wonder if rhutchin will manufacture some goble-de-goop language designed to LOGICALLY flip this statement so that it MEANS the opposite? :-]
jtleosala
October 23, 2019 at 9:38 pm
Jesus Christ did not OFFER His life for the False prophets
Aidan
They were “denying the Lord who bought them” – 2 Peter 2:1. These are souls who at one time had been “bought by the Lord” Thus, these are souls who at one time became “blood bought individuals”
Here are all the other relevant passages that I found with that particular Greek word for “bought” (1 Cor.6:20; 7:23; Rev.5:9; 14:3,4). All showing that whoever was “bought” belonged to Christ.
Aidan writes, “They were “denying the Lord who bought them” – 2 Peter 2:1.”
2 Peter 2 says, “who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them,” so one of the heresies brought in by the false teacher is “denying the Lord who bought them.” As they are false teachers and “many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed,” I would conclude that they are not believers. If they were Jews teaching the need for circumcision or for continued sacrifices in the temple, that would deny the Lord who bought them as explained in Hebrews, “Christ, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them…if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”
rhutchin
I would conclude that they are not believers
br.d
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) not believers = not bought
And they would then have to be deceived into believing they were bought.
OH! That would make them Calvinists!
You know – that LARGE MIXTURE of Calvinists whom Calvin’s god has deceived into believing they were bought.
However, in an IN-deterministic world – they could easily be believers who simply denied the Lord who bought them.
Excellent reasoning BR.D,
How much easier it is, when one just simply takes a statement at face value, unless something in the context forces them to take it otherwise.
Thanks Aidan!
How unfortunate when a theology has to take every verse and force it to conform.
Not a very respectful way to handle the most precious letters ever written to mankind!
Hi BR.D,
Yes, and it seems to be a common enough problem too. But even Jtl’s insistence that Peter is only writing to Jews would seem to be forcing it to conform to his view. Rh, I believe is probably also leaning in the same direction. The internal evidence, however, would suggest that Peter is writing to Christians, including both Jews and Gentiles.
He refers to the former state of his readers as one of “ignorance and futility”(1:14,18), and reminds them of “Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY” (2:9-10).
He also says, “For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries,” etc. (4:3-5). They are suffering and being spoken evil of, because they are no longer engaging in these wicked things with their fellow countrymen.
All of these references do not fit a predominantly Hebrew Christian audience. It would appear that at least many of the people to whom he was writing were Gentile Christians. Then from 2 Pet. 3:1, if this is correctly interpreted, it would appear that the primary destination of the two letters are the same; perhaps, even allowing for a wider audience from the introduction in 2 Pet.1:1. Otherwise, to whom Peter wrote in the second letter is not known.
Aidan
But even Jtl’s insistence that Peter is only writing to Jews would seem to be forcing it to conform to his view.
br.d
Excellent observation.
I’ve observed this as a consistency with Calvinists.
I think Calvinists intuitively observe that John Calvin creates god, and scripture in his own image – and then assumes to speak ex-cathedra. And since Calvinists are his spiritual off-spring they instinctively take it as their right to follow in that pattern.
So they will come up with their own versions of things.
All of which they also assume to speak ex-cathedra.
And when their personal theologies contradict one another – they will use language tricks to hide the contradictions.
Because subtle language is also part of the inheritance.
The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.
1 Peter 1:1-2a (NKJV)….
To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in PONTUS, Galatia, CAPPADOCIA, ASIA, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…
Compare with….
Acts 2:5-10 (NKJV)….
And there were dwelling in Jerusalem JEWS, devout men, FROM EVERY NATION UNDER HEAVEN. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and CAPPADOCIA, PONTUS and ASIA…
Now…
1 Peter 2:9-12 (NKJV)….
But you are a chosen generation (or RACE), a royal priesthood, a holy NATION, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. Beloved, I beg you as sojourners (someone who lives in a foreign land temporarily) and pilgrims (someone who travels to a sacred place for religious reasons), abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles (within whom they were scattered), that when they (the Gentiles) speak against you (the Jew) as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation (second coming).
Compare with….
Exodus 19:3-6 (NKJV)….
And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”
Who were they who “were not a people, but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy”? Read Hosea chapters 1 and 2. It is the House of Israel, the former Northern Kingdom (Hosea 1:6).
The church, or the body of Christ, is not a race, nor a nation. Peter is writing to Jews (albeit believing Jews), specifically those from the House of Israel, or the former Northern Kingdom. There are no Gentiles included in this group, hence verse 12. These are Jews who had been scattered among the Gentiles (compare with James 1:1), and basically became Gentiles (though still Jews by nature) by taking on their culture and lifestyles, and by worshipping other gods (read 1 Kings chapter 12).
Personally, I don’t care what someone’s notes say in my Bible. They are opinion and nothing more. They are not spirit breathed, but just some poor soul doing the best he can or, worse, just regurgitating what he had been taught by another poor soul. Based on that logic, we should all bow in humble admiration to the John MacArthur Study Bible.
Blessings.
Phillip, you wrote:
Who were they who “were not a people, but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy”? Read Hosea chapters 1 and 2. It is the House of Israel, the former Northern Kingdom (Hosea 1:6).
The church, or the body of Christ, is not a race, nor a nation. Peter is writing to Jews (albeit believing Jews), specifically those from the House of Israel, or the former Northern Kingdom. There are no Gentiles included in this group, hence verse 12. These are Jews who had been scattered among the Gentiles (compare with James 1:1), and basically became Gentiles (though still Jews by nature) by taking on their culture and lifestyles, and by worshipping other gods (read 1 Kings chapter 12).
Aidan:
I agree that the context of those verses in Hosea is the House of Israel, the former Northern Kingdom whom God declared He would bring to an end (v.4). Yet, in spite of this rejection and scattering of Israel by Jehovah, “the number of the children of Israel Shall be as the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered” (1:10). The children of Israel, the ten tribes, are before the prophet’s mind. Whereas it was said at that time, “Ye are not My people” because God would cast them off, it would come to pass that they would at some time be called “sons of the living God.” When would this be?
The words of this passage are used by Peter with reference to the redeemed, “the elect who are the sojourners of the Dispersion” (1 Peter 1:1), “who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy,” thereby becoming the people of God (1 Peter 2:10). But, Paul appealed to this same passage in defending the right of the Gentiles, with the Jews, to be called by the gospel (Rom. 9:24-26).
The Gentiles had long since ceased to sustain a relation to God. And now with Israel cast off, “not My people,” both Israel and the Gentiles would stand on equal ground before God. Each branch, Jew and Gentile, were now not His people; therefore, each could and would be called and saved by the same mercy of God, thus becoming “His people.” For inasmuch as the kingdom had been brought to an end, now Israel and Judah (and the Gentiles) could be brought together as one, under one head, Christ (cf. Hosea 3:5).
Aidan,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Honestly, its baffling to me that so many believe Gentiles are included in Peter’s speech. The first 5 words of the book of 1 Peter tells us distinctly (and exclusively) to whom he is writing.
“To the pilgrims of the Dispersion…..”
Pilgrim (defined): a person who journeys to a sacred place for religious reasons.
Dispersion (defined): the action or process of distributing things or people over a wide area.
God never dispersed Gentiles. But He did the Jews. Twice.
John 7:35 (NKJV)…..
Then the Jews said among themselves, “Where does He intend to go that we shall not find Him? Does He intend to go to the Dispersion (the scattered Jews) among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?
James 1:1 (NKJV)….
James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes (Israelites/Jews) which are scattered (or dispersed) abroad: Greetings.
To whom was Peter commissioned?
Galatians 2:7-8 (NKJV)….
But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised (Gentiles) had been committed to me (Paul), as the gospel for the circumcised (the Jews) was to Peter, for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised (the Jews) also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles
From a Jewish website….
“A major category of Jewish holidays is the pilgrimage festival. Described in the Hebrew Bible as celebrating both agricultural festivals and historical events in the history of the Jewish people, these three holidays were set aside in biblical times for people to travel to the ancient Temple in Jerusalem. These three holidays are Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot. According to the Torah, God commanded the Israelites: “Three times a year shall all your men appear before the Lord your God in the place that God will choose [referring presumably to the Temple in Jerusalem], on the festivals of Pesah (Passover: the Jewish exodus from Egypt, Shavuot (the Feast of Weeks: in English, Pentecost), and Sukkot (the Festival of Booths: a celebration of the 40 years of wandering in the desert when the Jews had to rely on God for food and protection). They shall not appear empty handed. Each shall bring his own gift, appropriate to the blessing which the Lord your God has given you” (Deuteronomy 16:16) Essentially, in this passage, God expresses a desire for all of the male Israelites to travel to Jerusalem (this is why they are called ‘pilgrimage’ festivals) and have the priest offer the animal sacrifice that was incumbent on each of them.”
Biblical example, Luke 2:41-43a (NKJV)….
His parents (Joseph and Mary) went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. When they had finished the days, as they returned (home), the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem.
Another Biblical example, Acts 2:1, 5-9 (NKJV)….
When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place….And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia….
Again, probably in the clearest language (and most uncomfortable for Gentile believers)
1 Peter 2:9 (NASB)….
But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION…
Again, the church, or the body of Christ, is not a race. Nor a nation. That’s just a biblical fact. But the Jews sure are.
Pilgrims. Strangers. Exile. Dispersion. Race. Nation.
Everything points to the Jew only. But, O, how our bible commentaries want to include the Gentiles as well.
Discern, brothers and sisters.
Looking up the word ‘genos’ which has been translated as ‘race’ in I Peter 2:9, Strong’s offers the words ‘race’, ‘kind’, ‘nation’ and ‘offspring’. Today, in English, ‘race’ has a very limited definition. I would suggest that the word ‘genos’ did not have that strict limitation. Israel was never limited to only those of the physical heritage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as people from other genetic heritage, or what some view as ‘races’, could become a member of this nation by embracing circumcision and The Law of Israel.
Throughout the centuries, many who had no physical relationship to Abraham became members of the nation/religion of Israel/Judaism. This was one of the arguments Paul used in Romans to discount the error of the Judaists that they were God’s chosen people, alone singled out for his love and blessings.
They knew their heritage well, better than many today, and that the nation of Israel was never limited to one ‘race’ of men. Today’s racists ignore the fact that Jesus’ own lineage was made up of women who were not Israelite by birth, again negating the claim that one racial group has exclusive claims and privileges over all others. There was indeed a man, with his offspring, who were chosen by God to form a nation, with the special task of being the demonstration people, by which all men could come to know and, hopefully, embrace the truth about who God is and what he desires for us. But, again, this was a loose group of ‘chosen people’, a nation rather than a race, as outsiders could become members.
This is the main error of those who believe God views men according to their birth heritage. Even when God singled out one man, Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob to form a nation, he did not set forth the limitation that no outsiders, not born as a descendant of these men, could become a part of this nation. It seems to me that those who are racist, and claim that God is as well, deliberately ignore this truth.
God made it clear to Abraham that he was chosen to bless all nations. God has never, ever, loved one race of men more than another. God set apart for himself a people, a nation to work through, but never a race. All of his works, in and through, were with the Nation of Israel, not a race of men now called Jews. When God destroyed ‘the nation’ of Israel, this did not entail the annihilation of an entire race of men. Israel was a nation, not a race.
“….the claim that one racial group has exclusive claims and privileges over all others.”
And yet….
Old Testament.
Jeremiah 31:31-32 (NKJV)….
“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.
Amos 3:1-2 (NKJV)…
Hear this word that the LORD has spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”
Zechariah 8:23 (KJV)….
Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days (still future) it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
New Testament.
John 4:22 (NKJV)…..
You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. (Ouch!)
John 19:19 (NKJV)….
Now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And the writing was: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.
Romans 9:3-5 (NKJV)….
For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites (aka Jews), to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
Romans 11:11 (NKJV)….
I say then, have they (Israel) stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. (Ouch, again!)
New Testament, but still future.
Hebrews 8:8 NKJV)….
Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) and with the house of Judah (the Southern Kingdom)…
Revelation 7:4-10 (NKJV)….
And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed: of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Asher twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Benjamin twelve thousand were sealed.
Revelation 21:10-14 (NKJV)….
And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel (all Jews or Israelites): three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west. Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles (all Jews) of the Lamb.
O, that green eyed monster.
For those willing to understand the books of Peter better, specifically to whom they are written, please consider the following. Again, not that I agree with every thought, or idea, but, overall, very good. Blessings.
https://www.oneforisrael.org/bible-based-teaching-from-israel/bible-teachings/peter-writing-jews-evidence-implications/
phillip writes, “For those willing to understand the books of Peter better, specifically to whom they are written, please consider the following….”
The cited article argues that Peter writes to believing Jews which is expected given Galatians 2, ‘But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),”
However, Peter writes, “eklektois parepidamois” – “to the elect, to the pilgrims/sojourners.” So, Peter addresses the “elect” and this could be Jew and gentile together but then specifically to the “pilgrims of the dispersion” that would be a reference to the Jewish believers forced to leave Israel. Except for a couple references to gentiles “I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul,having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles,…” and “For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles…” that would identify Peter’s audience as Jewish believers, everything Peter writes is applicable to any believer, whether Jew of gentile, so obviously all believers can read Peter’s letters and learn from them – nothing Peter writes provides unique instruction only to Jewish believers.
While Peter’s purpose is to encourage Jewish believers who are suffering, he writes as he is moved by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit’s purpose is to encourage all believers so that any believer suffering for Christ would be encouraged by that which Peter writes.
I don’t see that the letter’s of Peter are uniquely Jewish in nature or offer any special benefit to Jewish believers only. The cited article does not address this issue but is confined to the minutia of identifying Peter’s concern for Jewish believers which no one disputes..
And the LORD said to him, “…and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel” (Hosea 1:4). It is folly to talk about the restoration of the kingdom of house of Israel at some future time when God has declared it should cease; it would be brought to an end. The political house of Israel will never be restored.
In 1 Peter 2:9-10 – when Peter says, “But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.”
The emphasis here is not on the physical, but on the spiritual. Notice the terminology Peter used earlier in (v.5), “you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” Peter uses terms such as “living stones – a spiritual house – spiritual sacrifices” to indicate that this is not a literal house, or literal place, where priests may serve God by offering up literal sacrifices in worship to Him.
Christians (as priests) must offer up spiritual sacrifices (1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 13:15-16). The church is made up of living stones to become a spiritual house. But the “you” Peter speaks to in (v.5) is the same “you” he is speaking to in (vss 9-10). Where he says, you are a “royal priesthood” in (v.9), which implies a kingdom. But they are spiritual priests in a spiritual kingdom. This “holy nation and chosen race” is not some earthly nation that you can pin-point on a map.
The people of God, who are the house of God, are those who have obeyed the gospel, and can only be found in Christ. “For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?”(1 Peter 4:17). All who have obeyed the gospel are the “house of God,” not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.
According to Paul, in Romans 9 -11, those who are now “THE PEOPLE OF GOD” are those whom He called through the gospel, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. In other words, the church of Christ.
“even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
As He says also in Hosea:
“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
“And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God” – Rom. 9:24-26 (NKJV).
In Rev. 1:6, John writes to the seven churches in Asia saying, “and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father.” Some translations say “kings and priests.” But then in (v.9) he says that he was a “fellow partaker” in the “kingdom” with them. Given all this information, I ask you, “In Christ, are not Gentiles also included as those who are a people for God’s own possession, a holy nation, holy and beloved; a spiritual house, a kingdom, priests to God to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ, and now sons of the living God?”
Aidan,
Thanks, again, for outlining your amillennial and supersessionism views so clearly.
I think the article provided addresses most of your questions and concerns adequately. But being an amillennialist, I knew you would disagree. Still, I thought (and hoped) it would be a blessing to others.
I have already provided ample scriptural evidence of God keeping His promise to Israel and her future kingdom here on earth, so I won’t re-post them again. I will let the readers here decide if the restoration of the kingdom to Israel here on earth is “folly”.
Exodus 19:3-6 (NKJV)….
And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”
Deuteronomy 7:6 (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.
Isaiah 61:6 (NKJV)….
But you (the Jews) shall be named the priests of the LORD, they shall call you the servants of our God. You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory you shall boast.
Psalm 135:4 (NKJV)…
For the LORD has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel for His special treasure.
1 Peter 2:9-10 (NKJV)….
But you are a chosen generation (race), a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy (Jews/Israelites from the former Northern Kingdom or House of Israel) but now have obtained mercy (thru faith in Christ Jesus).
Priests? Sacrifices? Sure sounds Jewish to me.
In regards to your question, I am a blood bought believer, a legally adopted child of God thru faith in Jesus Christ. But a holy nation? Nope. A peculiar people? Nope. A royal priesthood? Nope. A chosen race? Nope. I believe those distinctions are reserved for the people of Israel and will be fulfilled when He sets up His everlasting kingdom here on earth.
In the Messianic Kingdom here on earth, which you fail to see, the Jews will become a kingdom of priests, as prophesied and promised in the OT, and they will reveal the Lord to the Gentile world. As provided earlier in this thread, this is recorded in Zechariah 8:23 which tells us what the Gentiles will say (still future)….
“In those days (after the tribulation) it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, ‘We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you’”.
The words “God is with you” are distinguished from the word “Emmanuel”, which means “God is with us”. “Us” being the Jewish people. God, in the person of Jesus Christ, will be with Israel, sitting on His eternal throne as “the King of the Jews” and will fulfill the Davidic covenant.
Come, Lord Jesus.
Phillip,
I respect your strong desire to want to teach people the truth, but I believe you are making a terrible mistake in not allowing the New Testament be the interpreter of the Old. The effect this has is to apply much of the Old testament out of context, which I’m sure you would agree is not what God would want.
And then you thanked me for outlining my “amillennial and supersessionism views so clearly.” I don’t think I ever heard of supersessionism before. I had to look it up to see what it was. Does this mean that you believe that people are still under the Old Covenant? If so, this is one of the consequences of taking the scriptures out of context.
And the LORD said to him, “…and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel” (Hosea 1:4). If the LORD said He would put an end to it, why don’t you believe Him? It doesn’t matter what the readers think, it only matters what God has said! And then you said, “Priests? Sacrifices? Sure sounds Jewish to me.” Don’t you know that the law has been done away with(Heb 10:9)? The law was only a shadow of the good things to come, and could never take away sin (Heb 10:1-4). There is now “a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh” (Heb 10:20).
You also said, “In the Messianic Kingdom here on earth, which you fail to see, the Jews will become a kingdom of priests, as prophesied and promised in the OT, and they will reveal the Lord to the Gentile world. As provided earlier in this thread, this is recorded in Zechariah 8:23 which tells us what the Gentiles will say (still future)….”
Don’t you know, Phillip, that the Messianic kingdom is here already, and is not still future? This is made abundantly clear by the writers of the New Testament. Why won’t you believe them? The seeking after the Lord by the people of all nations found its complete fulfillment in Christ through the spread of the gospel. This is confirmed by James at the council in Jerusalem, where he quotes (Amos 9:11-12) to justify the bringing in of the Gentiles through the Gospel (Acts 15:14-19).
Acts 15: 14-19 (NKJV)
“Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
“And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
‘After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’
“Known to God from eternity are all His works.
“Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God.”
The “tabernacle of David” was the house or tent of David, the rule of David’s house which had long since fallen into decay, or had become a mere “hut.” The prophecy – according to James – looked to the present dispensation or era, and not to a future millennial reign of Christ on earth. Seeing that the “rest of mankind” (Gentiles) are seeking the LORD through Christ; this means that the “tabernacle” or house of David has been rebuilt under the new David.The declaration of the prophet is clearly Messianic, and has thus been fulfilled under Christ through the gospel.
Peter, said in Acts 3:24-25; “And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days. “It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.’”
The Messianic kingdom is here already.
“The Messianic kingdom is here already.”
Wow! Then I must have slept thru the Great Tribulation and the Lord’s return. How long have I been out?!?
You wrote… “I don’t think I ever heard of supersessionism before.”
You might of if you had taken the time to read the article I provided earlier in the link.
You wrote/asked… “And the LORD said to him, ‘…and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel’ (Hosea 1:4). If the LORD said He would put an end to it, why don’t you believe Him?”
Aidan, I do believe Him. The Kingdom of the House of Israel is gone for good. Never again will the Northern Kingdom exist. But the people of the former Northern Kingdom, the House of Israel, are still out there and will be when He returns. I’ve posted this before, but it seems you glossed over it.
Ezekiel 37:15-28 (NKJV)….
Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “As for you, son of man, take a stick for yourself and write on it: ‘For Judah (the House of Judah/representing the Southern Kingdom) and for the children of Israel, his companions.’ Then take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel (the former Northern Kingdom), his companions.’ Then join them one to another for yourself into one stick, and they will become one in your hand. “And when the children of your people speak to you, saying, ‘Will you not show us what you mean by these?’— say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Surely I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will join them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand.”’ And the sticks on which you write will be in your hand before their eyes. “Then say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations (a North and a South), nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms (North and South) again. They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. Then they shall be My people, and I will be their God. “David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children’s children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them (just like the one He made with Abraham); I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them (makes sense since the Jews will become a kingdom of priests, as promised long ago); indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations (the Gentile nations) also will know that I, the LORD, sanctify (set apart) Israel (as a holy nation, a chosen race), when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.”’”
Why don’t you believe Him?
One of the biggest errors I have observed, and one I use to (and still do at times) commit myself, is failing to “rightly divide the word of God”. Most people put the word of God in a blender and, in doing so, mix grace with works. What is written to the Jew is for the Jew. What is written to the Gentile is for the Gentile. Context and language will always tell you (if you will let it) to whom the writers are speaking. “You” doesn’t always mean “you”, the reader. While it is true that all scripture is there for our learning, not all scripture is there for our doctrine. Again, discern.
Aidan, I doubt if anything I have provided will cause you to reconsider. But I hope it has been a blessing to other readers.
Its time for me to check out. Feel free to have the last word.
Blessings.
Aidan, wrote:
And the LORD said to him, “…and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel” (Hosea 1:4). It is folly to talk about the restoration of the kingdom of house of Israel at some future time when God has declared it should cease; it would be brought to an end. The political house of Israel will never be restored.
Phillip, you responded:
“I have already provided ample scriptural evidence of God keeping His promise to Israel and her future kingdom here on earth,..I will let the readers here decide if the restoration of the kingdom to Israel here on earth is “folly”.
Aidan responded with:
“And the LORD said to him, “…and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel” (Hosea 1:4). If the LORD said He would put an end to it, why don’t you believe Him?”
Phillip, you responded to this with:
“I do believe Him. The Kingdom of the House of Israel is gone for good. I’ve posted this before, but it seems you glossed over it.”
Aidan ‘s response:
It seems, judging by your responses, Phillip, that you are the one who glossed over what I said at the beginning, and then ended up apparently contradicting yourself! But I am more concerned that you keep glossing over, and ignoring, all that the apostles taught concerning the fulfillment of the messianic kingdom prophecies. In fact, you even mocked at it in your post. Mock as you will, and label me with whatever names you want; but your mocking is against what God has revealed through His holy apostles and prophets.
For example, the things that James revealed in Acts 15:14-19, that the fallen house of David has been rebuilt under Christ – “So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” you completely ignored. How could you miss what this passage means? Your mocking betrays the fact that you don’t care to look at the explanations of the inspired New Testament writers, but would rather look to your own interpretation, or that of uninspired men. You provided a lot of old testament scriptures – but they were out of context!
I was going to say, “you are only hurting yourself,” but I believe that this doctrine of yours has been one of the root causes of a lot of the troubles in the world today! There are many who zealously push this as a political agenda, and it has hurt a lot of people! I have no time for such things! I believe the scripture, which says, “There is no partiality with God.”
One final word:
We have to understand the nature of God’s kingdom established on the day of Pentecost! The old Zion – Jerusalem, with its temporal kingdom and house which was subject to decay and destruction-has been succeeded by a new Zion, which in its spiritual quality, will never be destroyed. The Hebrew saints had come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. They had come to God the Judge of all, to a New Covenant that had had the beginning of its announcement from Jerusalem, and to the blood that could speak better things than Abel’s (Heb 12:22-24). Things of the old order were being shaken and removed that the spiritual verities of the new may remain. The saints of the Hebrew letter were receiving a kingdom that could not, and has not been, shaken (Heb. 12:28).
The prophets certainly did not envision a time when God would dominate and control the world by force, or an age when all men of all political kingdoms would live at peace on this earth. Only in God’s spiritual kingdom, established by Christ on the day of Pentecost, would this blessed experience ever be realized.
I’m your friend, not you enemy.
My prayer to God is for you, and for all others who are of the same persuasion, that you may come to the knowledge of the truth.
Aidan.
Phillip, quoted Ezekiel 37:15-28 (NKJV)….
Aidan’s response:
Ezekiel looks to the time when God would unite all His people as one in His hand (vv. 15-21); they would be one nation, under one king (v.22); and David should reign over them as one Shepherd (king) (vv. 24-25). God would make with them a covenant of peace, an everlasting covenant (v. 26; cf. Heb. 13: 20-21).
“I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever” (Ezek. 37:26).
Now fulfilled, in Christ, according to the Hebrew writer:
Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen” (Heb. 13:20-21).
His tabernacle or dwelling place would be with them, and they would be His people and He their God (v. 27; cf. 2 Cor. 6:16-7:1).
“My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.” (Ezek. 37:27).
Now fulfilled, In Christ, according to Paul:
Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,
“I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM;
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
“Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,” says the Lord.
“AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN;
And I will welcome you.
“And I will be a father to you,
And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,”
Says the Lord Almighty.
Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” ( 2 Cor. 6:16-7:1).
And so, we see how the inspired writers of the New Testament interpreted the ultimate fulfillment of these O.T. passages. The complete picture in the New Testament fulfills this section of Ezekiel 37. God fulfilled the promise of the return of the Jews to Palestine under Cyrus, through Zerubbabel and Ezra; but through the gospel, He has fulfilled the spiritual gathering of His people in Christ.
Israel, the land – Judah – and Ephraim – are some words in the passage that you cited that makes it hard to see that it has been fulfilled. Read the passage without allegorizing and see if it makes sense. It sure does to me:
Eze 37:11 Then he said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are indeed cut off.’
Eze 37:12 Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel.
Eze 37:13 And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people.
Eze 37:14 And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the LORD.”
Eze 37:16 “Son of man, take a stick and write on it, ‘For Judah, and the people of Israel associated with him’; then take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph (the stick of Ephraim) and all the house of Israel associated with him.’
Eze 37:17 And join them one to another into one stick, that they may become one in your hand.
Eze 37:18 And when your people say to you, ‘Will you not tell us what you mean by these?’
Eze 37:19 say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am about to take the stick of Joseph (that is in the hand of Ephraim) and the tribes of Israel associated with him. And I will join with it the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, that they may be one in my hand.
Eze 37:20 When the sticks on which you write are in your hand before their eyes,
Eze 37:21 then say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land.
Eze 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms.
Eze 37:25 They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever.
Eze 37:26 I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore.
Eze 37:27 My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Eze 37:28 Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.”
Hi GraceAdict, good to hear from you again.
You wrote: “Israel, the land – Judah – and Ephraim – are some words in the passage that you cited that makes it hard to see that it has been fulfilled. Read the passage without allegorizing and see if it makes sense. It sure does to me:”
It is hard to read these chapters and not see symbolic language. The valley of dry bones, the sinews and the flesh, the breath come from the four winds, God raising them up out their graves, what the sticks in one hand represented, David their shepherd king, etc.. Surely you wouldn’t take these things literally, nor their interpretation, would you? We allow the Holy Spirit, through the inspired writer, interpret what they mean for us.
There seems to be a twofold purpose in the prophecy of this passage. In the first half, we see the resurrection of the nation to new life (vv 1-14). The hand of God was then on the prophet to show him the return of the people as a resurrection from the dead,(cf. v.12). God showed him a valley of dry bones; and the bones came together and life entered them (vv. 1-10). The Lord then declared to the prophet that “these bones are the whole house of Israel.” God would bring them up out of their graves, put His Spirit on them, and bring them into their own land (vv. 11-14). This promise would certainly have been fulfilled by their return from Babylon through Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, under the reign of Cyrus and Darius. It would also have certainly then made it possible for the “whole house of Israel” to eventually come back into their homeland.
But, in the second half of the chapter (vv. 15-28) we see the prophet clearly looking to the distant future when they would be one nation under the future king David. If there was a sort of temporal fulfillment in the intervening years, there would certainly be a greater fulfillment when David should reign over them as the one Shepherd (king) (vv. 24-25). And when we look at (vv 26, and 27) the New Testament writers have made their comment on the meaning of those verses.
God said, “I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever” (Ezek. 37:26).
The inspired Hebrew writer, who most likely was writing to ‘Jewish’ Christians, says to them, “Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will,..”(Heb. 13:20-21). Therefore, these Hebrew Christians already had a part in the “everlasting covenant” under Christ the “great Shepherd” (king).
Likewise, God had said, “My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.” (Ezek. 37:27).
Paul makes reference to this verse as being fulfilled in (2 Cor. 6:16). And when he says (we), he includes himself (a Jew), as enjoying that blessing together with these Gentile Corinthians, of being the temple of God who dwells in them, and are His people.
“Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,
“I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM;
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.” (2 Cor. 6:16).
So why not trust the inspired New Testament writers to interpret, and give us the meaning of these O.T. prophecies as they relate to Christ? The Holy Spirit has moved them to speak, in order to show us how God has fulfilled them. Both the Hebrew writer, and Paul, have shown us that (v.26 and v.27) of Ezekiel 37, have already had their fulfillment in Christ. If we are called to trust in the Lord with all our heart, and not leaning on our own understanding, then let us do it by listening to the interpretations made in the New Testament, rather than on our own thoughts, on how these prophecies must be fulfilled.
Why use the inspired New Testament writers when we have Augustine, Calvin and Piper to tell us what the words REALLY mean!
I mean, seriously?
Yeah Carl! Why use the understanding of inspired men when we have the fallible understanding of uninspired men, like Augustine, Calvin, and Piper!
Here’s what John, the “inspired” apostle said about listening to them:
“We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:6).
Now, do you still seriously think its good idea to listen to uninspired men ‘over and above’ the writings of the apostles – inspired men of God?
Aidan you nailed it when you said:
Why use the understanding of inspired men when we have the fallible understanding of uninspired men, like Augustine, Calvin, and Piper!
Here’s what John, the “inspired” apostle said about listening to them:
“We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:6).
That verse speaks to what is happening in this day and age. Piper, JMac, Grudem, Sproul are idolized…there is so much hero worship going on.
Thanks GraceAdict, I suppose the danger is in becoming more interested in what men have to say, and being committed to an ideology. It does seem quite prevalent. I believe that’s where the spirit of error is.
Heather posted these ones:
“Heather: I agree with you that “No one can come to the Father except a person is drawn by the Father to the Son” doesn’t say “all people” are drawn to Jesus.”
“But this verse does: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)”
“So how do we reconcile the two?”
———Here’s My Response———
John 12:32 does not contradict John 6:44. The wordings “ALL people” used by Jesus Christ in John 12:32 does not mean Universal Salvation nor Universal Atonement. Sadly, the non-Calvinists side uses this as their scaffold to promote their doctrine of Universal Salvation and Universal Atonement of Christ on the cross of Calvary. From the Calvinists side the word “ALL people” in John 12:32 refers only to both ALL of the elect Israel and Gentile believers but not to the entire humanity on earth.
Jesus Christ is not silly to go against his very own statement in John 6:44 that according to Jesus, “No one can come to the Son except the Father Draws him”
So… If Heather agrees with me in John 6:44, he should also agree with John 12:32. It is a silly thing to let the two in the Godhead fight each other.
So… How can we trust God in His word if one opponent tries to distort the meaning of the very words of Jesus Christ in order to push through his own agenda?
Jtleosala
From the Calvinists side the word “ALL people” in John 12:32 refers only to both ALL of the elect Israel and Gentile believers but not to the entire humanity on earth.
br.d
Its too bad the Holy Spirit has trouble being precise with his selection of words
He makes mistakes – like writing ALL MEN when he should have written ALL KINDS OF MEN.
If John Calvin had inspired the text instead of the Holy Spirit we wouldn’t have mistakes like that.
Then we wouldn’t have Greek scholars interpreting “All Men” to mean “All Men” without exception.
Jtleosala
Jesus Christ is not silly to go against his very own statement in John 6:44 that according to Jesus, “No one can come to the Son except the Father Draws him”
br.d
This of course is a childish straw-man.
Who in the world is going to accuse Jesus of being silly or speaking against himself?
The non-Calvinist Scholar doesn’t fall into this because he doesn’t interpret everything to conform to Calvinism.
Jtleosala
…… It is a silly thing to let the two in the Godhead fight each other.
br.d
Now this is an ironic statement for a Calvinist!
Firstly we have Calvin’s god who moves people around like chess pieces – obviously playing against himself.
Secondly he FALSELY thinks he can prevent certain events from coming to pass.
He’s not smart enough to know it is LOGICALLY impossible any event come to pass without him DECREEING it.
And what he DECREES he cannot prevent it.
So yes – a god who is not smart enough to know that – could fight against himself! :-]
Jtleosala
How can we trust God in His word
br.d
Trusting in Calvin’s god is a serious problem for the Calvinist.
Firstly:
What the Calvinist has in the “word” is the ENUNCIATED will.
And the ENUNCIATED will can be in total opposition to the SECRET will.
In this case for the Calvinist – the “word” functions as a FALSE-REPRESENTATION of the divine will.
Secondly:
It is a LOGICAL impossibility to trust a FALSE-REPRESENTATION.
The divine will concerning a Calvinist is something that Calvinist cannot have any CERTAINTY of.
And how can one trust – what one has no CERTAINTY of?
Jtleosala
if one opponent tries to distort the meaning of the very words of Jesus Christ in order to push through his own agenda?
br.d
Isn’t this more DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS?
How is that going to come to pass without Calvin’s god DECREEING it?
Then we can say – who are you “oh Calvinist” to judge what Calvin’s god DECREES!
Isn’t it funny how Calvinism always reveals itself to be inherently IRRATIONAL. :-]
Br.D. writes:
“And how can one trust – what one has no CERTAINTY of?”
——–Here’s My Response——–
Calvinists are the ones who consistently hold on to the assurance of the Permanent Salvation that is freely given by God to undeserving sinners, not like the Armenians that holds on to a temporal Salvation that can be lost depending on the person if he can afford to maintain it within himself.
So… How can the readers be attracted to believe to that funny : “NO CERTAINTY accusation” ?
Jtleosala wrote:
So… How can the readers be attracted to believe to that funny : “NO CERTAINTY accusation” ?
Aidan:
The Christian is CERTAIN that the faithful will be saved. The Christian is CERTAIN that the unfaithful will not be saved. The Christian is CERTAIN that God is faithful to His EXPRESSED will.
On the other hand, the Calvinist is UNCERTAIN that the faithful will be saved. The Calvinist is UNCERTAIN that the unfaithful will lost. Because, the Calvinist is UNCERTAIN in his god’s EXPRESSED will.
What I mean is, how can the Calvinist be CERTAIN about his salvation, when he can’t even be CERTAIN that he is among the true ELECT? I guess he will know for sure the moment he dies, or at the judgment- which ever comes first!
Aidan
On the other hand, the Calvinist is UNCERTAIN that the faithful will be saved. The Calvinist is UNCERTAIN that the unfaithful will be lost. Because, the Calvinist is UNCERTAIN in his god’s EXPRESSED will.
What I mean is, how can the Calvinist be CERTAIN about his salvation, when he can’t even be CERTAIN that he is among the true ELECT? I guess he will know for sure the moment he dies, or at the judgment- which ever comes first!
br.d
Yes – however the counter argument a Calvinist would make on this statement is the reference to “faithful”
Since “faithful” is determined only by Calvin’s god and not by the believer.
And John Calvin teaches that is according to the -quote SECRET ELECTION
And yes- the Calvinist CANNOT have CERTAINTY of that which he is NOT PERMITTED to know.
And as you have well stated – when the Calvinist finds himself and his neighbor in the lake of fire.
Then he will have CERTAINTY of what Calvin’s god’s designed him and his neighbor for.
Aidan writes, “the Calvinist is UNCERTAIN that the faithful will be saved.”
The Calvinist is certain that God’s elect will be saved (as all are certain) as this is the clear statement of Scripture. Your issue is, “What I mean is, how can the Calvinist be CERTAIN about his salvation, when he can’t even be CERTAIN that he is among the true ELECT?”
RH, wrote:
“The Calvinist is certain that God’s elect will be saved (as all are certain) as this is the clear statement of Scripture. Your issue is, “What I mean is, how can the Calvinist be CERTAIN about his salvation, when he can’t even be CERTAIN that he is among the true ELECT?”
Aidan:
It is certain that all of God’s faithful elect will be saved, we can all be certain of that. What I am certain of, is that those who have believed and are baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). What I am also certain of, is that those who believe and are not baptized are not promised salvation. It is also certain that Peter wrote, “baptism now saves you” (1 Pt. 3:21), the same man who said; “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
These are absolute certainties that you can bank your eternal salvation on.
jtleosala
br.d. writes And how can one trust – what one has no CERTAINTY of?”
br.d
AH! I see a critical part of my statement was strategically removed.
Here it is:
The divine will concerning a Calvinist is something that Calvinist cannot have any CERTAINTY of.
And how can one trust – what one has no CERTAINTY of?
jtleosala
Calvinists are the ones who consistently hold on to the assurance of the Permanent Salvation that is freely given by God to undeserving sinners
br.d
This is easy to show as LOGICALLY false.
1) Calvin’s god determines *ALL* things that come to pass within the Calvinist’s brain.
John Calvin teaches – this includes determining Calvinists to have FALSE perceptions.
For example
– Calvin’s god gives Calvinists he has designed to be “chaff” – the FALSE perception of being “wheat”
– Calvin’s god also gives these Calvinists the FALSE perception that promises of salvation in scripture are meant for them.
– According to John Calvin- Calvin’s god will eventually -quote “strike them with greater blindness”
2) A FALSE perception by definition is a perception the person CANNOT know is FALSE.
Calvin’s god does not PERMIT the Calvinist to know what perceptions they have are FALSE perceptions.
So out of the sum total of perceptions – the Calvinist is NOT PERMITTED to know which perceptions are FALSE.
CONCLUSION:
Calvinists have no CERTAINTY whether or not the perceptions they’ve been given are TRUE or FALSE.
No CERTAINTY = No ASSURANCE
Welcome to the world of Theological Determinism! :-]
Br.d, if he has a FALSE CERTAINTY that he can’t be absolutely sure of, and he knows it; is he not lying to himself?
Yes I think so – but then he wouldn’t know he is lying to himself either!
The whole thing gets pretty irrational doesn’t it!
This is why William Lane Craig says:
-quote
There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to determinism. For if one comes to believe that [something] is true, one has to believe that the reason he has come to believe it is simply that he was determined to do so.
One has not in fact been able to weigh the arguments pro and con and freely make up one’s mind on that basis. [because doing so would constitute a LIBERTARIAN form of decision making – which doesn’t exist for the determinist].
So LOGIC shows – according to his own doctrine the Calvinist has no way of knowing if ANYTHING is true or false.
And that is why Calvinist language is so saturated with DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Aidan
You may not have heard this – but there is a funny true story told by Dr. Alvin Plantinga.
A certain man believed in solipsism (the belief that you are the only living person and all other people are imagined)
He wrote a book on what it was like to live as a solipsist.
A certain woman in another country bought the book and became persuaded she was a solipsist also.
She wrote to the author – telling him how grateful she was to know she was not alone.
I think you get the gist of the joke!
But what we have is a belief system that forces the believer to live as DOUBLE-MINDED.
Calvinists are also forced into a similar DOUBLE-MINDED world
Some definitions of DOUBLE-MINDED:
For starters, the Greek word translated “double-minded” is dipsuchos, from dis, meaning “twice,” and psuche, meaning “mind.” It is used to describe someone who is divided in his interests or loyalties, wavering, uncertain, two-faced, half-hearted.
Another definition:
Definition of double-minded. 1 : wavering in mind : undecided, vacillating a double-minded man unstable in all his ways — James 1:8 (Revised Standard Version) 2 : marked by hypocrisy : insincere.
What does Scripture say about being double minded?
Instability: Symptom of double-mindedness. The Bible says, “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways” (Jms.1:8). A double-mind is “having in the mind opposite or opposing views at different times.”
What does wavering mean in the Bible?
intransitive verb. 1 : to vacillate irresolutely between choices : fluctuate in opinion, allegiance, or direction. 2a : to weave or sway unsteadily to and fro : reel, totter. b : quiver, flicker wavering flames. c : to hesitate as if about to give way : falter.
Seems like a tortured existence to me. And if Calvin’s god is the true father of lies, what does that make his children?
Your descriptions all follow the model described by ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely in his book “Calvinism a closer look”
-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.”
Aidan posted this one:
“What I am also certain of, is that those who believe and are not baptized are not promised salvation”
———Here’s My Response——–
Jesus Christ promised the thief hanging on the cross beside Him of an assurance in the afterlife, without undergoing baptism. Aidan is in deep trouble arguing with Jesus Christ on the matter of adding Baptism as a requirement for obtaining salvation. What we can be assured of is that Jesus Christ is NOT LYING but Aidan does. Aidan said that he was certain that “those who believe and are not baptized are not promised Salvation”. Please look at Aidan’s statement above that I am responding to.
So… How can we trust God words if one opponent like Aidan is deliberately going against with Jesus Christ concerning the doctrine of Salvation?
Those who bring the thief on the cross to this argument don’t know the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The thief on the cross was forgiven by Jesus before His death, hence, before the old covenant ended and the new covenant was inaugurated. You need to read the book of Hebrews 9 on this point.
Likewise, the command to be baptized in His name, was not yet given until after His death and resurrection, just before He ascended back into heaven. We are living under the New Covenant brought into force by means of the death of the testator, Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:17-17). Which means we are now living under the law of Christ and must obey whatever the Lord has commanded under the New Covenant!
Here’s what He has commanded under the New Covenant for those who hear the gospel: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; (Mark 16:16). Jesus doesn’t mince His words, that promise of salvation is given to no one else, other than the one who has believed the gospel and has been baptized – he will be saved. Why do you deny what Jesus has said here?
And you left out what Peter said by the Holy Spirit; “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). And, “baptism now saves you” (1 Pt. 3:21). I see a pattern here, don’t you?
Instead of calling me a liar, why don’t you actually deal with what Jesus and Peter said in these verses? I think I’ll be a long time waiting for that to happen.
Aidan,
The thief DID NOT need the Holy Spirit. He died before Pentecost.
Jesus did baptize the thief on the cross. It’s called baptism with fire, not the dunking in water.
Besides, the NEW TEST was already in effect at that point, cuz blood was shed already.
Johns baptism doesn’t save anyone. I never heard Jesus say to the thief that he forgave the thief. But that is what comes with HIS baptism.
He who believes and is baptized shall be saved INCLUDES the forgiveness, otherwise, the statement would have said, HE WHO BELIEVES, AND IS FORGIVEN, AND IS BAPTIZED, AND IS , AND IS AND IS AND IS…
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
One more thing for you to ponder. Abraham. I always God to Abraham.
Why?
You talk NEW TEST, vs OLD TEST. Abraham was not under either.
How was he saved, according toAidan?
Where was he baptized? What church did he belong to? Did he take Saturday off? Did he, or did he not sin by sleeping with his sister? What does the old test have to say about that topic, and why didn’t God say anything to Abraham about it?
So, while you get dogmatic about what Jesus COMMANDS…well… what I see is that Jesus commands FAITH, and LOVE, but you see BAPTIZE IN WATER. I see that Jesus baptizes with fire, not water. Fire purifies, water does what? Gets ya wet. Water doth not now save. Water with soap cleans the body, but that ain’t gonna get ya to heaven, whether ya believe or not.
Ed Chapman
jtleodala,
Not to often I agree with you, but on the topic of baptism, I do. I think. The thief on the cross is THE great example. But there are more than that.
But you might get a major backlash from THE BAPTISTS for what you said. I know that I do.
John, the Baptist, did not belong to the denomination called, BAPTISTS.
But, we know that Johns BAPTISM (immersion in water) is not the baptism that Jesus gives, and it is the one Jesus gives that is what, HE THAT BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED is discussing. Immersion in FIRE (fire , which signifies a purification, not real fire), not dunking in river water, or a hot tub, not holy water, not potable water, not rain, not a shower… That saves no one.
Baptism by fire, what Jesus gives, and thus , the thief on the cross was indeed purified (baptized).
Ed Chapman
Ed wrote:
“The thief DID NOT need the Holy Spirit. He died before Pentecost.”
Aidan’s Response:
Ed, your very first statement is a COMPLETE MISREPRESENTATION of everything that I said in my response to Jt.
The thief on the cross was already in paradise long before Pentecost. Likewise, he was in paradise long before Jesus even commanded baptism under the great commission.
Therefore, LET ME BE CLEAR; the command to be baptized in His name (Acts 2:38), in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit – did NOT APPLY to the thief on the cross.
Rather than spend my time having to correct your GROSS MISREPRESENTATIONS, this will be my last correspondence with you in this thread.
Keep well,
Aidan
Aidan,
No, I didn’t misrepresent anything at all.
You misrepresent the so-called Great Commission.
I said that the thief on the cross WAS INDEED baptized.
Why did i say that?
Because no one gets to PARADISE without being BAPTIZED. NO ONE.
That’s why I asked you about ABRAHAM .
BUT you talk about a GREAT COMMISSION that wasn’t in place yet.
So I ask about ABRAHAM prior to any GREAT COMMISSION, or any OLD OR New test as to HOW it was done for him, AND all those who didn’t know a JESUS to begin with . Are they all burning in hell due to no NEW TEST or GREAT COMMISSION?
Oh, I can get much much deeper into this with you regarding that thief on the cross, as well as EVERYONE who doesn’t have a clue as to who the heck Jesus is.
But you will default with the dogma that you must believe and be dunked in water, or else you will burn in hell.
I don’t buy what you are selling.
I find it disingenuous that you refuse to engage in this, because you are the one that made a false statement, and now you tell me that I am misrepresenting what you said?
I don’t think so, buddy.
What was the LINE BY LINE procedure for the justification of the thief getting to paradise again?
And do people who don’t knew Jesus get to go there, seeing how that CAN’T BELIEVE something never told to them, let alone be baptized, according to your so-called called, GREAT COMMISSION?
Or, are they doomed for eternity in hell?
What say you?
oh, that’s right, you refuse to engage. I thought so.
Ed Chapman
Hi Ed, we ask all participants to be careful how far they go or how aggressive they get in regard to personal attacks.
I think if you review especially the end of this last post – you’ll understand what I mean.
In some instances – as a last resort – we are forced to delete posts.
And as a Christian site – we would always hope that not be necessary.
Well, you run the show. But I have not made a personal attack, according to my definition of what one is. I retorted. At least, that’s how I see it.
Ed Chapman
Thanks Ed – that is appreciated.
Hi Ed C, I missed your sense of humor. It seems you are to busy the past days that you have just now came in. Well, I think Aidan could have a great trouble in arguing with you here on the issue of baptism just like his previous issues with you if you remember, “the poetry”. Lets see how Aidan Mcmanus will respond to you…
jtleosala,
Yes, I’ve been really busy. My job is in VARIOUS places that I have to drive to, and I seem to put on about 150 miles round trip per day…or more, so by the time I get home, I fall asleep watching the news within an hour. Plus, these blogs get me in a BURN OUT mode from time to time, cuz I see that I’m going in circles with people over the same subject, over and over and over again.
The debate of Cavlinism vs. Non-Calvinism is the SAME arguments that I’ve been thru over and over again for the last ten years or so. It’s kinda getting old news for me sometimes. It’s like it’s almost time for me to move on to debating the PENTECOSTALS
I understand Ed and it’s good that you find time to visit this blog site even if there exists that issue of ” round and round in circle”. Please don’t leave, I’ll miss your sense of humor in your posts. God Bless you …
Aidan McManus posted this one:
“Those who bring the thief on the cross to this argument don’t know the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The thief on the cross was forgiven by Jesus before His death, hence, before the old covenant ended and the new covenant was inaugurated. You need to read the book of Hebrews 9 on this point.”
—Here’s My Response—-
1. You affirmed Aidan Mcmanus in your statement : “that the thief on the cross was forgiven by Jesus Christ”. This is very good !
2. Do you also affirm Aidan McManus that : “Jesus Christ promised the Thief crucified on His side the assurance of afterlife? What is your answer Aidan Mcmanus? YES or NO _____ ?
3. If Jesus Christ promised this thief of an assurance in the afterlife, then where does the soul of the thief goes after he died? What is your answer Aidan Mcmanus? ______________
4. If one can be assured by Jesus Christ Himself of eternal security in Heaven without undergoing water baptism, then do you recant now your dogmatic position on your doctrine loaded on your backpack, the “Very Strict Requirement of Water Baptism in order to be saved”? What is your answer Aidan McManus? YES or NO ________ ?
So… How can we trust God in His words if one opponent will attempt to evade the truth directed towards him?
Jt, In answer to your questions:
2. Do you also affirm Aidan McManus that : “Jesus Christ promised the Thief crucified on His side the assurance of afterlife? What is your answer Aidan Mcmanus? YES or NO ___Yes__ ?
3. If Jesus Christ promised this thief of an assurance in the afterlife, then where does the soul of the thief goes after he died? What is your answer Aidan Mcmanus? _____Paradise________
4. If one can be assured by Jesus Christ Himself of eternal security in Heaven without undergoing water baptism, then do you recant now your dogmatic position on your doctrine loaded on your backpack, the “Very Strict Requirement of Water Baptism in order to be saved”? What is your answer Aidan McManus? YES or NO ________ ?
To answer your last question properly; can you show me a verse AFTER the New Covenant began, and more especially, after Jesus gave the command for believers to be baptized to be saved (Mk. 16:16)? If you can show where Jesus afterwards recanted of His dogmatic position on the need for believers to ‘repent and be baptized,’ then I too will recant of that position.
Can I ask you some questions? You presume that the thief on the cross was never baptized.
(A) Can you be sure he wasn’t baptized “Into John’s baptism?”
(B) What did Jesus mean when He said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk 16:16)?
(C) Can you explain Peter’s command, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38)?
(D) Can you explain why Paul was told, “‘And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord’” (Acts 22:16)?
(E) Can you explain how one gets “into Christ” according to (Gal. 3:27)? – “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ”
(F) Can you explain this scripture, “baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21)?
If you try to ignore these scriptures again, then you are the one evading the truth.
Aidan,
Matthew 3:11 John the Baptist speaking) and Luke 3:16
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
You see, Aidan, John’s Baptism was about REPENTANCE ONLY.
John’s Baptism saves no one.
The Baptism that Jesus gives is WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT AND FIRE.
Two different kinds of Baptism.
1. Repentance (John’s Baptism) with WATER
2. FORGIVENESS (Jesus’ Baptism) with FIRE and Holy Spirit
As I said above, JOHN’S BAPTISM SAVES NO ONE:
Acts 19 New International Version (NIV) Paul in Ephesus
1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
*******3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”*******
*******“John’s baptism,” they replied.*******
4 Paul said,
******“John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. *******
He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
*******5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.*******
6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[b] and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.
So, THESE “believers” received TWO DIFFERENT BAPTISMS.
1. Water by John
2. Fire by Jesus, and HOW did they get THIS baptism?
So, the moral of the story is: Being a believer, as you say with John’s Baptism ALONE (Mark 16:16) DOESN’T cut the mustard unless you receive the Baptism that Jesus gives, as John the Baptist told us in Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16.
So, in regards to your (f), WATER BAPTISM DOTH NOT SAVE YOU. Otherwise, Acts 19:1-6 would not have been needed if all they needed was John’s Baptism, and to BELIEVE.
So, are you saying, BELIEVE AND BE DUNKED IN WATER AND YOU WILL BE SAVED? Or is the Baptism of FIRE not required?
And THIS is why I got into the conversation. But if it is a personal attack, I will back out, cuz I don’t think you like me very much.
Ed Chapman
Aidan McManus posted these ones: My Response are the ones typed inside the [brackets]
“Can I ask you some questions? You presume that the thief on the cross was never baptized.”
(A) Can you be sure he wasn’t baptized “Into John’s baptism?”
My Response : [YES. How can the thief be baptized by John the Baptist when he was about to die on that cross. The question posed is silly and irrelevant]
(B) What did Jesus mean when He said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk 16:16)?
My Response :
1. [Christ is the one who saves, not Baptism.]
2. [Water Baptism is only an outward symbol or representation of what has already transpired from within the believer. Before a person is dunked in water as what Ed C have said, the believer is already saved]
3. [If one refused to obey to be baptized in water, it does not warrant Christ to erase the name of the believer that was already written in the book of life]
4. [You give much extreme dogma on Water Baptism as a requirement for Salvation, as if Baptism becomes now the ANTIDOTE of Christ’s atonement provided for all of the kinds of sins of man including refusal to the “dunking in water baptism”]
(C) Can you explain Peter’s command, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38)?
My Response : [Water dunking in baptism does not literally take away sins, rather it is just a symbolism of what Christ’s atonement done for the believer. Not all who are baptized in water received the gift of the HS and are still innocent of what are their spiritual gifts]
(D) Can you explain why Paul was told, “‘And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord’” (Acts 22:16)?
My Response : [same answer as in letter C and D]
My response : [It is the blood of Christ that cleanses us from our sins, Not water Baptism. Even if Aidan McManus will make use of distilled water and detergent soap still SIN can never be cleansed through water dunking in baptism]
(E) Can you explain how one gets “into Christ” according to (Gal. 3:27)? – “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ”
My Response : [this is the actual fulfilment or realization of God’s action and decision made by Him before the foundation of the world concerning on whom to write and whom not to write in the book of life of the Lamb]
Acts 1:5
For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 11:16
Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’
Acts 18:24-26 New International Version (NIV)
24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor[a] and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John.
Ed,
I was in the middle of a conversation with JT, on baptism, and I really didn’t want to be fighting with you again. The last time we talked, I found that you tend to go off on all sorts of tangents that don’t make sense to me. You fired off several posts in succession, one after the other, that seemed all over the place.
Even then, you grossly misrepresented a lot of what I was saying, and just ran with it. You also mocked and belittled me. And you became more aggressive when I told you that you were making a lot of assertions. I don’t have time for that sort of thing! I don’t have time to be correcting the flood of misrepresentations and assertions you bombarded me with. And I certainly don’t have time for someone who is condescending and treats others with such blatant disrespect.
And here, yet again, you started in the same vein as before! If you want to have a civil conversation with me, you need to reign it in, and be a bit more Christ-like and respectful. Otherwise, I will end the conversation and won’t want to have any future dealings with you. You don’t need to get so aggressive, or mock at someone when they disagree with you. And you certainly need to carefully read what I’ve actually said before twisting it into something else. It’s not right!
We should at least try to understand what the other person is saying, so that we can respectfully represent their view. Instead of going off half-cocked you can slow down, like you did in your last post, by not only stating what you believe a particular verse means, but also why/how it teaches that. That’s the only way it’s ever going to work, on both sides of the argument. It’s okay for us to respectfully disagree and explain why we believe a verse does or doesn’t teach what the other person is saying. We can then go away and think about the evidence the other person has carefully presented. Perhaps it will stick. Who knows? Perhaps the word will have been implanted and we be persuaded over time. That is probably as good as we can ever hope for.
But if you are unwilling to do this much, then we have nothing to talk about!
5alive,
Oh, come on now, that is how I roll. I don’t care who you are, whether you are my best friend, or my worst enemy. That is how I talk to EVERYONE. So, don’t think that I am picking on you. I love debate, and in a debate, ya kinda gotta take some shots, as well as giving some shots. Were you ever a fan of professional wrestling? Politeness is out the window, man. Seriously.
But, in all fairness, I see the way that you talk to jt, and you aren’t so polite with him, either now. Ya gotta admit that.
I don’t go off on tangents. I stay with the topic, but in doing so, I find myself having to bring up RELATED items that can’t be missed, because they are related.
This baptism thing is a PET PEEVE of mine, and has been for years, so when I see your condescending remarks to jt about those who bring up the thief on the cross…WELL, I GOTTA CHIME IN, cuz I also use that thief on the cross, as it relates to baptism.
And besides…jt is a Filipino, and I have many many friends that are Filipino, was stationed in the US Navy with many Filipino’s, most of my bosses were Filipino’s, been to the Philippines more times than I can count, so even tho jt is a Calvinist, my heart goes out to jt.
So, DON’T TAKE ANYTHING THAT I SAY AS A PERSONAL ATTACK. I talk to my best friends the same as I do you. They don’t have a problem with me. I learned SELF ESTEEM long ago, and how to be assertive, not timid, not inferior, LIKE I USED TO BE.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
In my last post :
5alive is Aidan.
Aidan,
Yes, I’ve seen that 5Alive before, so I knew it was you. And, the references (many) that I provided shows that the Baptism of fire is indeed in Jesus name.
Not only that…there is no reference that shows anyone being baptized in the name of the Father, or the Holy Ghost…just in the name of Jesus.
I am not Pentecostal, but I do believe as they do, regarding Jesus being the ONLY GOD. Thomas Jefferson, he believed that the God of the Jews was the ONLY GOD, and NOT Jesus at all. He is known as…a DEIST. He called the Jews, deists, all because they believe in ONE GOD (not due to an impersonal god as some define today, regarding the word deist).
So, when I see Jesus, I see the Father, just like Jesus told Philip. The Scripture states that we have “THE MIND OF CHRIST”. I interpret that as, THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Spirit/Soul/Body, and that is what I call…the trinity.
Father = SPIRIT (John 4:24)
Jesus (The Son) = THE BODY of the Father (NOT A SEPARATE PERSON…difference between SOUL AND SPIRIT)
Holy Spirit = THE MIND (SOUL) of GOD THE FATHER.
Soul is an intellect different from the spirit.
Spirit is an intellect DIFFERENT from the soul.
You are a trinity. Your soul is EARTHLY thinking, your spirit is spiritually thinking, and neither of them are in sync.
And this is why I believe that Jesus is the only God, and that the Baptism of Fire is the Baptism that Jesus gives…in Jesus’ name.
In the following verse, THEY DID NOT YET HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT, never heard of a Holy Spirit, and were already baptized by John.
So, in order to GET that Holy Spirit, they had to be…
Acts 19:5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit and FIRE. That’s how it’s done. And…THEY LAID HANDS on them in order to do it.
The water baptism that we do today…it’s all for SHOW, a sign of FAITH that you DIED to self, but to be made alive, baptism of fire, in the name of Jesus. That’s when you get the SEAL OF PROMISE, the promissory note, aka, the Holy Spirit, aka, Born again.
I’ve done my research on this topic. This is why I am not a Baptist, or a Southern Baptist, or any sort of fundamentalist, or independent Baptist. I’m just a lowly non-denomination. The reason I’m not a Pentecostal, is the same reason that I am not a Calvinist.
JEWS ONLY…when they come to Jesus, they are the ones who speaks in tongues and see’s visions, etc. My best friend is a Jew, and he did those things, and more…but he’s a Jew. He momentarily gravitated to the Pentecostals, but left. He’s also gravitated to the Calvinists, too…cuz he, being a Jew, really is the elect, and he’s just now coming to grips about that word not equating to Gentiles at all.
I kinda like being non-denomination, cuz I don’t have to conform to strange doctrines that way, nor concentrate on a Great Commission in that we are all (EVERY CHRISTIAN) classified as that big nasty word called, EVANGELICALS that seems to be getting a bad name these last 30 years or longer.
Ed Chapman
Ed, tomorrow, if I get some time, I will try to explain why I believe the “fire” in Matthew 3 and Luke 3, is not “baptism in Jesus name.” I will also show why I believe that Mark 16:16, is not John’s baptism, and that “baptism in Jesus name” is water baptism like John’s was.
I will try to make as logical an argument as I can without attacking you, or attacking anything you’ve said and hopefully you can follow suit. Are we in agreement?
Aidan,
Sounds good to me!
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Just because you treat your friends that way- and they put up with it – still doesn’t make it right! This goes a lot further than just being polite. Also, I’ve heard that excuse too many times before “that’s just the way I am.” I’M NOT BUYING IT.
“That’s just the way I am” should never be taken as an acceptable excuse for bad behavior, under any circumstances; how much less acceptable if you’re a Christian.
Ed,
Question: What is the baptism of fire in Matt. 3:11?
Answer: In determining the meaning of any verse one should examine it carefully in the light of its context. The need for this practice cannot be over emphasized. Many verses remain obscure in their meaning and are often misunderstood, misused, and abused simply because their context is ignored.
“Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
“I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”
“His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will clear his threshing floor and gather His wheat into the granary, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire” ( Matt. 3:10-12).
The context of Matt. 3:11 shows that John was calling upon the Jews to “bear fruits worthy of repentance:” (v.8). This was in keeping with his mission to “prepare” the Jews for the coming of the Lord and His kingdom ( Isa. 40:3-5; Mal. 4:5; Matt. 3:3). In (v.9) John shows that just being a literal descendant of Abraham would not suffice to make one a part of the people prepared for the Lord.
One must obey John’s message. Verse ten shows the consequence of disobedience. All such would be cut down and cast into the fire. Then verse 11 shows that it would be the Lord Himself who would administer this fire. While John administered water baptism, he says, “He who is coming after me…..will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” John could not administer the latter two. No man can! Because the Lord is superior to all men – even “mightier” than John!
Verse 12 tells us WHEN the Lord will administer the baptism of fire. It will be at the harvest time when the good and the bad shall be separated from one another. The righteous (wheat) will then be gathered into His barn. While the wicked (chaff) will be burned up “with unquenchable fire.” ( Cf. Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 20:12_15). Therefore, the “baptism of fire” in Matt. 3:11 is the fire of everlasting punishment. It is the “lake of fire” of Rev. 20:14-15).
While the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of fire are mentioned in the same verse, there is no indication that they were to be administered together at the same time. Both had been mentioned in contrast to John’s baptism, and also to show that Jesus was mightier than John. When this promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was renewed to the apostles in Acts 1:5, there was added the expression, “not many days from now.”… “for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” The baptism of fire is not mentioned here. Obviously, the baptism of fire was many days hence. However, concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit, it was “not many days from now” (Acts 1:5, 2:1-4).
Ed,
I believe that the baptism of the Great Commission (Mk. 16:15-16; Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:38) is not John’s baptism, but the baptism (in water) that Jesus commanded “in His name.”
1. In Mark 16:15-16, Jesus commanded them to, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved;..” Note three things in these verses: – preach the gospel – he who believes and is baptized – will be saved.
Acts 8:35-38:
“Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. (Preached the Gospel)
Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” (Water Baptism)
Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” ( He believed in Jesus)
So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.” (He was baptized in water in Jesus name having confessed his faith in Him).
2. Acts 2:38-39: BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS (THE LORD):
“Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
“For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
Note that this baptism is “in the name of Jesus Christ” for the remission of sins. And was not just for the Jews, but also was for “all who are afar off” (the Gentiles). I believe that Peter didn’t fully understand this at this time, but God did.
3. Acts 10:46-48; BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF (JESUS) THE LORD: – the Gentiles:
“For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
“Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days”
Now we can connect Acts 2:38, “be baptized IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins” as WATER BAPTISM: For Peter says in Acts 10:47-48, “Can anyone forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized” And he commanded them to be baptized IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.”
Hence, BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF THE LORD (Jesus), is WATER BAPTISM.
Please review and reread Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:35-38; Acts 2:38-39; and Acts 10:46-48 to see if these things are so.
JT , Answered these questions in the [ Brackets]: My response is in CAPS.
“Can I ask you some questions? You presume that the thief on the cross was never baptized.”
(A) Can you be sure he wasn’t baptized “Into John’s baptism?”
My Response : [YES. How can the thief be baptized by John the Baptist when he was about to die on that cross. The question posed is silly and irrelevant] WHAT A DISGRACEFUL ANSWER!
(B) What did Jesus mean when He said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk 16:16)?
My Response :
1. [Christ is the one who saves, not Baptism.] AGREED, BUT HE COMMANDED BAPTISM TO AVAIL OF IT.
2. [Water Baptism is only an outward symbol or representation of what has already transpired from within the believer. Before a person is dunked in water as what Ed C have said, the believer is already saved] SCRIPTURE PLEASE, FOR ALL OF THIS?
3. [If one refused to obey to be baptized in water, it does not warrant Christ to erase the name of the believer that was already written in the book of life] SCRIPTURE PLEASE.
4. [You give much extreme dogma on Water Baptism as a requirement for Salvation, as if Baptism becomes now the ANTIDOTE of Christ’s atonement provided for all of the kinds of sins of man including refusal to the “dunking in water baptism”]BAPTISM IS WHERE WE UNITE WITH THE DEATH, BURIAL, AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST (ROM. 6: 3-6; COL. 2:12-13). THAT’S A PRETTY REAL WAY TO AVAIL OF THE ATONEMENT HE PROVIDED.
(C) Can you explain Peter’s command, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38)?
My Response : [Water dunking in baptism does not literally take away sins, rather it is just a symbolism of what Christ’s atonement done for the believer. Not all who are baptized in water received the gift of the HS and are still innocent of what are their spiritual gifts] SCRIPTURE PLEASE THAT MAKES THE WORD CONTRADICT ITSELF IN ACTS 2:38. AND ITS “GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT” NOT SPIRITUAL GIFTS.
(D) Can you explain why Paul was told, “‘And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord’” (Acts 22:16)?
My Response : [same answer as in letter C and D]NO SCRIPTURE, BECAUSE THE SCRIPTURE DOESN’T CONTRADICT ITSELF.
My response : [It is the blood of Christ that cleanses us from our sins, Not water Baptism. Even if Aidan McManus will make use of distilled water and detergent soap still SIN can never be cleansed through water dunking in baptism] I AGREE, JUST AS THE SCRIPTURES DO IN (1 PETER 3:21).
(E) Can you explain how one gets “into Christ” according to (Gal. 3:27)? – “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ”
My Response : [this is the actual fulfilment or realization of God’s action and decision made by Him before the foundation of the world concerning on whom to write and whom not to write in the book of life of the Lamb] SO CALVINISM ASIDE, YOU ACTUALLY AGREE THAT ONE IS NOT “IN CHRIST”(SAVED) UNTIL HE IS BAPTIZED “INTO CHRIST.” WHICH MEANS, BEFORE THAT POINT HE WAS STILL OUTSIDE OF CHRIST-UNSAVED….. BRILLIANT.
The article said:
““27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.” (Rom 8:27 NKJV) Who would these Roman Christians think of when the apostle Paul spoke of “the saints?” It is at least fair to assume they might think of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They might think of David, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, all Old Testament saints that God had used to bring Jesus into the world.”
But Paul already identified who ‘the saints’ are in Romans 1:
1:6-7 “You also are among them, CALLED to belong to Jesus Christ. To all those loved by God in Rome, called to be SAINTS…”
Now look at Romans 8:
8:27-30 “And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes on behalf of THE SAINTS according to God’s will. And we know that all things work togethter for good for those who love God, who are CALLED according to his purpose, because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also CALLED; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified; he also glorified.
Paul nowhere used the term “saints” to refer to the OT saints in Romans (1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25; 15:26; 15:27; 15:31; 16:2). So, hopefully, the pastor who wrote this article will start to re-examine his exegesis of this text.
Hello Joey and welcome
Firstly:
The article presents a grammatical analysis of the texts involved.
You provided what you believe to be a response – and seem to be ignoring that degree of expertise and simply quoting other verses – – which all appear to be loaded with interpretive prepositions.
Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume if one is going to claim an author’s exegesis is wrong – one would have to show that using the same degree of expertise presented by that author?
Secondly:
Isn’t it also true that to assume if someone is CALLED that that someone is concluded to be SAVED is in error?
Doesn’t the scripture say “many are CALLED but few are chosen”?
Thirdly:
The article does not assert explicitly what you argue it does about OT saints – so your point on that misses the mark.
-quote
It is AT LEAST FAIR TO ASSUME they might think of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They might think of David, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, all Old Testament saints..
These Roman Christians know that God works “all things out for good for those who love the Lord?” Because they had been taught the Old Testament and they knew that God had worked in the lives of those Old Testament saints……..
Fourthly:
Sometimes people can be sophomoric – like a bible teacher who asserts that any Christian man who does not have a butch hair-cut is going to hell because 1 Corinthians 11:14 say so. And anyone who disagrees with him has bad exegesis.
IMHO exegesis wars are best tackled by scholars who are humble enough to know they don’t speak ex-cathedra
Joey Henry writes, “But Paul already identified who ‘the saints’ are in Romans 1:…Paul nowhere used the term “saints” to refer to the OT saints in Romans >
Pastor Hadley writes, “Notice Paul’s next statement, “we are not alone! We have the Holy Spirit helping us and praying on our behalf!” Notice Paul’s next statement: “27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.” (Rom 8:27 NKJV)”
Rather than quote v26, as he had done for each surrounding verse, Pastor Hadley paraphrases it. Let;s look at v26 in context:
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27 Now [God] who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because [the Spirit] makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
Why didn’t Pastor Hadley quote v26? It may be because v26 says, “…the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses…the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us” and then v27 says, “[God]…knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because [the Spirit] makes intercession for the saints…” It becomes obvious that the “our/us” of v26 are the “saints” of v27. It is not, “…the Spirit MADE intercession…” but “…the Spirit MAKES intercession…” Pastor Hadley writes, “Who would these Roman Christians think of when the apostle Paul spoke of “the saints?” It is at least fair to assume they might think of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” For this to be true, the Roman Christians would have to ignore v26 and the present tense describing the Spirit as “makes intercession.”
Pastor Hadley needs to do more work on his analysis of this passage to support his position. For now, Joey Henry is correct in his conclusion about Paul’s use of the term, “saints” refers specifically to the Roman believers and generally to all believers.
Rom 8, 29-30
1. The grammar (parsings) of those main verbs in 8:29-30 reveals that all these verbs are in the Indicative Mood (the mood of reality) and in the Aorist Tense (simple action in past time when in the Indicative Mood). The emphasis therefore is on the occurrence of these verbal actions in the past as they relate to fulfilling the promise of God working good out of the circumstances that are in the present for those now in Christ.
2. The grammar (verbal order) gives no definite indication of a consecutive arrangement in time. There are no time qualifiers like τοτε (then) introducing the next action after the one mentioned prior to it. The repetition of the three center verbal actions in the list (predestined, called, justified), including the relative pronoun – οὓς (the ones whom) may suggest an informal inference of consecutive temporal order. However, the demonstrative pronoun as each verb’s subject followed by the appositional use of the conjunction – τούτους καὶ (these even, these also) points more naturally to all verbal actions being contemporaneous.
3. The grammar (semantic meaning) of the verb – προέγνω (he foreknew) as used by Paul is unique, it seems, at least by him (Ac 26:5; Ro 8:29; Ro 11:2), to indicate a relational knowledge more than prescience of information. (Peter’s two uses seem more in line with prescience of information, 1Pe 1:20, 2Pe 3:17). Certainly information knowledge is involved in the said relationship and should be assumed, but only in connection to the relationship as it already exists.
Paul uses this same verb in the present tense in Acts 26:5 for the Jews’ personal knowledge of him after they got to know him in Jerusalem, but which is still being called “foreknowing” Paul. This also may indicate that the compound preposition προ on this verb is being used by Paul to denote superiority of knowledge instead of temporality concerning it. That the Jews had a superior knowledge of Paul is what Paul’s argument is before Agrippa, not just that they knew some information about him. And that God started a superior relational knowledge with those He saved is Paul’s point to the Roman believers in 8:29. The NT relates salvation to such a superior relational knowledge when it says that the lost at the judgment will be designated as those Jesus “never knew” (Matt 7:23, 25:12) and the saved become “known” by God (1Cor 8:3, Gal 4:9).
The preposition προ is used to mean superiority in James 5:12, 1Peter 4:8 (“above all”) and in a couple of other compound verbs, where it is used to denote superiority instead of temporality, like the verbs προΐστημι (be over) and προαιρέομαι (prefer). And there also are better verbs Paul could have used that mean prescience, which are also found in the NT and which are without the relational component being inferred in them – προείδω or προοράω (to foresee).
4. The grammar (semantic meaning) of the verb – ἐδόξασε (he glorified) infers a future blessing as a present reality. Though it could also just mean normally those believers who have already died. But Paul speaks of a positional glorification in the Aorist tense in Ephesians 2:6 in the terms “made to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” This designation of being “glorified” finds its inception for the believing individual to be at the moment of their salvation. Recognizing this the verbal inception of “glorified” helps place the inception of “justified” also at the moment of salvation, which then makes it much more normal to see “called”, not as not a pre-salvation work, but also at the moment of salvation. Paul’s uses the term “called” consistently in Romans to designate being named or labeled rather than invited. See Romans 1:1, 1:6, 1:7, 2:17, 7:3, 8:28, 9:7, 9:24, 9:26.
5. The context reveals nothing that would make necessary that the first two verbs in this list – “foreknew” and “predestined” needed to happen at an earlier time than the individual’s salvation, or as some try to dogmatically state had to be before creation. The Calvinist has to posit a broader context based on philosophical conjecture that God has had an eternal fantasy relationship with certain humans that is already completed forever within a supposed immutable omniscience. This actually demands that they interpret all these verbs in Romans 8:29-30 as anthropomorphic (which they like to do for all divine activity). This especially would be true for the verb “predestined”, which is normally understood as requiring forethought and decision making, but which is not something God can actually do in their theological perspective. Proposing anthropomorphism in didactic passages undermines the concepts of inspiration and truth in Scriptures’ revelation.
Article quote: “These verbs are all aorist active indicative tenses.”
(Dr. James White)
“There are no such thing as aorist active indicative tenses.
There is such a thing as aorist active tense..
But not tenses. I am not sure where the plural came from there.
There is such a thing as a nomic aorist speaking of timeless truths
There are time when the aorist does not contain any emphasis at all upon the timing of the action, but its whole emphasis is upon how the action takes place and the aorist is undefined.
The aorist says the least, you build on the aorist for your other tenses.
Even in Romans 8 we the Christian is hoping for a future “glorification” so why in verse 30 is it in the aorist?
To force the aorist into a historical narrative here is to completely miss the point.
These are things God does, they are a certainty, and they are all His actions.
The way Flowers (In His Video on Youtube De-Calvinizing Romans 8:29-30) use it turns it into a functional passive. “God knew about these guys” Notice in an action verb form.
The verbs in the Greek will cast light upon the other verbs by the author
When you find someone trying to limit the content of one verb, but not the others, there is probably a reason for it (This is exactly what Flowers is doing to evade what Paul is teaching)
To say foreknow is those God formerly knew would have to be derived from the context. Romans 8:28 denies this and the fact that those foreknown is an active verb, God’s, then says those whom God foreknew he predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, so THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FIRSTBORN AMONG MANY BRETHERN, refutes what Flowers says emphatically.
If Flowers is saying it is only speaking of those who God formerly known who loved God, then He has a problem with the fact that those who are loving God are “the called” according to “God’s purpose.”
How is anyone conformed to the image of God’s Son?
By Spirit wrought salvation , resurrection to spiritual life, being made a new creation in Christ Jesus.
This is what it is about, it is not look into the past and see these people God was nice to.
The whole context is Soteriological and salvific
It is clearly what is being discussed here, to redeem a particular people in Christ Jesus.
The point to the Romans is that is what God is doing for them. That is why no charge will be brought against God’s elect and nothing separate you from the love of God.
Kevin
“And of course you cannot just talk about this generically it must be within context even using the Biblical Greek.”
More on this as it this article relates to Flowers video De-Calvinizing Romans 8:29-30 Dr. White’s refutation on “The Dividing Line,” and Dr. Sean Cole Refutation Entitled Calvinizing Romans 8:29-30
This is also in the aorist tense, indicative mood, this word “glorified” at the end of Romans 8:30, which means it’s a completed event in the past time, from the standpoint of the writer. In other words, this is a done deal; our arrival in glory is already a done deal. And then it’s also what you call a proleptic or futuristic sense. Sometimes the Bible… Dan Wallace, in his Greek Commentary defines futuristic or proleptic this way: it’s to describe an event that has not yet come to pass as though it were already completed. Now how can God describe an event that has not come to pass as though they were already completed? Because of their certainty, that’s how God can do it, and the fact that He is not bound by time.
Ephesians 4:30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Now this word “seal”, Ephesians 4:30, is the Greek word sfragizō. It’s in the aorist tense meaning a completed action. It’s in the indicative mood indicating certainty and in this case it’s in the passive voice which basically indicates… because the subject is what we’re supposed to do, so if it were in the active voice it would indicate what I’m supposed to do but here it’s in the passive voice indicating that God is the One that sealed me. I had nothing to do with my sealing; I believed in Christ but the benefit I got was the sealing mark, or ministry of the Holy Spirit and it’s something God totally did.
“indicative mood indicating certainty” Same as in Romans 8:29-30.
An author sometimes uses the aorist for the future to stress the certainty of the event. It involves a “rhetorical transfer” of a future event as though it were past. (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 564)
Some other examples Wallace mentions are Mark 11:24 and John 13:31
However, as regards Romans 8:29-30, the aorist need not be taken as strictly a past tense. Although the indicative aorist often has a past tense meaning, such is not always the case.[42] Rather, according to Daniel Wallace, the aorist…
normally views the action as a whole taking no interest in the internal workings of the action. It describes the action in summary fashion, without focusing on the beginning or end of the action specifically. This is by far the most common use of the aorist, especially with the indicative mood.[43]
Therefore, in Romans 8:29-30, we need not consider that the events spoken of are past events. Rather, the aorist simply refers to events as a whole, each of which is brought to pass in its entirety as a result of predestination. It will always be the case that those whom God predestines will end up glorified.
Lastly, the meaning of Romans 8:30 must be rooted in the context. Romans 8:28, as well as the context following Romans 8:30, is giving comfort to “those who are the called according to his purpose.” The comfort for the believer is that if he is one of the called ones (klhtoi/j), then it is certain he will be justified, and ultimately glorified. That glorification is now ours in principle, but will certainly be complete because nothing shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.
indicative – mood of certainty, actuality
The Indicative Mood
15,618x in the NT (Mounce, 163-164; Wallace, 192-201). The Indicative Mood is the
mood of assertion or presentation of certainty so that it is incorrect to describe the indicative as
the mood of certainty or reality
Why skip the phrase “he also called, and those he called..”
I see these words were not explained in this article.
I came here to get some type of explanation on those exact words, only to find that they were skipped. Please help.
Welcome Dustin! Here’s my view – The word “called” can mean “invited” or “labeled” in the NT, in this context I take it to mean “labeled” because I see all these past actions that are mentioned as happening at the moment of salvation, when one is placed into Christ. Here is my full exegesis –
Rom 8, 29-30 Exegesis
1. The grammar (parsings) of those main verbs in 8:29-30 reveals that all these verbs are in the Indicative Mood (the mood of reality) and in the Aorist Tense (simple action in past time when in the Indicative Mood). The emphasis therefore is on the occurrence of these verbal actions in the past as they relate to fulfilling the promise of God working good out of the circumstances that are in the present for those now in Christ.
2. The grammar (verbal order) gives no definite indication of a consecutive arrangement in time. There are no time qualifiers like τοτε (then) introducing the next action after the one mentioned prior to it. The repetition of the three center verbal actions in the list (predestined, called, justified), including the relative pronoun – οὓς (the ones whom) may suggest an informal inference of consecutive temporal order. However, the demonstrative pronoun as each verb’s subject followed by the appositional use of the conjunction – τούτους καὶ (these even, these also) points more naturally to all verbal actions being contemporaneous.
3. The grammar (semantic meaning) of the verb – προέγνω (he foreknew) as used by Paul is unique, it seems, at least by him (Ac 26:5; Ro 8:29; Ro 11:2), to indicate a relational knowledge more than prescience of information. (Peter’s two uses seem more in line with prescience of information, 1Pe 1:20, 2Pe 3:17). Certainly information knowledge is involved in the said relationship and should be assumed, but only in connection to the relationship as it already exists. The LXX usage of the verb in the apocrypha book Wisdom 6:13 might be like Paul’s meaning, and Peter’s usage of the noun “foreknowledge” in 1Peter 1:2 also might be about priority of relationship.
Paul uses this same verb in the present tense in Acts 26:5 for the Jews’ personal knowledge of him after they got to know him in Jerusalem, but which is still being called “foreknowing” Paul. This also may indicate that the compound preposition προ on this verb is being used by Paul to denote superiority of knowledge instead of temporality concerning it. That the Jews had a superior knowledge of Paul is what Paul’s argument is before Agrippa, not just that they knew some information about him. And that God started a superior relational knowledge with those He saved is Paul’s point to the Roman believers in 8:29. The NT relates salvation to such a superior relational knowledge when it says that the lost at the judgment will be designated as those Jesus “never knew” (Matt 7:23, 25:12) and the saved become “known” by God (1Cor 8:3, Gal 4:9).
The preposition προ is used to mean superiority in James 5:12, 1Peter 4:8 (“above all”) and in a couple of other compound verbs, where it is used to denote superiority instead of temporality, like the verbs προΐστημι (be over) and προαιρέομαι (prefer). And there also is a better verb Paul could have used that means “prescience”, which is also found in the NT and which is without the relational component being inferred in it – προοράω, Gal 3:8 or προβλέπομαι, Heb 11:40.
4. The grammar (semantic meaning) of the verb – ἐδόξασε (he glorified) infers a future blessing as a present reality. Though it could also just mean normally those believers who have already died. But Paul speaks of a positional glorification in the Aorist tense in Ephesians 2:6 in the terms “made to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” This designation of being “glorified” finds its inception for the believing individual to be at the moment of their salvation. Recognizing this the verbal inception of “glorified” helps place the inception of “justified” also at the moment of salvation, which then makes it much more normal to see “called”, not as the pre-salvation work of invitation, but also as a divine work at the moment of salvation. Paul uses the term “called” consistently in Romans to designate being named or labeled rather than invited. See this clearly in the uses of “called” in Romans 1:1, 1:6, 1:7, 2:17, 7:3, 8:28, 9:7, 9:24, 9:26.
5. The context reveals nothing that would also make necessary that the first two verbs in this list – “foreknew” and “predestined” needed to happen at an earlier time than the moment of the individual’s salvation, or as some try to dogmatically state, it had to be before creation.
The Calvinist has to posit a broader context based on philosophical conjecture that God has had an eternal fantasy relationship with certain humans that is already completed forever within a supposed immutable omniscience. This actually demands that they interpret all these verbs in Romans 8:29-30 as anthropomorphic (which they like to do for all divine activity). This especially would be true for the verb “predestined”, which is normally understood as requiring forethought and decision making, but which is not something God can actually do in their theological perspective. Proposing anthropomorphism in didactic passages undermines the concepts of inspiration and truth in Scriptures’ revelation.